Share Dear America Network

Just the Facts.

The United States has been one of the most influential external powers in the Middle East since the mid-20th century. Its role has combined diplomacy, military presence, economic interests, and strategic competition with rivals. Historically, U.S. policy has centered on securing energy supplies, protecting trade routes, supporting allies, countering hostile powers, and responding to regional conflicts. Today, while U.S. attention is more globally divided than in past decades, it remains a central actor in the region.

Historical Role

Before World War II, the U.S. had a limited political role in the Middle East compared with Britain and France. That changed after the war, when European colonial influence declined and the U.S. emerged as a superpower. During the Cold War, Washington sought to prevent Soviet expansion by building partnerships with governments such as Saudi Arabia, Iran (before 1979), Turkey, and Israel.

Oil became a major strategic factor. The Middle East held some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, and stable access was seen as vital to the U.S. economy and allies in Europe and Asia. U.S.-Saudi relations became especially important through energy cooperation and security ties.

The U.S. also became deeply involved in Arab-Israeli diplomacy. It strongly supported Israel after its founding in 1948 and later helped broker major agreements, including the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel.

Major turning points included the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which replaced a U.S.-aligned monarchy with an anti-American Islamic Republic, and the 1990–91 Gulf War, when the U.S. led a coalition to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, U.S. policy became heavily focused on counterterrorism, leading to wars in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Current Role

Today, the U.S. remains militarily significant, with bases, naval forces, and partnerships across the Gulf. It works with states such as Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia to deter threats, protect shipping lanes, and counter extremist groups.

Diplomatically, Washington still plays a leading role in conflicts involving Israel, Iran, Syria, and Yemen. It helped support the 2020 Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab governments.

Economically, the region remains important through oil markets, arms sales, shipping routes like the Suez Canal, and investment ties, even though the U.S. is less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than in past decades.

Overall Assessment

Historically, the United States was the dominant outside power in the Middle East after World War II. Today, it is still highly influential but faces stronger regional actors and growing competition from China and Russia. U.S. policy now balances maintaining security commitments while trying to avoid large-scale military entanglements.

Share

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

The United States should approach the Middle East with one clear standard: does this policy make Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous? For too long, Washington treated the region like a permanent nation-building project, an endless seminar for diplomats, or a blank check for intervention. That era should be over. The U.S. role in the Middle East must be disciplined, strategic, and unapologetically America First.

Start with security. The most important military objective is simple: prevent terrorist groups from gaining the capability to strike the American homeland. That means maintaining world-class intelligence, targeted counterterror capabilities, strong naval presence in key waterways, and rapid strike options when threats emerge. It does not mean occupying countries for decades or trying to redesign tribal, sectarian, and political realities that even local leaders struggle to manage. Americans do not want endless wars, endless casualties, or endless bills. They want protection and results.

Second, the U.S. must keep Iran contained. Iran’s regime has spent years fueling militias, threatening shipping lanes, destabilizing neighbors, and pursuing leverage through chaos. A nuclear-armed Iran would trigger a regional arms race and raise the risk of wider war. That would mean higher

Read more

Link to the letter mentioned in this voice note: Making Sense of the War in Iran.

Just the Facts.

During the ongoing 2026 war in Iran, U.S. consideration of deploying ground troops—often described as “boots on the ground”—has remained an active but unresolved element of military planning. While the United States has conducted airstrikes, naval operations, and a regional military buildup since the conflict began in late February 2026, officials have consistently stated that no decision has been made to send troops into Iranian territory.

The deliberation reflects a gap between current military actions and broader strategic goals. Air and naval operations have degraded some Iranian capabilities but have not produced a decisive outcome, leading planners to examine whether limited or expanded ground operations might be required. For Americans, the issue is tied to potential escalation risks, including higher energy prices if the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted and the possibility of a prolonged conflict involving U.S. troops.

Share Dear America Network

Key Facts

• No authorization to deploy troops: The White House has stated that the Pentagon is preparing options but that the president is “not planning to send ground troops…at this time.”

• Active military planning: U.S. Central Command and Pentagon officials have developed detailed plans, including logistics such as detainee handling and force deployment structures.

• Force buildup underway: Thousands of Marines, airborne troops, and naval assets have been moved into the region to provide operational flexibility.

• Limited operations emphasized: Officials and lawmakers describe likely ground scenarios as short-term raids or targeted missions rather than full-scale invasion.

• Political division in Washington: Members of Congress from both parties have raised concerns, with some insisting that any sustained ground war would require congressional approval.

• Escalation risk acknowledged: Analysts warn that introducing ground troops could significantly expand the conflict and provoke Iranian retaliation across the region.

Timeline

• Late January–February 2026: The U.S. builds up forces across the Middle East and, alongside Israel, launches strikes on Iranian targets, initiating the current war.

• Early March 2026: Initial operations rely on airpower and naval pressure. Military planners begin developing contingency plans for ground involvement as part of broader operational planning.

• Mid–Late March 2026: Reports emerge that the Pentagon is preparing for possible ground operations, including special operations raids and limited infantry missions. Additional U.S. troops arrive in the region.

• Late March 2026 (political response): Lawmakers publicly debate the possibility of ground deployment, with some supporting narrowly defined missions and others opposing any ground war without congressional authorization.

• April 2026 (current phase): As ceasefire negotiations fluctuate, analysts and officials describe scenarios in which ground troops could be used for specific objectives, such as securing the Strait of Hormuz if fighting escalates.

Current Deliberation Framework

U.S. deliberations center on three main categories of potential ground involvement:

1. Limited, short-duration missions:
   These include special operations raids, seizure of specific facilities, or securing maritime chokepoints. Officials describe these as “get in, get out” operations with defined objectives.

2. Expanded but contained deployments:
   Some plans involve larger troop deployments to secure strategic areas, such as oil infrastructure or shipping lanes, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz.

3. Full-scale ground war (not currently indicated):
   While theoretically possible, there is no confirmed planning for a broad invasion or long-term occupation, and such an option is widely viewed as significantly more complex and politically contentious.

Constraints and Considerations

• Military risk: Iran’s geography, missile capabilities, and use of proxy forces would make ground operations difficult and potentially costly.

• Political approval: Sustained ground operations would likely require congressional authorization, which remains uncertain.

• Public opinion: U.S. public support for a large-scale ground war appears limited, influencing decision-making.

• Economic impact: Escalation could disrupt global oil flows, affecting fuel prices and inflation in the United States.

Share

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

Let’s be blunt: putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran would not be a limited military decision. It would be a generational gamble—paid for not by politicians or defense contractors, but by ordinary Americans and civilians abroad.

The current war, which began with massive U.S.-Israeli airstrikes and triggered sweeping retaliation across the region, has already destabilized global trade, energy markets, and civilian life across multiple countries. A shaky ceasefire is holding—for now—but the question hanging over Washington is clear: do we escalate to a ground war?

For everyday Americans, the answer should be just as clear.

First: the human cost is not abstract—it’s your neighbors, your family, your future.
A ground invasion means tens of thousands of U.S. troops deployed into a vast, heavily armed country with difficult terrain and asymmetric capabilities. Even optimistic military planners admit Iran retains significant missile and drone capacity. That translates into casualties—not hypothetically, but inevitably. We’ve seen this story before in Iraq and Afghanistan: “quick missions” that became decades-long wars, leaving working-class Americans to fight and die while political leaders move on.

Who serves in these wars? Not hedge fund managers. Not corporate executives. It’s disproportionately young people from working families—people who joined the military for opportunity, not endless conflict.

Second: the economic burden will land squarely on American households.

Read more

Dear America Network –

Why did the United States attack Iran? What has been gained and sacrificed by the American people as a result of these actions? What’s next? Like everything in the Middle East, it’s complicated, and we did not get to this point overnight. However, let’s discuss what is most important about this war to the American people today.

Share Dear America Network

Brief U.S.-Iran background

Prior to the significant power shifts that occurred in global politics after World War II, the U.S. and Iran had limited but decent relations. However, in 1951 Iran nationalized the then British-controlled oil industry. In response, in 1953 the U.S. and U.K. backed a coup to oust the semi-democratically elected leader at the time and put in place a new leader. The Shah, as he was known, was friendly with the West – including the U.S. and a recently established state of Israel – and he modernized the country and its economy, but he was also seen as deeply corrupt and authoritarian. This ultimately led to his overthrow by the Iranian people in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that established the Iran we know today.

U.S.-Iran relations began to unravel almost immediately, beginning with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis when the U.S. embassy in the capital of Tehran was stormed and dozens of diplomats were taken hostage for over a year (check out the movie Argo for a Hollywood-style take on this event). Since then, relations have had some ups but many more downs, including: the Iran-Iraq War throughout the 1980s with the U.S. covertly supporting Iraq; the 1983 terrorist attack on U.S. and French troops in Lebanon; a 1988 Iranian civilian flight that was inadvertently shot down by the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf; increased sanctions on Iran by the Clinton administration in the 1990s; the Obama administration’s 2015 Iranian nuclear deal including the U.S., Iran, U.K., France, Germany, China, and Russia; the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal of the U.S. from that deal; and, many more ups and downs through to present day.

Since its beginning in 1979, the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran has been led by religious clerics and only two Supreme Leaders in 47 years (and now, a third as of March 2026). The Iranian regime’s primary purpose has been to establish a nation based on Islamic law and religious fundamentalism, while resisting modern secular governments and influence from both the West (led by the U.S.) and East (initially led by the Soviets). This model of governance was one that Iran’s leadership sought to spread across the Middle East and even globally. The regime’s ‘resistance’ can often take the form of terrorism and is pursued in a number of ways, such as increased authoritarianism domestically, the development of military and nuclear programs, and significant support for militant proxy groups throughout the Middle East (see Reference #1 at the end of this letter).

Share

Question 1: Why did the U.S. attack Iran?

According to the Trump administration, the U.S. began bombing Iran in February 2026 because they were an “imminent nuclear threat” to the United States. However, this argument does not hold up well under scrutiny and should not be taken seriously by the American people (I’ll explain). That being said, the Iranian regime has defined itself as an enemy of the United States and Western values, and it is an ongoing threat to U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East.

The Trump administration sought many diplomatic solutions with Iran – some incentivizing, many coercive – before escalating their disagreement to military action. Yet, “no more foreign wars” was a phrase the American people took President Trump seriously and literally on when he ran for office, and it is clear that there is not significant public support for this war. Polling continues to show that the war is deeply unpopular in the U.S. and even more so globally. So why did the U.S. help launch this war?

The first thing to understand is that this is just an extension and escalation of the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran’s subsequent, minimally effective retaliation. Fortunately, we were able to pull back from extended military action last year, but it has proved to be a temporary reprieve, as subsequent diplomacy ultimately devolved into the current war.

The U.S. is now bombing Iran again, only eight months later, why? Revisiting the claim of an “imminent nuclear threat,” there are three significant issues with this justification.

1. U.S. intelligence agencies – led by appointees handpicked by President Trump – recently assessed that Iran was ten years out (2035) from creating a missile capable of reaching the U.S. This is known as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Even with the enriched nuclear material Iran possesses, before it can become a relevant threat to the U.S. homeland, the material must be further enriched to weapons-grade levels, it must be developed into a deliverable bomb, and then integrated with an ICBM capable of reaching its target.

Read more

Just the Facts.

The 2026 war in Iran began in late February when the United States and Israel launched large-scale airstrikes on Iranian military, nuclear, and infrastructure targets. Since then, the conflict has escalated into a regional confrontation involving missile attacks, energy disruptions, and threats to global shipping. Fighting has spread beyond Iran and Israel to include strikes affecting Persian Gulf countries and key economic infrastructure.

For Americans, the most immediate impacts have been rising oil and gas prices, instability in global markets, and increased U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz—a critical oil shipping route—have heightened concerns about energy supply and inflation.

Read more

Share Dear America Network

Introducing Voices of America

The Voices of America publication discusses heavily debated current issues in American politics from three different perspectives relevant to everyday Americans. Those perspectives are represented by:

• Dan. Provides a nonpartisan, balanced perspective from a strategic worldview grounded in foundational American values, such as rule of law, democracy, individual liberty and equal rights.

• Jamie on the Left. Provides a left-wing political perspective from a worldview steeped in progressive American political ideology, news, and information sources.

• Alex on the Right. Provides a right-wing political perspective from a worldview steeped in conservative and MAGA American political ideology, news, and information sources.

These individuals are artificial intelligence (AI) personas continuously trained and updated on their respective ideologies and information sources.

Buy on Amazon!

Out of chaos comes clarity – and a blueprint for America’s future.

The Great Disorder is a bold and timely manifesto for readers trying to understand the unprecedented fragmentation of today’s world and America’s place within it. As global systems strain and rival powers rise, the U.S. faces a stark question: What kind of leadership can protect American interests without accelerating global conflict?

Drawing on sweeping historical analysis and strategic insight, Zack Spratling proposes a principled new world order – one grounded in American values, realistic power dynamics, and the hard lessons of the past. Instead of reacting to crisis, this book gives readers a framework for understanding what comes next.

Inside, you’ll discover:

• Why the post–World War II order is collapsing faster than most experts admit

• The core principles America must embrace to remain stable and prosperous

• How rising powers, technological disruption, and domestic tensions are reshaping U.S. grand strategy

• The historical patterns that reveal where global power relations are heading

• A realistic blueprint for American leadership that avoids both overreach and retreat

• What citizens, policymakers, and thinkers must understand to navigate an era of disorder

This book is for readers who want:

• A clear, nonpartisan understanding of today’s geopolitical upheaval

• A compelling argument for America’s role in a rapidly changing world

• A practical framework rather than vague commentary

• A manifesto that blends history, strategy, and principle

Zack Spratling brings a uniquely integrated perspective – combining historical context with strategic problem-solving – to offer a path forward in an era defined by uncertainty.

If you’re seeking clarity on today’s most pressing global challenges, The Great Disorder is your essential guide to understanding the world we’re entering – and the choices America must make.

Dive in today and discover the blueprint for a more stable and prosperous world.

Buy on Amazon!

Available now in paperback, eBook, and audiobook formats.

Link to the Grand Strategy video series on America discussed in this voice note.

Link to the video series on Israel & The Middle East.

Link to The Great Disorder mentioned in this voice note.

Link to the letter discussing American Values.

Link to The Great Disorder letter mentioned in this voice note.

Dear America Network –

Have you read all your text messages lately? If not, double check that you were not “mistakenly” added to a group chat abou…

Read more

Dear America Network –

Do you think peace in the Middle East is possible?

If your cynical side immediately got the best of you, I’ll scale down our scope and rephrase – is peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories possible?

If you’re still skeptical, you would be justified in your position given the historical precedent for conflict in the region. However, I’m here to tell you that peace is achievable, and we’re going to discuss how.

Conflict Resolution

Although conflict may be endemic to the human condition, the persistent, violent conflict we see in the Middle East is not. Let that create (at least) a sliver of hope for the more skeptical among you. Further, much of the conflict we see to this day in the Middle East can be attributed to the historical evolution of territorial boundaries, the rise and fall of empires, and ethnic and religious differences, as I’ve discussed before.

Although many of these challenges cannot be solved easily, fortunately for the purpose of establishing peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories, there have been many efforts over the years contributing towards a repository of reasonable solutions. These efforts were unfortunately never able to cross over the finish line. Yet, this is exactly why with wise and courageous leadership in the U.S., Israel, Arab partner nations, and ultimately an emergent State of Palestine, what I’ve called A New Plan for Peace, is within our reach.

Share

America’s Role in the Region

Before diving into the peace plan, let’s briefly discuss what America’s role should be in the process in light of our broader grand strategy. As we know from those discussions, the Middle East region has become less and less of a geostrategic priority for the U.S. with respect to our other global priorities. Yet, it still makes our list, and the reality is that the U.S. has been a key player in the region’s politics for many decades – for better and for worse. Nevertheless, America continues to have many allies and partners in the region and will continue to hold geopolitical-sway for the foreseeable future. That being said, as our global focus has shifted, it is increasingly necessary for us to work with our allies and partners in the region to retain and improve conditions for stability and peace.

The most central of these working relationships in the region is between the U.S. and Israel – our strongest and most capable ally in the Middle East. Yet, as close as an ally as Israel is with America, there is no doubt that the most globally contentious issue for Israel, and the largest stressor on U.S.-Israeli relations, is the status and future of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (i.e., the Palestinian territories). But simply reminding ourselves of our north star – Lead with American Values & Defend American Interests – it is clear that America’s support globally for liberal democracy and self-determination should be extended to Palestinians, just as it was to Jews and the State of Israel in 1948.

The majority of countries in the world – currently 146 out of 193 member states of the United Nations – already recognize Gaza and the West Bank as an independent State of Palestine. America’s diplomatic position to date has been that this is an issue for Israelis and Palestinians to resolve together, not for outside powers to decide unilaterally. This is a warranted caution in light of the messy history of outside powers determining borders in the region. Yet, after the October 7^th, 2023 terrorist attack and ongoing war in Gaza, the time for America and the international community to lean into a definitive solution is now more than ever. That solution is A New Plan for Peace.

Share Dear America Network

A New Plan for Peace

Step 1. The U.S. will continue to provide unequivocal, but not unconditional, economic, military, and diplomatic support to Israel. This one is very simple, yet gets overcomplicated by political posturing and partisan mood swings. Israel is America’s ally. America must back its allies. In a world of renewed competition between great powers where sides appear to be forming, our ally network is an increasingly valuable asset. Every decision America makes is a signal to the marketplace of nations.

As such, unequivocal diplomatic support for Israel’s security and right to defend itself – with the backing of American economic might and military force, if necessary – is essential. At the same time, the U.S. can and should be increasingly scrutinizing of the tragedy of war that is civilian deaths. As a strategically adept and situationally aware ally, these more nuanced discussions should clearly occur behind closed doors. In that setting, America should condition our significant, ongoing support to Israel on the development of a plan by Israeli leadership to end the war by charting a tangible path to the “day after.”

Step 2. Israel will provide a short-term plan to the U.S. for completing its war aims and winding down military operations. Detailed communication is expected given the significant support the U.S. provides Israel, including battlefield support that has put American troops lives at risk. Israel’s war goals should not only entail winning on the battlefield, but also restoring deterrence, such that an attack like October 7^th does not happen again. ‘Winning’ on the battlefield has been described by Israel as bringing all remaining hostages home and dismantling Hamas’ military capabilities and ability to control Gaza. However, after October 7^th, the battlefield quickly expanded to include four other warfronts in addition to battling Hamas in Gaza.

These groups together have been referred to as the ‘Axis of Resistance’, and include Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, militants in Syria & Iraq, and Iran. Fortunately, outside of a ground invasion into southern Lebanon, with U.S. and partners support Israel has been able to address these warfronts using targeted aerial attacks and assassinations of key leaders. This more surgical approach, as opposed to larger-scale bombing assaults, is highly preferred by the U.S. for obvious reasons. Every battlefield operation requires unique considerations, but U.S. and Israeli leadership must be in lockstep on the war path that maximizes Israeli security and the restoration of deterrence while minimizing civilian harm.

Step 3. The U.S. will work with Arab partner nations, such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia, as well as intermediaries like Qatar, to elevate the responsible factions within the existing Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and create a new, reinvigorated, non-violent and demilitarized Palestinian government. This step is where partners of Israel and Palestinians play a key role.

In order for the peace plan to progress, there must be a Palestinian group of individuals or entity for Israel to negotiate with. This clearly cannot be Hamas. However, there are two other groups with overlap between them that are the most obvious places to start – the PA and PLO. Yet, taken as they are, they are both problematic in their current state. The PLO continues to oscillate between non-violence and affiliating itself with terrorist groups, such as Hamas, while the PA – even if it is the default choice of the international community – is widely seen as ineffective and corrupt by the Palestinian people and others.

Therefore, a new group of leaders must be identified and eventually coalesced into a Palestinian government. This obviously cannot be done by Israel and Palestinians alone. Rather, the U.S. representing Israel and Arab partner nations representing Palestinians, must work to identify and elevate the new, demilitarized Palestinian government. The specific Arab nations mentioned all support Palestinian statehood, have working relationships with the U.S., and are either already at peace with Israel (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, UAE) or on the doorstep of peace and normalized relations (e.g., Saudi Arabia, potentially via the Abraham Accords).

Step 4. Israel and the newly established Palestinian government will work with the U.S. and Arab partner nations to develop a plan for a Palestinian State by reviving and revising elements of the proposals from the Oslo Accords and Clinton Parameters, which will include a definitive timeline for the agreement to be enforced by U.S. and Arab partner nations as mediators. A so-called “two-state solution” is the only viable path forward for a sustainable peace. The State of Israel is here to stay in the region, and so are Palestinians. Whether in ancient times or today, continuing the cycle of pushing an entire people off their land only perpetuates conflict. Both Jews and Palestinians have experienced this tragedy, and it is being discussed again as a potential solution. Let me be clear – this will not bring sustained peace to the region – it will not work. To stop the cycle of violence, we have to stop the cycle of exile.

Instead, a two-state solution should be pursued that leverages the deliberate thought put into prior negotiations (e.g., Oslo Accords and subsequent Clinton Parameters). The Clinton Parameters are one of the most equitable, yet practical, proposals put forward in a serious way in the history of these negotiations. They are also in alignment with the spirit of the 1947 United Nations partition plan as much as is feasible, while making adjustments for the realities present in the region after multiple wars have been fought. Revisions are to be expected, but there is much substance already there to work with. Lastly, learning from our past mistakes, a key role of the U.S. and Arab partner nations as mediators will be to hold Israeli and Palestinian leadership accountable to forming an agreement by enforcing a deadline on negotiations.

Leave a comment

Step 5. Throughout this process, and particularly towards the end, the U.S., Israel, and Arab partner nations will together leverage their combined Diplomatic and Informational capabilities to persuade civilian hearts and minds in Israel, Palestine, the Arab world, and ultimately the international community of the critical need and viability of the newly negotiated plan to bring peace to the region. This will be a coordinated Diplomatic and Informational campaign. It should be no surprise that after the October 7^th attack and subsequent war in Gaza that only a minority of both Israelis and Palestinians see a future where they reside in nations next to each other, peacefully.

Israelis are justifiably concerned that what happened in Gaza and on a larger scale in Lebanon – when a militant Hezbollah formed, armed, and threatened Israel’s north for decades – could happen in a Palestinian State. This is why it is critical that the new Palestinian government agrees to become a demilitarized state for the foreseeable future. Yet, it will unequivocally require a persistent, ideally coordinated, campaign by leaders to convince both populations that this is the way forward – the way to a sustained peace. Leaders’ ability to exercise their countries diplomatic and informational power effectively could be the most influential factor in the entire peace plan. The effects of this soft power will likely prove to be the glue that holds a negotiated settlement, and ultimately a sustained peace, together.

Step 6. Arab partner nations will work with the new Palestinian government to rebuild Gaza. These countries know how to build, and can provide valuable expertise and Economic support to create a revitalized Gaza that Palestinians can be proud of. A Gaza with hope and opportunity will be a peaceful Gaza, and a more secure Israel.

Gaza has been devastated by war. But once the smoke clears, there will be an opportunity to rebuild and an opportunity for Arab partner nations to lead this effort. Natural resources have created enormous economic wealth in many of these countries. This Economic power, their appetite for infrastructure investment and development, and their historical support for Palestinians’ cause, make Arabs in the region not only the right partner for Palestinians, but also the best partner to join them on their journey to rebuild and revitalize Gaza.

Subscribe now

Sustained Peace

A New Plan for Peace is comprised of six interdependent steps, that when combined, reinforce each other to create a sustained peace in the region. The leaders with the courage to spearhead this effort have an opportunity to make history.

As America fills our critical role in this peace process, we must remember what we stand for, not fall victim to short-sighted decision making, and proudly lead with our values.

Think freely,

Zack Spratling
Founder & CEO
Dear America Network

P.S. This has been a notoriously difficult challenge for the world for many decades. This letter speaks to the peace plan, but as you may have noticed, it is also peppered throughout with links providing further context on the history and rationale that inspired my development of the plan. If you want the full story of how the world got to where we are today with this situation, I highly recommend watching our Grand Strategy series on Israel.

Dear America Network –

Question for you. Does America live by its values or its interests? What about you, personally?

As I’ve discussed before, at…

Read more

In this series, Zack and Amanda dis…

Read more

In this series, Zack and Amanda dis…

Read more

In this series, Zack and Amanda dis…

Read more

In this series, Zack and Amanda dis…

Read more

At Dear America Network, we’re building something foundational - something for the long-term.

Read more