Share Dear America Network

Just the Facts.

The United States is in the middle of one of the largest infrastructure buildouts in decades as technology companies race to expand data centers that support cloud computing and, increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI). Major firms including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Oracle are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in new facilities, with construction concentrated in states such as Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Ohio.

The main driver is AI. Training and operating large AI models requires enormous computing power, which in turn requires more servers, buildings, and electricity. Industry forecasts suggest U.S. data center capacity could more than double by 2027, while power demand from data centers is expected to rise sharply over the next few years.

The biggest challenge is no longer financing or technology—it is power. Utilities and grid operators are struggling to provide enough electricity quickly enough for proposed projects. The U.S. Energy Information Administration now expects national electricity consumption to reach record highs in 2026 and 2027, driven largely by AI-related data centers and broader electrification trends.

As a result, utilities are accelerating investments in transmission lines, substations, natural-gas plants, solar farms, battery storage, and in some cases exploring nuclear power options. In Texas and other fast-growing markets, new power plants are being built partly to support rising data center demand.

The boom is also creating economic opportunities. Data center construction has become a major source of demand for electricians, plumbers, welders, and other skilled trades. Companies such as Meta and Google have launched workforce-training initiatives because labor shortages are becoming a bottleneck for new projects.

However, the buildout has generated growing local opposition. Communities and policymakers are increasingly concerned about electricity costs, water consumption, land use, tax incentives, and the relatively small number of permanent jobs created once a facility is operating. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found substantial public skepticism toward the rapid pace of AI-driven data center construction.

For everyday Americans, the most important impacts are likely to be on electricity infrastructure and energy prices. Data centers are becoming a significant source of new power demand, and some analysts expect them to account for a large share of U.S. electricity growth through the end of the decade. Utilities, regulators, and technology companies are now debating how the costs of new generation and grid upgrades should be allocated among data center operators and other customers.

In short, the U.S. data center buildout is a nationwide effort to create the physical infrastructure behind AI and cloud computing. The sector is attracting massive investment and creating construction jobs, but it is also exposing constraints in the electric grid and raising questions about energy, water, and community impacts that will likely shape infrastructure policy for years to come.

Share

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

The data center buildout happening across the United States is one of the biggest economic and strategic stories in the country right now, and many Americans do not yet realize how significant it is.

At its core, this is about artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and America’s competition with China. The companies building the future of AI need enormous amounts of computing power, and that means building massive new data centers across the country. What looks like a warehouse from the highway is increasingly becoming the infrastructure behind the modern economy.

For everyday Americans, the first thing that matters is jobs and investment. These projects bring billions of dollars into communities. Construction workers, electricians, engineers, plumbers, equipment suppliers, and countless local businesses benefit during the building phase. Once operational, data centers create permanent technical and support jobs while expanding local tax bases that can help fund schools, roads, and public services.

The second major issue is electricity. AI requires extraordinary amounts of power. In many parts of the country, utilities are scrambling to expand generation and transmission capacity. This is where the conversation becomes very real for ordinary families. Americans want affordable and reliable electricity. If policymakers fail to increase energy production fast enough, higher demand can put pressure on the grid and potentially contribute to rising costs.

Subscribe now

That is why energy policy is inseparable from the AI race. The United States needs more electricity generation, period. Natural gas, nuclear power, grid modernization, and other reliable sources of energy will play critical roles. A country that wants to lead the world in AI cannot simultaneously make it harder to build the energy infrastructure required to support it.

The third issue is national security. Data centers are not just commercial projects. Increasingly, they are strategic assets. AI capabilities will influence military power, intelligence operations, cybersecurity, and economic competitiveness. The nation that controls the most advanced computing infrastructure will enjoy enormous advantages. From an America First perspective, keeping that infrastructure in the United States rather than outsourcing critical capabilities overseas is a major strategic priority.

There is also an important regional story developing. For decades, many Americans watched manufacturing and investment leave their communities. Now some states are attracting enormous technology investments. Areas with affordable land, reliable energy, business-friendly regulations, and strong infrastructure are becoming magnets for development. The economic benefits will not be distributed evenly, but many regions that were overlooked in previous technology booms have an opportunity to participate this time.

At the same time, there are legitimate concerns. Water usage, local environmental impacts, land development disputes, and strain on existing infrastructure are real issues that communities must manage carefully. The goal should not be stopping growth. The goal should be making sure growth benefits local residents rather than imposing costs on them.

The bottom line is simple. The data center boom is not just a technology story. It is an energy story, a jobs story, a national security story, and a competition-with-China story. For everyday Americans, the key questions are straightforward: Will these projects create good jobs? Will electricity remain affordable and reliable? Will America stay technologically dominant? And will local communities share in the benefits?

Those are the questions that matter most, and the answers will help determine whether this buildout becomes one of the great economic successes of the next decade.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

The United States is in the middle of one of the largest infrastructure booms in decades, but unlike the interstate highway system or suburban housing expansion, much of it is happening behind fences and warehouse-sized walls. The rapid buildout of data centers—driven largely by artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and digital services—is becoming one of the defining economic stories of this decade.

For everyday Americans, the first question should be simple: who benefits, and who pays?

There is no doubt that data centers are becoming critical infrastructure. AI systems, online banking, streaming services, hospitals, logistics networks, and government agencies increasingly depend on them. The race to build more computing power is also creating construction jobs, electrical work, engineering positions, and opportunities for communities that have struggled to attract investment.

But the story does not end there.

The most important issue is electricity. Data centers consume enormous amounts of power, and AI facilities require far more energy than traditional computing centers. Across parts of the country, utilities are rushing to build transmission lines, power plants, and grid upgrades to meet demand. Americans should be asking whether residential customers will ultimately bear some of those costs through higher electric bills while some of the world’s largest technology companies reap the rewards.

The second major issue is water. Many advanced data centers use substantial amounts of water for cooling. In regions already facing drought pressures, particularly in parts of the American West, local residents have legitimate concerns about whether industrial-scale computing should compete with households, agriculture, and ecosystems for scarce resources. Economic development matters, but so does long-term sustainability.

Subscribe now

Third, there is the question of jobs. Politicians often celebrate data center announcements as transformative economic projects, but the reality is more complicated. Construction phases can create significant employment. Once completed, however, many facilities operate with relatively small permanent workforces compared with factories or manufacturing plants of similar size. Communities should carefully evaluate whether tax incentives and public subsidies are producing enough lasting economic benefits.

Another critical issue is who controls the future. The AI boom has concentrated extraordinary power in a handful of giant technology corporations. Data centers are not merely buildings; they are the physical foundation of economic and technological influence. The companies that own the largest computing infrastructure will possess immense advantages in artificial intelligence, data analysis, and digital services. Americans should be concerned about whether competition, innovation, and democratic accountability can keep pace with this concentration of power.

There is also a national security dimension. Increasing domestic computing capacity reduces reliance on foreign infrastructure and strengthens America’s position in technological competition with rivals such as China. Yet concentration creates vulnerabilities as well. Large clusters of critical digital infrastructure become attractive targets for cyberattacks, espionage, and physical disruption. Resilience matters as much as capacity.

The central challenge is not whether data centers should be built. They will be. The digital economy increasingly depends on them, and the AI race is accelerating demand. The challenge is ensuring that the benefits are broadly shared. If local communities receive good jobs, reliable infrastructure, tax revenue, and transparent environmental protections, the buildout can strengthen the country. If the gains flow primarily to shareholders while ordinary Americans face higher utility costs, strained resources, and concentrated corporate power, public backlash will grow.

The data center boom is ultimately a test of governance. America is building the infrastructure of the AI age. The question is whether that infrastructure will serve the public interest—or merely reinforce the power of those who already sit at the top of the economic ladder.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

The U.S. data center buildout is one of the most consequential economic developments of the decade, yet it remains largely invisible to most Americans. Unlike highways, airports, or factories, data centers often appear to be little more than large warehouses. In reality, they are becoming the physical foundation of the AI economy, supporting everything from cloud computing and online banking to advanced artificial intelligence systems. The question is not whether these facilities matter. The question is how their benefits and costs will be distributed across American society.

Both Alex and Jamie correctly identify electricity as the central issue. Alex emphasizes that AI leadership requires massive amounts of energy and argues that America must expand power generation if it wants to remain competitive with China. Jamie reaches a similar conclusion from a different angle, warning that households could end up bearing some of the costs through higher utility bills if infrastructure investments are not structured carefully. Together, these perspectives highlight the reality that the AI race is increasingly an energy race. For most Americans, the most important measure of success will not be how many data centers are built, but whether electricity remains affordable and reliable as demand surges.

The two perspectives also agree that this is a significant investment and jobs story. Alex highlights the billions of dollars flowing into communities and the opportunities for construction workers, electricians, engineers, and local businesses. Jamie adds an important caveat: while construction employment can be substantial, many data centers require relatively small permanent workforces once operational. Both observations are true. Americans should welcome investment, but local leaders should distinguish between temporary economic activity and lasting economic transformation when evaluating incentives and subsidies.

Share Dear America Network

National security is another area of overlap. Alex views data centers as strategic assets in America’s competition with China, while Jamie notes that domestic computing capacity reduces dependence on foreign infrastructure. Both arguments recognize that computing power is becoming a pillar of geopolitical influence. In the coming decade, AI capabilities will increasingly affect economic productivity, military systems, intelligence operations, and cybersecurity. A nation that lacks sufficient computing infrastructure risks falling behind in multiple domains simultaneously.

Where I would extend the discussion is in recognizing that the data center boom is ultimately less about technology than about national capacity. The United States is entering a period in which economic strength will depend on its ability to build things again: power plants, transmission lines, semiconductor fabs, data centers, and supporting infrastructure. For years, many observers assumed that software alone would drive growth. The AI era

is demonstrating that digital innovation still depends on physical assets, abundant energy, and large-scale construction.

For everyday Americans, this means the most important question may not be whether a particular data center creates hundreds or thousands of permanent jobs. The larger issue is whether these investments help sustain American productivity growth. Historically, rising productivity has been the primary driver of higher wages, improved living standards, and stronger economic growth. If AI-enabled infrastructure makes businesses more efficient, accelerates scientific research, improves healthcare outcomes, and reduces costs across industries, the benefits could eventually extend far beyond the communities hosting the facilities.

At the same time, Jamie is right to raise concerns about concentration of power. The AI economy currently favors a relatively small number of firms with the capital to build and operate massive computing infrastructure. That concentration could create competitive challenges and political concerns over time. Yet there is also a risk in overreacting. Large-scale infrastructure often begins with concentration before broader ecosystems develop around it. The more important objective is preserving competition and innovation while allowing investment to continue.

I would also place greater emphasis on regional development. One of the most interesting aspects of the data center boom is that it is not confined to traditional coastal technology hubs. States with affordable land, reliable energy supplies, and favorable business climates are attracting substantial investment. For communities that have struggled to participate in previous technology waves, this represents a meaningful opportunity. The long-term winners may not be the places with the most software engineers, but the places that can provide power, infrastructure, permitting efficiency, and workforce readiness.

Ultimately, both Alex and Jamie are asking versions of the same question: will the benefits of the AI buildout be broadly shared? That is the right question. Americans should want the United States to lead in AI, maintain technological advantages over strategic competitors, and attract investment. They should also expect reliable electricity, responsible resource management, transparent governance, and fair economic outcomes.

The data center boom should therefore be viewed neither as an unquestioned triumph nor as a looming threat. It is a test of whether the United States can translate technological leadership into broadly shared prosperity. If America can expand energy production, modernize infrastructure, maintain competition, and ensure that local communities benefit alongside investors, this buildout could become one of the defining economic successes of the next decade. If it cannot, many of the tensions already visible today will only grow more pronounced.

Subscribe now

Share Dear America Network

Just the Facts.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has played a leading role in shaping the international political, economic, and security order. While its influence has evolved over time and is increasingly shared with other major powers, the U.S. remains one of the world’s most influential countries today.

Historically, American leadership emerged from its economic strength, military power, and political influence after 1945. The United States helped establish major international institutions, including the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These institutions were designed to promote stability, economic growth, and collective security after the devastation of the war.

During the Cold War (roughly 1947–1991), the United States led a coalition of allies in competition with the Soviet Union. American leadership focused on containing Soviet influence, supporting allied governments, maintaining military alliances, and promoting market-based economic systems. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. became the world’s sole superpower, with unmatched military capabilities and significant influence over global finance, trade, technology, and diplomacy.

Economically, the United States has long been central to the global system. The U.S. dollar became the dominant international reserve currency, and American financial markets, corporations, and innovations helped drive global economic growth. Many of the world’s largest technology, financial, and consumer companies are headquartered in the United States, giving it substantial influence over global commerce and technological development.

Today, the United States continues to occupy a leading role, though in a more competitive international environment. Countries such as China have grown significantly in economic and geopolitical influence, while regional powers play larger roles in their respective areas. Nevertheless, the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy by most measures, maintains the most extensive network of military alliances, and possesses considerable diplomatic reach.

Current American leadership can be seen in several areas. In security, the U.S. provides military support and security guarantees to numerous allies across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. In economics, it remains a key driver of global investment, trade, and financial stability. In technology and innovation, American companies continue to lead in fields such as artificial intelligence, software, biotechnology, and advanced research. The United States also plays a major role in addressing international challenges including conflict resolution, public health crises, energy security, and climate-related initiatives.

For everyday Americans, this leadership role can affect jobs, prices, trade opportunities, national security, energy markets, and international travel. Decisions made by the United States and its allies often influence global supply chains, financial markets, and geopolitical stability, which can have direct effects on the American economy and daily life.

In summary, America’s historical leadership has centered on building and sustaining much of the post-World War II international order. Today, while global power is more distributed than in previous decades, the United States remains a central actor in international security, economics, diplomacy, and technological innovation.

Share

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

America’s global leadership role should not be measured by how many countries it can pressure, how many military bases it can maintain, or how often it can project force abroad. It should be measured by a simpler question: does American leadership improve the lives of ordinary people—both at home and around the world?

For much of the postwar era, the United States helped build institutions that supported international trade, public health cooperation, scientific innovation, and collective security. Those contributions mattered. A stable global order benefited Americans by reducing the risk of major wars, expanding markets for U.S. businesses, and fostering technological progress.

But leadership becomes distorted when it serves powerful interests more than the public interest. Too often, Washington’s foreign policy debates are dominated by corporate lobbyists and geopolitical prestige rather than the economic realities facing working families. Americans are told that global leadership requires endless spending overseas while millions struggle with housing costs, healthcare bills, childcare expenses, and stagnant wages. That disconnect undermines public trust.

The most important challenge facing American leadership today is rebuilding the connection between foreign policy and the everyday concerns of citizens. If a trade agreement is negotiated, Americans should ask: will it raise wages, protect workers, and strengthen supply chains? If military spending increases, Americans should ask: what is the strategy, what are the goals, and what are the opportunity costs? If the United States confronts rivals such as China or Russia, the objective should not be confrontation for its own sake but protecting democratic values, economic security, and peace.

Subscribe now

Climate change may be the clearest example of where American leadership is both necessary and directly relevant to everyday life. Rising insurance costs, stronger storms, droughts, wildfires, and food price pressures are not abstract global problems. They affect American families now. The United States should lead the world in clean energy innovation, resilient infrastructure, and emissions reduction—not only because it is morally right, but because it creates jobs, strengthens competitiveness, and protects future generations.

Likewise, America should remain a defender of democracy and human rights. That does not mean military intervention everywhere. It means supporting democratic institutions, combating corruption, defending free societies against authoritarian pressure, and using diplomacy as the first tool rather than the last. The world is more stable when democratic nations cooperate, and Americans benefit from that stability.

Economic leadership matters just as much. The United States should invest aggressively in advanced manufacturing, research, education, and infrastructure. Global leadership begins with national strength. A country that cannot provide affordable healthcare, quality schools, reliable transportation, and economic opportunity at home will eventually struggle to lead abroad.

Ultimately, America’s greatest strength has never been its military alone. It has been its capacity to innovate, attract talent, expand opportunity, and inspire others through democratic ideals. The most successful American leadership in the twenty-first century will not be measured by dominance. It will be measured by whether the nation can help build a more stable, prosperous, democratic world while ensuring that the benefits of that leadership reach ordinary Americans—not just the wealthy and well-connected. That is the standard that matters.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

America’s leadership role in the world begins with a simple question: does U.S. policy make life better, safer, and more prosperous for American citizens? If the answer is no, then it is not leadership—it is charity, mismanagement, or strategic confusion.

The United States remains the most powerful nation on Earth economically, militarily, technologically, and culturally. That reality gives America enormous influence, but influence should never become an obligation to solve every problem on the planet. The primary responsibility of American leadership is to serve the interests of the American people.

First, America must lead economically. For everyday Americans, the most important foreign-policy issue is often not a foreign-policy issue at all—it is the price of groceries, gasoline, housing, and consumer goods. Global leadership should mean protecting American workers from unfair trade practices, securing supply chains, maintaining technological superiority, and ensuring that critical industries are not dependent on strategic rivals. When factories leave, jobs disappear, and supply chains move overseas, ordinary families pay the price. Economic leadership means putting American production, innovation, and energy strength first.

Second, America must maintain overwhelming military strength. Peace is preserved through deterrence, not wishful thinking. The United States should possess the strongest military in the world and the ability to protect its interests anywhere necessary. However, strength does not require endless wars or open-ended nation-building projects. Americans have learned through decades of costly interventions that military power should be used carefully, with clear objectives and a clear understanding of how success benefits the United States. A strong military protects Americans; it should not become a tool for indefinite global social engineering.

Third, America must secure its borders. A nation that cannot control who enters its territory cannot fully exercise sovereignty. Border security is not merely an immigration issue; it is an issue of law, public safety, national identity, labor markets, and public resources. Global leadership begins with demonstrating that a country can govern itself effectively. Americans expect their government to enforce its laws before attempting to manage the affairs of other nations.

Subscribe now

Fourth, America should lead in strategic competition with major rivals, particularly China. The challenge is not simply military. It involves manufacturing, technology, rare-earth minerals, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, artificial intelligence, and industrial capacity. The outcome of this competition will affect jobs, wages, innovation, and national security for generations. America should compete confidently, invest aggressively in its strengths, and ensure that critical industries remain under reliable domestic or allied control.

Finally, American leadership should be based on alliances that are mutually beneficial. Partnerships matter, but they work best when responsibilities are shared fairly. The United States should remain engaged around the world while expecting allies to contribute meaningfully to their own defense and regional stability.

In the end, America should be a strong, prosperous, sovereign nation that leads by example and strength rather than by constant intervention. The goal is not to dominate the world or withdraw from it. The goal is to create a world in which American families are safer, American workers are more prosperous, and American interests are protected. When those priorities are met, American leadership becomes both sustainable and effective.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

I agree with both Jamie and Alex on a central point that is often lost in foreign policy debates: America’s leadership role in the world should ultimately be judged by whether it improves the lives of ordinary Americans. Grand strategies, alliance structures, military deployments, and trade agreements matter, but they are means rather than ends. The average American experiences global leadership not through diplomatic summits, but through job opportunities, wages, energy prices, security, and confidence about the future.

Jamie is right to emphasize that American leadership has historically been at its best when it helped create a more stable international order while generating tangible benefits at home. The institutions and alliances built after World War II contributed to decades of relative peace among major powers, expanding trade, scientific collaboration, and economic growth. Jamie is also correct that foreign policy loses legitimacy when Americans perceive that the costs are concentrated on taxpayers and workers while the benefits flow primarily to elites, multinational corporations, or well-connected interests. A foreign policy disconnected from the concerns of ordinary citizens eventually loses public support.

Alex makes an equally important point from a different angle. Leadership is not synonymous with global responsibility for every problem. The first duty of any American government is to protect and advance the interests of the American people. Economic competitiveness, secure supply chains, technological leadership, energy security, border control, and military deterrence are not selfish objectives; they are the foundation upon which any sustainable international role must rest. A country that neglects its own economic and social strength cannot effectively lead abroad for long.

Where I would build on both perspectives is in defining what American leadership should mean in the twenty-first century. The United States should neither attempt to dominate every region nor retreat from the world. Both extremes misunderstand the reality of modern interdependence. America’s prosperity depends on a stable global system, but that system also depends heavily on American participation. The question is not whether the United States should lead, but how.

Share Dear America Network

For everyday Americans, the most important leadership challenge is maintaining an international environment that supports economic opportunity. Americans benefit when sea lanes remain open, global markets remain accessible, and critical supply chains remain reliable. Many products that families depend on—from medicine to electronics—are tied to global networks. When those networks are disrupted by war, coercion, or instability, Americans feel the consequences through higher prices and shortages. Leadership therefore requires protecting the conditions that allow commerce and innovation to flourish.

At the same time, both Jamie and Alex are correct that economic leadership must begin at home. America’s greatest strategic advantages have historically been its productive economy, world-class universities, entrepreneurial culture, scientific research, and ability to attract talent from around the globe. Investments in education, infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, energy production, and emerging technologies are not merely domestic policies; they are instruments of national power. The competition with China, for example, will be determined less by military confrontation than by which society innovates faster, educates more effectively, and sustains stronger economic growth.

Military power remains indispensable, but it should serve a clear purpose. Alex is right that deterrence preserves peace more effectively than weakness. Potential adversaries are less likely to challenge American interests or allies when they believe the costs will be prohibitive. Yet Jamie is equally correct that military strength should not become an excuse for perpetual intervention. The United States should maintain unmatched defensive capabilities while applying force selectively, with achievable objectives and a clear understanding of the national interest at stake.

I also share Jamie’s view that democratic values remain an important source of American influence. The United States has often been most persuasive not when it imposed its preferences, but when it demonstrated the strengths of constitutional government, individual liberty, innovation, and the rule of law. America’s ideals have never been perfectly realized, but they remain powerful. Nations are more likely to align with the United States when they see a country that is confident, prosperous, and faithful to its own principles.

Finally, America should recognize that emerging challenges such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, energy transitions, and climate resilience are increasingly central to national security. These issues affect everyday Americans directly through jobs, infrastructure reliability, insurance costs, and economic competitiveness. Leadership in these domains is not separate from traditional foreign policy; it is rapidly becoming the heart of it.

In the end, America’s proper role is neither global policeman nor isolated fortress. It should be the leading democratic power that protects its citizens, strengthens its economy, deters aggression, supports a stable international order, and demonstrates through its own success what free societies can achieve. When American leadership advances both national interests and broader stability, ordinary Americans—and much of the world—benefit together.

Subscribe now

Share Dear America Network

Just the Facts.

Memorial Day is one of the United States’ most significant national observances, dedicated to honoring military personnel who died while serving in the U.S. armed forces. Observed annually on the last Monday in May, the holiday combines solemn remembrance with longstanding community and family traditions that have evolved over more than a century.

The origins of Memorial Day trace back to the aftermath of the American Civil War in the 1860s. Communities across the country began organizing ceremonies to decorate the graves of fallen soldiers with flowers, flags, and wreaths. The observance was originally known as “Decoration Day.” In 1868, a national day of remembrance was formally proclaimed for Union soldiers, though Southern states often held separate commemorations for Confederate dead for many years afterward. Over time, the holiday expanded to honor all Americans who died in military service during every conflict.

Traditional observances remain centered on remembrance and public ceremony. Many Americans visit cemeteries, memorials, and veterans’ monuments to place flowers and flags on gravesites. Military organizations, local governments, schools, and civic groups often organize parades featuring veterans, active-duty service members, marching bands, and patriotic displays. Churches and community centers may hold memorial services, while moments of silence are observed during public events.

One of the most prominent ceremonies takes place at Arlington National Cemetery, where the president or another senior U.S. official traditionally lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Across the country, American flags are flown at half-staff until noon as a symbol of mourning before being raised to full staff later in the day. Since 2000, a National Moment of Remembrance has encouraged Americans to pause at 3:00 p.m. local time to reflect on the sacrifices of fallen service members.

At the same time, Memorial Day has become widely associated with the unofficial start of summer in the United States. The three-day weekend often includes family gatherings, outdoor barbecues, picnics, sporting events, and travel. For many families, the holiday balances recreation with remembrance, reflecting both national gratitude and seasonal tradition.

Memorial Day is distinct from Veterans Day, which honors all military veterans, living and deceased. Memorial Day specifically commemorates those who died while serving in the military.

Today, the holiday continues to serve as both a national tribute to military sacrifice and a cultural tradition that brings together remembrance, patriotism, family activities, and community participation across the United States.

Share

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

Memorial Day is one of the most important holidays in the United States because it cuts through all the noise, all the politics, all the distractions, and reminds Americans of a simple truth: freedom is not free. It was paid for by generations of American men and women who put on the uniform, carried the flag into danger, and never came home.

And for everyday Americans, that matters deeply.

This country was built and defended by ordinary Americans — factory workers, farmers, truck drivers, police officers, teachers, mechanics, and kids from small towns who believed America was worth fighting for. Memorial Day is about them. It is about the families who received folded flags instead of homecomings. It is about Gold Star mothers and fathers who carry that loss forever.

Too often, modern America moves so fast that gratitude gets replaced by entitlement. Memorial Day forces the nation to stop and remember what previous generations endured so Americans today can live freely, speak openly, worship as they choose, raise families, and pursue opportunity. The liberties Americans enjoy every single day were secured by sacrifice on battlefields from Normandy to Korea, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan.

And here is what makes the holiday especially meaningful right now: Americans are rediscovering the importance of national unity, patriotism, and shared identity. For years, many institutions tried to teach people to apologize for America instead of appreciate it. But Memorial Day reminds the country that millions of Americans gave everything not because the nation was perfect, but because it was good, exceptional, and worth defending.

Subscribe now

That is not abstract. It affects everyday life directly.

A strong nation protects its citizens. A respected nation deters enemies. A patriotic nation raises strong families and communities. Memorial Day is a reminder that weakness has consequences and that peace only survives when Americans are willing to defend it. The servicemembers we honor understood that instinctively.

At the same time, Memorial Day should also inspire humility. The freedoms Americans inherited came at a price many people today can barely imagine. Young Americans who never got the chance to build careers, raise children, or grow old gave up their futures so the country could endure. That demands reverence, not performative gestures. It demands that Americans live in a way worthy of their sacrifice — by taking citizenship seriously, respecting the flag, supporting veterans, strengthening communities, and preserving the country they died for.

And there is another important truth here: Memorial Day is not about endless foreign intervention or nation-building projects with no clear purpose. Americans honor those who served best by ensuring that when the country commits troops abroad, it does so with clarity, strength, and a direct connection to American interests and security. The families who sacrifice deserve leadership that treats military service with gravity, not carelessness.

So yes, Americans will barbecue, travel, and spend time with family this weekend — and they should. That freedom itself is part of the blessing generations fought to preserve. But beneath the celebrations is something sacred: remembrance.

Because Memorial Day is ultimately about the bond between ordinary Americans across generations — those living today and those who gave their lives to ensure the American story would continue.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

Every Memorial Day, America pauses. The highways fill, grills ignite, flags wave in small towns and big cities alike. For many people, it marks the unofficial start of summer. But beneath the sales, the travel, and the long weekend is something far deeper and more solemn: a national reckoning with sacrifice, loss, and the meaning of citizenship itself.

Memorial Day is not about glorifying war. It should never become that. It is about remembering the human beings — overwhelmingly ordinary Americans — who never came home. Young men and women from factory towns, farming communities, immigrant neighborhoods, tribal lands, and struggling cities. People who carried photographs of their families in their pockets. People who believed, rightly or wrongly, that they were serving something larger than themselves.

And that truth should humble this country.

Because the burden of war in America has never been carried equally. The sons and daughters of working-class families disproportionately serve, disproportionately deploy, and disproportionately return carrying the visible and invisible wounds of combat. Meanwhile, too often, the political elites who beat the drums of war are insulated from its consequences. That contradiction is impossible to ignore.

So Memorial Day should also force hard reflection. What do we owe the people we send into harm’s way? Is waving a flag enough if veterans cannot access affordable healthcare? If PTSD and suicide haunt former service members long after the cameras disappear? If military families struggle with housing, childcare, and economic insecurity while defense contractors collect record profits?

A country that truly honors sacrifice does more than hold ceremonies. It builds a society worthy of that sacrifice.

Subscribe now

That means defending democracy at home, not just invoking it abroad. It means ensuring that every veteran can see a doctor without fighting bureaucracy. It means investing in schools, infrastructure, healthcare, and decent-paying jobs with the same urgency America brings to military spending. It means recognizing that patriotism is not blind obedience to power; patriotism is loving your country enough to demand justice, accountability, and dignity for its people.

Memorial Day also reminds us of something profoundly fragile about American life: our shared humanity. In a nation fractured by ideology, inequality, and endless outrage, cemeteries tell a quieter story. Headstones do not ask whether someone was Republican or Democrat, rural or urban, black or white, native-born or immigrant. The dead remind us that citizenship binds people together in obligations as well as freedoms.

And perhaps that is the most important lesson for everyday Americans right now.

At a moment when cynicism is everywhere, Memorial Day asks us to remember that democracy is not self-sustaining. It survives because generations of people believed the future mattered enough to protect, even at terrible personal cost. The question for the living is whether we will meet our responsibilities with even a fraction of that courage.

So yes, enjoy the gathering with family. Celebrate the precious ordinary freedoms of American life. But take a moment of silence too. Think about the empty chairs at dinner tables across this country. Think about the families who carried grief for decades. Think about the promises America has kept — and the promises it still has not fulfilled.

Memory, after all, is not passive. A nation is judged by what it chooses to remember, and by what it chooses to do afterward.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

Memorial Day occupies a unique place in American life because it blends remembrance, patriotism, grief, and civic reflection into a single national moment. On the surface, it arrives with familiar rituals: crowded highways, backyard cookouts, flags on porches, baseball games, and the unofficial beginning of summer. But beneath those traditions lies something more serious. Memorial Day is ultimately about Americans confronting the cost of their freedoms and asking what responsibilities accompany them.

Both Alex and Jamie capture important parts of that story. Alex emphasizes a truth many Americans instinctively understand: the country’s liberties were preserved through sacrifice. The United States was defended not by abstractions or institutions alone, but by ordinary citizens who left homes, families, and futures behind. Memorial Day resonates precisely because the fallen were rarely distant elites. They were mechanics, teachers, farm kids, immigrants, factory workers, and young people from small towns who believed their country — imperfect as it was — remained worth defending.

That sentiment still matters deeply in modern America, especially during a period of political exhaustion and cultural fragmentation. Memorial Day cuts through some of that noise by reminding Americans that national unity is not merely rhetorical. Across generations, citizens accepted extraordinary risks on behalf of people they would never meet. Cemeteries filled with white headstones tell a story of shared obligation that transcends ideology, geography, race, or class. In a polarized age, that reminder carries unusual moral weight.

Share Dear America Network

Jamie, however, raises an equally important point: remembrance without reflection becomes incomplete. Memorial Day is not a celebration of war itself, nor should it become a simplistic display of nationalism detached from the human consequences of conflict. The holiday asks Americans to think carefully about what the nation owes those it sends into danger. The burden of military service often falls disproportionately on working- and middle-class communities, while many decision-makers remain insulated from war’s direct costs. That reality deserves honest acknowledgment rather than avoidance.

For everyday Americans, this tension matters because Memorial Day is not simply about the past. It is also about the kind of country the United States chooses to become. A nation that honors sacrifice seriously must do more than hold ceremonies once a year. It must support military families, improve veterans’ healthcare, address mental health struggles, and ensure that patriotism is connected to civic responsibility rather than symbolism alone. Supporting those who served is not solely a governmental obligation; it is also cultural. Communities matter. Families matter. Social trust matters.

At the same time, Memorial Day should not become an occasion for national self-condemnation either. One of the striking features of American history is that millions willingly served despite the country’s flaws because they believed in its ideals: constitutional government, individual liberty, democratic self-rule, and the possibility of a freer and more just society over time. Americans have often argued fiercely over whether the nation lived up to those principles, but generations still considered those principles worth preserving. That distinction is important. Patriotism does not require pretending the country is perfect; it requires believing the country is valuable enough to improve and defend.

There is also a quieter lesson embedded in Memorial Day that affects ordinary life more directly than many people realize. The holiday reminds Americans that freedom can become taken for granted when prosperity and stability feel permanent. Most Americans today live far removed from the experience of war. That distance is, in many ways, a success. Yet it can also produce civic complacency — the assumption that rights, security, and democratic institutions simply sustain themselves automatically. History suggests otherwise. Stable societies endure because previous generations accepted burdens on behalf of future ones.

That may be Memorial Day’s most enduring relevance. It asks living Americans whether they are willing to carry responsibilities as well as enjoy freedoms. Those responsibilities need not always be military. They can involve strengthening families, participating in communities, voting thoughtfully, serving neighbors, mentoring younger generations, or preserving institutions that allow disagreement without national fracture. Democracies weaken when citizens retreat entirely into private life and forget their connection to one another.

The holiday’s emotional power comes partly from its restraint. Memorial Day is not triumphalist. It is reflective. There is an empty-chair quality to it — an awareness that behind every military cemetery lies an unfinished life and a grieving family. Parents lost children. Spouses lost partners. Children grew up without mothers or fathers. Those sacrifices are difficult to fully comprehend precisely because they are so personal.

And yet Americans continue to gather with friends and family on Memorial Day weekend, and they should. That ordinary peace — the ability to barbecue in safety, argue openly, worship freely, travel openly, and build private lives without fear — is part of what earlier generations protected. The holiday’s deeper purpose is not to burden Americans with guilt, but to encourage gratitude, humility, and seriousness about citizenship.

In the end, Memorial Day is less about politics than continuity. It binds generations together across time through memory and obligation. The dead cannot shape the country anymore. The living – millions of patriotic Americans across the country – still can.

Subscribe now

Share Dear America Network

Just the Facts.

American society is often described through its political divisions, but multiple long-term indicators show that several core features consistently unify Americans across regions, ethnic groups, religions, and political affiliations. These unifying elements are reflected in civic participation, economic behavior, institutional structures, and shared public values.

One of the strongest unifying factors is broad support for constitutional governance and democratic norms. Public opinion surveys conducted over decades by organizations such as the Pew Research Center and Gallup consistently show that large majorities of Americans support free elections, freedom of speech, equal protection under law, and peaceful transfers of power. While disagreement exists over policy and political leadership, attachment to the constitutional framework itself remains high compared with many other countries.

Economic interdependence is another major source of cohesion. The United States functions as a highly integrated national market in which states depend heavily on one another for food, energy, manufacturing, technology, transportation, finance, and labor. Americans routinely relocate for education and employment, creating extensive social and economic mixing across regions. Interstate commerce, a shared currency, nationwide infrastructure systems, and federal financial institutions reinforce this interconnectedness. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that millions of Americans move between states each year, contributing to a population that is geographically mobile and economically linked.

Shared national institutions also strengthen social stability. Public schools, universities, the military, federal courts, and national service organizations create common civic experiences across demographic groups. The U.S. military in particular has historically served as one of the country’s most integrated institutions, bringing together individuals from varied backgrounds under common rules and objectives. Major sporting events, national holidays, and widely consumed media also create recurring shared experiences that contribute to national identity.

Another measurable source of unity is widespread participation in voluntary associations and local community life. Americans consistently engage in charitable giving, religious organizations, youth sports, neighborhood groups, and nonprofit activities at relatively high rates by international standards. According to data from Giving USA and other nonprofit tracking organizations, Americans donate hundreds of billions of dollars annually to charitable causes. Volunteerism and philanthropy often increase during natural disasters, economic crises, and national emergencies, demonstrating a recurring pattern of collective action during periods of stress.

A broadly shared belief in upward mobility and individual opportunity also remains central to American identity. Surveys regularly show that Americans across political and demographic groups value hard work, entrepreneurship, education, and personal freedom. While there are major debates over inequality and access to opportunity, belief in self-improvement and economic advancement continues to shape public culture, immigration patterns, and business formation. The United States consistently ranks among the world’s leaders in startup creation, research universities, and technological innovation, supported by a population that generally rewards experimentation and private initiative.

Demographic diversity itself has also become a stabilizing feature over time. The United States has integrated successive waves of immigrants for more than two centuries. Although periods of tension have occurred throughout its history, long-term data shows that immigrant groups generally achieve increasing educational attainment, income growth, and civic participation across generations. Shared use of English, participation in common institutions, and intermarriage rates have contributed to gradual social integration.

Together, these factors — constitutional norms, economic interdependence, civic institutions, voluntary participation, belief in opportunity, and long-term integration capacity — form many of the measurable foundations that continue to unify Americans and strengthen American society.

Share

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

What unifies Americans is not uniformity. It is not the idea that we all look alike, worship alike, vote alike, or agree on every issue. America has never worked that way. What truly strengthens American society is something far more powerful: a shared belief that people from different backgrounds can build a better future together. That belief still matters. In fact, it is one of the greatest strengths any nation on Earth possesses.

For all the attention given to political division, everyday Americans remain connected by remarkably common hopes and concerns. People want stable jobs that provide dignity and security. They want affordable healthcare when their families are sick. They want safe neighborhoods, strong schools, reliable infrastructure, and a fair chance to succeed through hard work. They want to raise children in communities where opportunity exists and where the future feels brighter than the present. These are not partisan dreams. They are American dreams.

And despite the noise of modern politics, Americans demonstrate every day that cooperation is still possible. Millions volunteer in their communities, support local businesses, help neighbors during disasters, coach youth sports, teach children, care for aging parents, and contribute to civic life in ways that rarely make headlines. The fabric of American society is not held together by television debates or social media arguments. It is held together by ordinary acts of responsibility, decency, and mutual support. That is important to remember because optimism is not naïve. Optimism is practical. Strong societies are built when people believe improvement is possible.

Subscribe now

America’s history offers countless examples of this resilience. The country expanded educational opportunity through public schools and universities. It built roads, bridges, and scientific institutions that transformed economic growth. Workers organized for safer conditions and better wages, helping create one of the largest middle classes in history. Civil rights movements pushed the country closer to its founding ideals of equality and democratic participation. None of these achievements came easily, but they demonstrate a crucial truth: Americans repeatedly find ways to reform, adapt, and move forward. That capacity for renewal remains alive today.

Young Americans are more connected to one another across geography and culture than previous generations. Communities across the country are investing in clean energy, technological innovation, and local entrepreneurship. Workers are demanding better conditions and greater balance between work and family life. Veterans, teachers, nurses, engineers, tradespeople, and small-business owners continue to sustain the country through their daily efforts. In moments of crisis — whether natural disasters, economic hardship, or national tragedy — Americans consistently show a willingness to help strangers and rally together.

What strengthens a society is not the absence of disagreement. Democracies are supposed to involve debate. What matters is whether people continue to believe they share a common future.

That is why some of the most important priorities for everyday Americans are also the most unifying: affordable healthcare, economic opportunity, quality education, secure retirement, public safety, clean communities, and a political system people can trust. When citizens feel that institutions work fairly and that effort can still lead to stability and advancement, social trust grows stronger. America succeeds when people feel invested in one another’s success.

The country’s greatest advantage has never been unlimited wealth or military power alone. It has been the ability to bring together people from different origins and create a shared sense of possibility. That spirit of openness, innovation, and democratic participation continues to attract millions who believe America remains a place where life can improve through perseverance and collective effort.

The American story is unfinished. But that is precisely the source of its strength. Every generation has the opportunity to expand opportunity, strengthen communities, and leave the country more just, more capable, and more united than before.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

What unifies Americans is not race, class, region, or political party. It is a shared belief that ordinary people should have the power to shape their own lives, provide for their families, and build a better future through hard work and freedom. That idea is the beating heart of the United States, and despite all the noise in modern politics, it remains remarkably strong.

The foundation of a strong American society starts with economic opportunity. Everyday Americans want the same basic things: a stable job, affordable groceries, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and the chance to own a home and raise a family. When working people feel secure and respected, the country becomes more united. There is enormous strength in a society where citizens believe effort still matters and success is attainable. Americans are at their best when the economy rewards builders, workers, entrepreneurs, tradesmen, small business owners, and families trying to get ahead.

Another major source of unity is patriotism. The media and political class often underestimate how much Americans still love their country. Millions of people wake up every day proud to be American—not because they think the country is perfect, but because they understand how exceptional it is. Americans admire courage, resilience, independence, innovation, and generosity. In moments of crisis, whether after natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or economic hardship, the country repeatedly proves that Americans still come together faster and more effectively than almost any people on earth.

Strong families and strong communities also hold the nation together. Churches, local organizations, youth sports, volunteer groups, veterans’ organizations, and neighborhood networks create trust and social stability. These institutions teach responsibility, discipline, and service to others. They help people feel connected to something larger than themselves. A society becomes stronger when children grow up with structure, values, and role models who encourage hard work and accountability.

Subscribe now

Public safety is another essential ingredient. Americans are unified by the belief that law-abiding citizens deserve safe streets and secure communities. People want police officers who are respected and supported, because ordinary families are the ones most affected when disorder spreads. Stability and lawfulness are not abstract political concepts—they are everyday necessities that allow people to work, raise children, open businesses, and live without fear.

Border security and national sovereignty matter for similar reasons. Americans are generous people, but they also believe a nation must control its borders and enforce its laws fairly. A country without clear rules eventually loses social trust. A strong nation is one where citizenship has meaning, laws are respected, and the government’s first responsibility is to its own citizens.

Perhaps most importantly, Americans are united by optimism. The American spirit has always been future-oriented. People come to this country—or stay committed to it—because they believe tomorrow can be better than today. That optimism drives innovation, entrepreneurship, technological progress, and cultural energy. It is why the United States continues to lead the world economically, militarily, and creatively.

The truth is that America remains an extraordinarily strong society because its people are extraordinarily capable. Everyday Americans still believe in work, family, freedom, faith, and opportunity. Those values endure across regions, backgrounds, and generations. When leadership reinforces those common bonds instead of dividing people into competing groups, the country becomes more confident, more prosperous, and more united.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

What unifies Americans has never been complete agreement. The United States is too large, too diverse, and too dynamic for that. Americans argue constantly about politics, culture, religion, economics, and the direction of the country itself. Yet beneath those disagreements, there remains a surprisingly durable set of shared expectations about what a good life should look like and what kind of society people want to build together.

Both Alex and Jamie identify an important part of that reality. Alex emphasizes that Americans are united by a belief in freedom, self-determination, economic opportunity, and the ability of ordinary people to improve their lives through hard work. Jamie focuses more on shared civic aspirations: stable communities, affordable healthcare, quality education, public trust, and the idea that people from different backgrounds can still cooperate toward a common future. Taken together, those perspectives reveal something essential about American society. Americans may disagree about methods, but most still want dignity, security, opportunity, and meaning for themselves and their families.

For everyday Americans, economic stability remains the center of gravity. People want jobs that pay enough to afford housing, groceries, healthcare, and retirement without constant financial anxiety. They want wages that keep pace with the cost of living and an economy where effort is rewarded fairly. When citizens believe the system allows upward mobility, social trust strengthens. When they believe the economy is rigged or inaccessible, polarization deepens. This is one reason both Alex and Jamie repeatedly return to themes like work, family, opportunity, and security. These are not abstract policy debates to most people. They shape daily life.

But economic concerns alone do not fully explain what holds the country together. Americans are also bound by a civic culture built through local institutions and ordinary responsibilities. Alex points to churches, youth sports, volunteer groups, veterans’ organizations, and neighborhood networks. Jamie highlights volunteering, caregiving, teaching, and local engagement. Both perspectives recognize an important truth: the strength of American society is often most visible far away from national politics. It exists in Little League fields, community colleges, churches, food banks, construction crews, hospitals, and small businesses. The national conversation often focuses on division because conflict attracts attention, but the country itself continues functioning because millions of Americans quietly cooperate every day.

Share Dear America Network

Another major unifying force is the American belief in renewal. Jamie emphasizes that the country repeatedly reforms itself over time through democratic participation and civic pressure. Alex emphasizes optimism and future-oriented thinking. Both are describing different sides of the same national instinct. Americans tend to believe problems can be solved, even after periods of turmoil. That optimism has historically fueled entrepreneurship, scientific innovation, infrastructure development, civil rights reforms, and technological leadership. It also explains why the country has repeatedly absorbed waves of immigration, economic disruption, and political conflict without losing its underlying cohesion.

At the same time, unity requires more than optimism alone. A healthy society also depends on trust — trust that laws are applied fairly, that institutions are competent, and that citizens share reciprocal obligations to one another. Alex stresses public safety, lawful order, and national sovereignty as stabilizing forces. Jamie emphasizes fairness, democratic participation, and institutional legitimacy. These priorities are sometimes framed as competing values in modern politics, but for many Americans they are interconnected. People want both freedom and stability. They want compassion alongside accountability. They want communities that are open and dynamic, but also orderly and trustworthy. A nation becomes fragile when large numbers of citizens feel either unsafe or unheard.

One of the most important realities often overlooked in discussions about American division is that Americans still share a remarkably common moral vocabulary. Across ideological lines, most people admire hard work, resilience, generosity, courage, fairness, and responsibility. Parents across the country largely want the same things for their children: safety, education, opportunity, and the chance to live meaningful lives. Even many political disagreements stem less from opposing goals than from different beliefs about how best to achieve them.

In that sense, American unity has always depended less on cultural sameness than on constitutional and civic principles. The country was founded not around a single ethnicity or religion, but around a shared political idea: that individuals possess rights, that power should be constrained by law, and that citizens can govern themselves. That framework creates space for disagreement while still preserving national cohesion. It allows Americans to debate fiercely without abandoning the larger project.

The challenge facing the United States today is not whether disagreement exists. Democracies are designed to accommodate disagreement. The real challenge is whether Americans continue to see one another as participants in a shared future rather than as permanent adversaries. A society grows stronger when citizens believe their success is connected to the health of the broader community.

What ultimately unifies Americans is neither ideology nor identity alone. It is the enduring belief that ordinary people, through freedom, responsibility, cooperation, and perseverance, can build better lives for themselves and leave a stronger country to the next generation. That belief remains imperfectly realized, but it continues to give the American experiment its resilience, energy, and staying power.

Subscribe now

Link to the letter mentioned in this voice note: American Interests & Values.

Next week, we will discuss ‘Unity & Strength in America.’

Share Dear America Network

Just the Facts.

(threat assessments supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI))

U.S. security agencies describe the current threat environment as broad but uneven, with some dangers far more likely to affect Americans than others. The highest-probability threats are cybercrime, infrastructure disruption, drug trafficking, and lone-actor violence, while large-scale foreign military attacks on U.S. soil remain comparatively unlikely.

Cyber threats are widely considered the most persistent and likely danger facing Americans. Federal intelligence agencies identify China as the leading long-term cyber threat, with Russia, Iran, and North Korea also capable of targeting U.S. systems. These attacks are already occurring regularly through ransomware, data theft, espionage, and attempts to penetrate utilities and communications networks. For most Americans, the realistic risk is not battlefield-style cyberwar but disruptions to hospitals, banking, transportation, energy systems, and personal data security. Officials view cyberattacks on infrastructure as a high-probability, moderate-to-high impact threat.

Domestic violent extremism is considered another high-concern threat because attacks require relatively little planning and are difficult to detect. Homeland Security and the FBI continue to warn that lone actors motivated by political, racial, religious, or personal grievances pose a persistent danger. These incidents are less frequent than ordinary crime but remain a major security priority because even small attacks can cause mass casualties and public disruption. Public venues, schools, houses of worship, and government facilities remain common concerns. Experts generally assess the likelihood of isolated attacks as moderate to high, while the likelihood of sustained organized insurgent violence is low.

Transnational criminal organizations represent a high-probability public safety threat, primarily through fentanyl trafficking. Drug overdoses kill far more Americans annually than terrorism. Cartels and organized smuggling networks also contribute to human trafficking, weapons trafficking, and financial crime. While these organizations are unlikely to directly threaten U.S. governance or military security, their impact on public health, border enforcement, and local crime rates is considered severe and ongoing.

Foreign conflicts create a moderate but rising indirect risk to Americans. Wars involving Russia, Iran, and China increase the possibility of cyber retaliation, espionage, and isolated acts of politically motivated violence inside the United States. DHS warned in 2025 that tensions involving Iran raised the threat environment due to possible cyberattacks and extremist responses. However, intelligence agencies do not currently assess a direct conventional military attack on the U.S. homeland as likely. Instead, officials are more concerned about proxy actions, cyber operations, and economic disruption.

Critical infrastructure vulnerability is viewed as a growing long-term concern. Power grids, ports, pipelines, water systems, and telecommunications networks increasingly depend on interconnected digital systems that can be disrupted by cyber actors or physical sabotage. Experts consider a nationwide catastrophic infrastructure collapse unlikely, but localized disruptions are viewed as plausible and increasingly common.

Natural disasters and climate-related emergencies remain among the most likely threats Americans will personally experience. Hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and heat events regularly strain emergency systems, damage infrastructure, and disrupt supply chains. While not traditionally categorized as national security threats, federal agencies increasingly treat them as security concerns because of their economic and social consequences.

Overall, U.S. agencies assess that Americans are most likely to face security risks through cyber disruption, public health crises tied to organized crime, and isolated extremist violence rather than large-scale war or coordinated terrorist campaigns.

Share

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

The biggest threats to Americans’ security today are the real, immediate pressures hitting working families, communities, and the country’s long-term stability all at once. And the reality is this: a nation that cannot control its border, secure its economy, maintain energy independence, or deter adversaries abroad eventually becomes weaker at home. Everyday Americans understand that instinctively, even when Washington pretends otherwise.

The first and most obvious threat is the collapse of border security. A country without borders is not truly sovereign. Prior to the current presidential administration, Americans watched millions of illegal crossings overwhelm communities, strain hospitals and schools, drive up taxpayer burdens, and flood the country with deadly narcotics. The fentanyl crisis alone has devastated families across every demographic and every state. This is not just an immigration issue — it is a national security emergency. Criminal cartels have become multinational organizations with enormous financial power, operational reach, and direct influence over migration flows. When a government loses operational control of who enters the country, Americans become less safe. That is common sense.

The second major threat is economic dependence on strategic rivals, especially China. For decades, American leaders allowed critical industries, supply chains, and manufacturing capacity to move overseas in pursuit of cheap labor and short-term profits. The result is dangerous vulnerability. Americans learned during supply chain disruptions that relying on foreign adversaries for pharmaceuticals, electronics, industrial materials, and strategic technologies is reckless. Economic security is national security. A country that cannot produce essential goods cannot remain strong or independent for long. Rebuilding domestic manufacturing and protecting American workers is not protectionism for its own sake — it is strategic survival.

Subscribe now

Another enormous threat is rising crime and the erosion of law and order. Everyday Americans want safe neighborhoods, functioning cities, and confidence that laws will actually be enforced. When violent crime rises, retail theft becomes normalized, and repeat offenders cycle endlessly through weak systems, public trust collapses. Security starts locally. Families should not have to wonder whether public transportation, schools, or downtown areas are becoming unsafe. Societies decline when basic order deteriorates. Strong policing, serious prosecution of violent offenders, and support for law enforcement are essential pillars of a stable country.

Cybersecurity is also becoming one of the defining threats of the modern era. Americans now live through digital infrastructure — banking, healthcare, utilities, communication, transportation, and even food distribution systems depend on vulnerable networks. Foreign adversaries and criminal organizations are constantly probing American systems for weaknesses. A major cyberattack on infrastructure could disrupt daily life overnight. The average American may not think about cyber warfare every day, but hostile governments absolutely do. National resilience in the digital age is now as important as military readiness.

Energy security remains another critical issue that directly affects household stability. Nations that cannot reliably produce affordable energy become weaker economically and strategically. High energy prices ripple through everything — groceries, transportation, housing, manufacturing, and utility bills. Americans feel this immediately in their wallets. Energy independence is not just about economics; it is about leverage. Countries that depend heavily on unstable foreign suppliers lose strategic flexibility and bargaining power.

Finally, America faces a broader cultural and institutional threat: declining trust in national institutions. When citizens lose faith in government competence, elections, public safety systems, financial stability, or the fairness of institutions, social cohesion weakens. A divided and internally distrustful country becomes easier for adversaries to exploit. National strength ultimately depends on confidence, unity of purpose, and belief that leaders prioritize citizens over bureaucracies, ideological agendas, or foreign interests.

At the end of the day, Americans do not ask for miracles. They want secure borders, safe communities, affordable living, reliable jobs, strong national defense, and leadership that puts the country first. Those are not radical demands. They are the basic foundations of a stable and secure nation.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

What actually threatens the security of ordinary Americans today? Not in campaign slogans. Not in the endless theater of cable-news panic. The real question is this: what dangers are making life less stable, less safe, less dignified for working people across the United States?

The answer is uncomfortable because the greatest threats are not only foreign adversaries or dramatic military confrontations. Many of the deepest dangers are already inside the country—economic inequality, political extremism, climate instability, collapsing public trust, and a healthcare system that treats survival as a business model.

Start with economic insecurity. Millions of Americans work longer hours than previous generations while struggling to afford housing, childcare, groceries, and medical bills. A nation where people cannot reliably pay rent or survive an emergency expense is not secure. Corporate profits soar while wages stagnate. Billionaires accumulate historic wealth while workers drown in debt. That imbalance corrodes democracy itself because concentrated economic power inevitably becomes concentrated political power. When ordinary people feel abandoned, anger grows, trust collapses, and demagogues thrive.

And that connects directly to another enormous threat: political polarization fueled by disinformation and cynicism. Americans are increasingly encouraged to see one another not as neighbors but as enemies. Social media algorithms reward outrage. Political actors profit from division. Foreign governments exploit those fractures, but the deeper problem is domestic: a political culture where compromise is treated as betrayal and facts themselves become partisan. A democracy cannot function when citizens lose confidence in elections, institutions, science, journalism, or even the possibility of shared reality.

Subscribe now

Climate change is also no longer a future problem. It is a present security crisis. Wildfires destroy entire communities. Hurricanes intensify. Droughts threaten food systems and water supplies. Heat waves kill vulnerable Americans quietly and relentlessly. And who suffers most? Usually working-class communities with the fewest resources to recover. Climate instability also drives migration pressures, global conflict, and economic disruption abroad that eventually reaches American shores. Ignoring this reality does not make it disappear; it only guarantees greater chaos later.

Healthcare remains another profound vulnerability. In the richest country on Earth, millions delay treatment because they fear bankruptcy. Preventable illnesses become catastrophic because people cannot afford basic care. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how fragile and unequal the system truly is. National security is not just about aircraft carriers and missile systems. A country where people cannot access doctors, medicine, mental healthcare, or addiction treatment is fundamentally weakened from within.

Then there is the growing threat of political violence and democratic erosion. January 6 was not simply a chaotic protest; it revealed how fragile constitutional norms can become when leaders encourage distrust in democratic outcomes. Extremist movements thrive in environments of economic despair, isolation, and fear. If Americans lose faith that democracy can improve their lives, authoritarian impulses become more dangerous.

None of this means foreign threats are irrelevant. Cyberattacks, geopolitical instability, nuclear proliferation, and tensions involving powers like China and Russia absolutely matter. But Americans are repeatedly told to fear external enemies while many internal crises worsen unchecked. A child poisoned by polluted water, a family bankrupted by illness, or a worker sleeping in their car after losing housing is experiencing insecurity every bit as real as any geopolitical confrontation.

Real security means more than military strength. It means affordable housing, functioning infrastructure, quality education, clean air and water, accessible healthcare, fair wages, democratic accountability, and a society where people believe the future can improve. A nation cannot bomb its way out of inequality, loneliness, corruption, or institutional decay.

The central challenge facing America is whether the country will continue concentrating wealth and power upward while demanding sacrifice from everyone else—or whether it will rebuild a democracy that actually serves ordinary people. Because in the end, the greatest threat to Americans’ security is not simply an enemy abroad. It is the slow normalization of instability, inequality, and hopelessness at home.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

The debate over what most threatens Americans’ security often becomes polarized between two camps that are talking past one another. Alex emphasizes border security, economic dependence on China, rising crime, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, energy independence, and declining trust in institutions. Jamie focuses instead on economic inequality, political extremism, climate instability, healthcare insecurity, and democratic erosion. Both perspectives identify real vulnerabilities. The deeper challenge is that America now faces a convergence of external pressure and internal fragmentation at the same time — and everyday Americans feel the consequences of both simultaneously.

Alex is correct that national sovereignty and basic order still matter profoundly. A country that cannot secure its borders or maintain operational control over migration flows will eventually strain public resources and public trust. The fentanyl crisis in particular has become one of the most devastating public health and security emergencies in modern American history. For many families, this is not an abstract policy debate but a direct encounter with addiction, overdose, and social breakdown. The rise of transnational criminal cartels, empowered by immense financial networks and sophisticated logistics, represents a genuine security challenge that reaches deep into American communities.

Alex is also right to emphasize economic dependence on strategic rivals like China. Over the last several decades, the United States prioritized efficiency and low consumer prices while allowing critical supply chains to migrate overseas. Americans discovered during the pandemic how vulnerable that made the country. Shortages of pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, medical equipment, and industrial inputs exposed how deeply national security and economic resilience are intertwined. A nation that cannot manufacture key technologies or secure strategic industries risks losing both geopolitical leverage and domestic stability.

Share Dear America Network

Jamie, however, identifies a different but equally important truth: insecurity is not experienced only through war or foreign threats. Most Americans experience insecurity through monthly bills, housing costs, healthcare access, and fear about the future. A family living paycheck to paycheck is vulnerable in ways that military strength alone cannot solve. Economic inequality has widened to levels that increasingly distort social trust and political legitimacy. When people believe the system primarily rewards insiders, resentment accumulates and democratic institutions weaken.

Jamie’s warning about polarization and disinformation is also difficult to dismiss. Americans are consuming radically different versions of reality, often amplified by algorithms that reward outrage and fear. Foreign adversaries exploit these divisions, but the fractures themselves are domestic and cultural. The danger is not simply disagreement — democracies are built to withstand disagreement — but the collapse of shared civic trust. When elections, courts, journalism, science, and even factual reality become permanently politicized, governance becomes harder and social cohesion erodes.

Where I would expand beyond both Alex and Jamie is this: the greatest long-term threat to American security is institutional decay combined with strategic overstretch. Here’s what I mean and why it is so important:

The United States is confronting a world that is becoming more competitive externally while becoming more fragmented internally. Historically, great powers decline not only because enemies grow stronger, but because domestic systems lose adaptability, competence, and public confidence.

Everyday Americans already sense this erosion in practical ways. Infrastructure ages while costs rise. Housing becomes unattainable in major metropolitan areas. Public trust in Congress, media, universities, corporations, and even basic expertise continues to collapse. Many Americans increasingly feel that institutions are either ineffective, politicized, or detached from ordinary life. That perception — whether entirely fair or not — matters enormously because democratic systems ultimately depend on legitimacy and consent rather than coercion.

I would also argue that America faces a serious demographic and social cohesion challenge that neither Alex nor Jamie fully addressed. Loneliness, declining community participation, mental health deterioration, falling trust among neighbors, declining marriage and birth rates, and rising social isolation may sound “soft” compared to military threats, but societies weakened internally become less resilient externally. A fragmented population struggles to sustain long-term national projects or collective sacrifice. Americans are wealthier materially than many societies in history, yet increasingly pessimistic about the future. That pessimism itself becomes destabilizing over time.

Cybersecurity may ultimately become the bridge connecting many of these concerns. Alex correctly notes that digital infrastructure underpins modern life, but the threat extends beyond hackers shutting down pipelines or power grids. Artificial intelligence, deepfakes, algorithmic manipulation, and information warfare are reshaping how citizens perceive truth itself. Future conflicts may involve disabling trust before disabling infrastructure. A society unable to distinguish authentic information from manipulation becomes vulnerable without a single shot being fired.

Climate risk also deserves sober attention, though not always in the apocalyptic terms common in political rhetoric. Jamie is correct that extreme weather, water stress, insurance instability, and infrastructure damage increasingly affect ordinary Americans directly through rising costs and displacement. The challenge is less likely to arrive as one dramatic catastrophe than as a steady accumulation of financial and social strain over decades.

Ultimately, the central question is not whether America’s biggest threats are foreign or domestic. It is whether the country can maintain enough institutional competence, economic resilience, social trust, and strategic discipline to navigate an era where both pressures reinforce each other. Americans want what both Alex and Jamie, in different ways, are pointing toward: stability, safety, affordability, fairness, and confidence that the future will not be worse than the present.

That is the real test of national security in the twenty-first century — not simply protecting territory, but preserving a functioning republic capable of sustaining both liberty and order under mounting pressure.

Subscribe now

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

oil prices, greater instability, and more danger for U.S. troops and allies. The right approach is maximum economic pressure, strong deterrence, support for regional partners, and absolute clarity that attacks on Americans will be met decisively. Peace through strength works because weakness invites aggression.

Third, energy remains central, whether elites like admitting it or not. Even as America expands domestic production, global oil markets still affect gasoline prices, shipping costs, airline tickets, groceries, and inflation. If a tanker route closes or a regional war erupts, families in Ohio, Texas, California, and everywhere else feel it fast. So the U.S. has a direct interest in freedom of navigation through chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. That does not mean dependence—it means realism. America should also continue pursuing energy dominance at home so foreign shocks hurt us less.

Subscribe now

Fourth, diplomacy should focus on deals, not lectures. The U.S. should encourage normalization between regional states, expand trade ties, support practical cooperation on technology and infrastructure, and reduce incentives for conflict. When countries in the Middle East choose commerce over extremism, Americans benefit through lower risk, more stable markets, and new business opportunities. Diplomatic success should be measured by fewer wars, safer trade routes, and stronger partnerships—not by how many conferences get held.

Fifth, burden-sharing must become non-negotiable. Wealthy regional states need to provide more for their own defense and security. American taxpayers should not be the automatic ATM for every crisis. If a nation wants U.S. support, there should be reciprocity: intelligence cooperation, financial participation, strategic access, or measurable alignment with U.S. priorities. Alliances should produce returns, not obligations without end.

Sixth, America must compete with China in the region smartly. Beijing wants ports, telecom networks, energy leverage, and influence. The U.S. should counter with better investment partnerships, trusted technology, defense cooperation, and transparent deals. If China controls critical infrastructure across the Middle East, that can eventually hurt American supply chains, military mobility, and economic leverage.

Most of all, Washington must remember the people paying the bills. Every policy should be judged by concrete outcomes for everyday Americans: safer streets, lower fuel costs, stable prices, fewer deployments, stronger jobs, and reduced terror risk. If a Middle East strategy cannot explain how it helps the American worker, the American family, or the American taxpayer, it is the wrong strategy.

The right U.S. role is not retreat and not empire. It is strength without stupidity, engagement without naivety, and leadership that puts America first every single time.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

The United States needs a new Middle East policy rooted in one simple question: Does this make life better and safer for ordinary Americans—and for ordinary people in the region—or does it mainly serve arms contractors, oil interests, and the vanity of empire? For too long, Washington has confused domination with leadership. The result has been trillions spent, countless lives shattered, and Americans at home told there is never enough money for healthcare, housing, or schools.

The first priority should be ending the era of endless war. After decades of invasions, occupations, drone campaigns, and open-ended military commitments, the evidence is overwhelming: military force cannot engineer stable societies or solve political grievances. Iraq stands as a historic warning. Afghanistan should have ended the illusion. Every dollar poured into unnecessary wars is a dollar not spent lowering prescription drug costs, rebuilding bridges, or supporting veterans when they come home. Americans should ask: who benefited? Certainly not the working families who paid the taxes and bore the deployments.

That does not mean isolationism. It means smart restraint. The U.S. should maintain the capacity to defend core interests—protecting global shipping lanes, deterring major interstate aggression, disrupting genuine transnational terror threats—but with a far smaller permanent military footprint. Large bases and blank-check security guarantees often create dependency, resentment, and escalation. Diplomacy backed by measured deterrence is stronger than permanent occupation disguised as stability.

Second, the U.S. must become a serious diplomatic actor rather than a selective one. Washington loses credibility when it speaks of human rights only for rivals while excusing abuses by partners. If democracy and civilian life matter, they must matter consistently—in Gaza, Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, and everywhere else. That means pushing for ceasefires, humanitarian access, prisoner exchanges, regional de-escalation, and negotiated settlements even when allies dislike the pressure. Peace is not weakness. Peace is what responsible adults pursue when war is consuming children.

Subscribe now

Third, America should reduce the region’s power over U.S. domestic life through energy independence via clean energy, not through more fossil fuel entanglement. For generations, oil dependence helped drive military commitments and exposed Americans to price shocks. The answer is not seizing influence over petroleum routes forever. It is accelerating renewable energy, storage, transit, and efficiency so that turmoil abroad has less power over gas prices and inflation at home. A solar panel in Nebraska can do more for long-term security than another failed intervention overseas.

Fourth, the U.S. should replace militarized economics with development-focused partnerships. Trade, education exchanges, water technology, climate adaptation, public health cooperation, and anti-corruption initiatives create durable relationships. Young populations across the Middle East need jobs and opportunity, not lectures delivered from the cockpit of a fighter jet. If America wants influence, build hospitals, support entrepreneurs, and help stabilize food and water systems threatened by climate change.

Fifth, Congress must reclaim authority over war and arms sales. Too often, presidents of both parties act with minimal accountability while weapons flow into conflicts that later shock the public. Americans deserve transparency: where their money goes, who receives U.S. weapons, and what strategic purpose is actually being served.

The bottom line is this: the U.S. should be a balancer, broker, and builder—not a crusader, occupier, or checkbook for perpetual conflict. Everyday Americans need lower costs, safer communities, functioning infrastructure, and a government focused on them. They do not need another generation sacrificed to geopolitical fantasies. A wiser Middle East policy would recognize that strength is not defined by how many bombs you can drop, but by how many wars you can prevent.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

The United States should pursue a Middle East strategy that is narrower than the grand ambitions of the past, firmer than pure retrenchment, and more accountable to everyday Americans than many policies have been. The central test is not ideological prestige or abstract dominance. It is whether U.S. engagement keeps Americans safer, protects their prosperity, and reduces the odds that future generations are drawn into costly wars.

Alex is right to stress that policy must begin with concrete national interests. For many Americans, the Middle East feels distant until a shipping lane closes, gasoline prices spike, or a terrorist attack reminds the public that geography does not guarantee security. Alex’s emphasis on counterterrorism, freedom of navigation, and preventing a nuclear-armed Iran reflects real concerns. If the Strait of Hormuz or Red Sea were severely disrupted, families in California or Iowa would feel it through higher fuel, food, and transport costs. Likewise, Americans have little appetite for another decade-long occupation, but they still expect their government to prevent major threats from reaching U.S. shores.

Jamie is equally right that the era of open-ended military campaigns should remain closed. The Iraq War and the long War in Afghanistan exposed the limits of trying to remake fractured societies through force. They also imposed costs measured not only in dollars, but in veterans’ injuries, family strain, and public distrust. Jamie’s warning that resources spent unwisely abroad can crowd out domestic priorities deserves attention. Americans naturally ask why bridges, ports, housing, or veterans’ care often seem harder to fund than distant conflicts.

Both perspectives also capture a broader truth: the United States should not choose between empire and isolation. It should choose disciplined leadership. That means maintaining enough military power to deter aggression and respond rapidly, while rejecting the reflex that every regional crisis requires an American-led campaign. A leaner posture—naval presence, intelligence cooperation, missile defense, special operations capacity, and flexible regional access—can often protect core interests better than sprawling troop deployments.

Share Dear America Network

My own view is that Washington should organize its Middle East policy around four practical priorities.

First, prevent catastrophic security threats. The United States cannot ignore terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or attacks on global commerce. A nuclear breakout by Iran would likely trigger regional proliferation and persistent instability. That does not mean war should be the default answer. It means combining deterrence, sanctions where useful, covert disruption, diplomacy, and clear red lines. The goal is not regime change; it is risk reduction.

Second, become a more credible diplomatic broker. Jamie is correct that selective moral language weakens American influence. The U.S. gains leverage when it applies consistent standards on civilian protection, hostage releases, humanitarian access, and negotiated de-escalation. That applies whether dealing with partners like Saudi Arabia and Israel or adversaries like Iran. Consistency will never be perfect in statecraft, but hypocrisy should not be policy.

Third, protect Americans economically by reducing vulnerability. Alex properly notes that energy markets remain globally linked. Even with strong domestic production, global oil shocks still hit U.S. consumers. But Jamie is right that long-term resilience comes from diversification: more domestic energy of all kinds, stronger grids, nuclear power, storage, efficiency, and advanced manufacturing. The less exposed the U.S. economy is to foreign disruptions, the less every regional crisis becomes an American household problem.

Fourth, require burden-sharing and congressional accountability. Wealthy regional states should shoulder more of their own defense costs. U.S. support should come with reciprocal obligations, not permanent dependency. At home, Congress should debate and authorize major uses of force rather than allowing perpetual gray-zone war by inertia. Americans deserve to know the mission, the cost, and the exit strategy.

There is also a larger strategic point. The Middle East matters, but it is no longer the sole organizing center of U.S. foreign policy. The United States must allocate attention across Indo-Pacific competition, European security, technological rivalry, border security, and domestic renewal. That requires discipline. Overcommitting in one region can weaken America everywhere else.

For everyday Americans, success should be visible in ordinary life: fewer surprise wars, lower vulnerability to oil shocks, fewer military families facing repeated deployments, reduced terror risk, steadier prices, and tax dollars spent with clearer purpose. The right U.S. role in the Middle East is neither crusader nor absentee landlord. It is a strong offshore stabilizer, pragmatic diplomat, and selective defender of vital interests. Real leadership is not measured by how many conflicts America enters, but by how many dangers it contains without sacrificing its own strength at home.

Subscribe now

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.

War with Iran is not just about bombs and troops—it’s about oil, shipping lanes, and global supply chains. The conflict has already disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, sending shockwaves through fuel prices and global trade. That means higher gas prices, more expensive groceries, and rising costs for everyday goods.

And while families tighten their belts, what happens in Washington? Military budgets balloon. Defense contractors cash in. The same corporations that helped shape U.S. foreign policy stand to profit from escalation. So we have to ask: who benefits—and who pays?

Subscribe now

Third: Americans don’t even want this war, let alone a ground invasion.
Polling shows a majority of Americans opposed the initial military action, and an overwhelming percentage want the conflict to end quickly. Even more telling: only a tiny fraction support a large-scale ground war.

That’s not apathy—that’s clarity. People understand instinctively what Washington often refuses to admit: once troops go in, getting them out is the hard part.

Fourth: the geopolitical reality is far more dangerous than advertised.
Top analysts warn that removing a regime is often the “easy” part; what follows is chaos, power vacuums, and prolonged instability. Iran is not Iraq in 2003—it is larger, more populous, and more regionally embedded. A ground war could ignite broader conflict across the Middle East, drawing in militias, regional powers, and potentially global actors.

So when policymakers talk about “decisive victory,” we should ask: what does victory actually look like? And how many years—and lives—would it take?

Finally: this is a moral question about priorities.
At a time when millions of Americans struggle with healthcare costs, housing, and student debt, are we really prepared to spend trillions more on another war? Are we prepared to sacrifice lives abroad while neglecting crises at home?

Because that’s the tradeoff. It always has been.

The truth is simple, even if it’s uncomfortable: putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran would deepen a conflict that most Americans neither want nor benefit from. It would shift resources away from urgent domestic needs and lock the country into another unpredictable, potentially endless war.

And the question we have to keep asking—loudly, relentlessly—is this: who is this war actually for?

Leave a comment

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

I’m going to talk straight about what “boots on the ground” in Iran really means for the United States—and more importantly, for everyday Americans.

Right now, we’re in a high-stakes standoff. You’ve got a fragile ceasefire, major U.S. military assets positioned in the region, and real talk about escalation. The deployment of thousands of troops and carrier groups tells you one thing clearly: America is prepared, but not reckless.

Now here’s the key point—putting American troops on the ground in Iran is not just another policy decision. It’s a fundamental shift. It means moving from strength and leverage… to occupation and exposure.

First, let’s talk about American lives. We already know Iran is not Iraq in 2003. This is a heavily armed country with missiles, drones, and decentralized forces ready for asymmetric warfare. Even limited ground operations would expose U.S. troops to serious threats—IEDs, missile strikes, guerrilla tactics. And here’s the reality: once you put troops in, it’s very hard to get them out cleanly. That’s how “short missions” turn into long wars. Americans have seen that movie before—and they’re not interested in a sequel.

Second, your wallet. This war is already hitting global energy markets. Iran’s ability to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz—a channel for roughly 20% of the world’s oil—has massive consequences. You feel that at the pump. You feel that in grocery prices. You feel that in inflation. A ground war doesn’t stabilize that—it risks making it worse and dragging it out for months or years.

Subscribe now

Third, America First strategy. The president’s approach has been clear: maximum pressure, strategic strikes, and leverage—not endless occupation. Even discussions around ground forces have focused on limited, targeted missions, not nation-building. And that’s the right instinct. Because the goal here isn’t to rebuild Iran. It’s to protect American interests, neutralize threats, and force a deal that works for the United States.

Now, critics—you hear them—say escalation is inevitable. They always say that. They said it before every major decision. But what they miss is leverage. Right now, the U.S. has it. Military positioning, economic pressure, and control over key maritime routes—that’s strength without overcommitment.

Here’s the strategic truth: Air and naval power give the U.S. dominance without the cost of occupation. Ground troops flip that equation. Suddenly, the advantage shifts. You’re playing on their terrain, under their conditions, with their rules.

And let’s be very clear about something else—mission creep is real. You start with “limited objectives,” maybe securing a site or a port. Then it expands. Then you need more troops. Then you’re stabilizing regions. Then you’re stuck. That’s not America First. That’s the old playbook Americans rejected.

So where does that leave us?

The smartest path forward is strength without entanglement. Keep the pressure. Maintain overwhelming military superiority. Force outcomes from a position of dominance—but don’t hand the advantage away by committing large numbers of American troops into a complex, hostile environment.

Bottom line: Putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran would dramatically raise the cost—in lives, in dollars, and in long-term risk—without guaranteeing a better outcome. For everyday Americans, that’s the difference between a controlled conflict… and another open-ended war.

And Americans are done paying for those.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

The debate over whether to deploy U.S. ground forces into Iran is, at its core, a question about limits—of power, of patience, and of what Americans are willing to bear. Jamie and Alex approach that question from different angles, but they converge on a central point: once American troops cross that threshold, the nature of the conflict changes in ways that are difficult to control and even harder to reverse.

Jamie frames the issue in stark, almost moral terms, arguing that a ground war would become a “generational gamble” borne disproportionately by ordinary Americans. There is truth in that emphasis. Modern U.S. wars have consistently drawn from a narrow slice of the population—often younger, working- and middle-class Americans—while the broader public experiences the consequences more indirectly, through taxes, inflation, and long-term fiscal tradeoffs. Jamie’s warning about human cost is not speculative; it reflects patterns seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, where initial expectations of speed and clarity gave way to years of ambiguity and sacrifice.

Alex, while less sweeping in tone, reinforces that same caution from a strategic vantage point. They underscore how quickly a limited deployment can slide into something larger, noting that even targeted missions carry exposure to asymmetric tactics—missiles, drones, insurgent warfare. Alex’s argument that ground forces “flip the equation” is a concise way of describing a deeper reality: the United States tends to dominate at distance—through airpower, naval reach, and intelligence—but that advantage narrows significantly once forces are fixed on the ground in hostile terrain.

For everyday Americans, these overlapping concerns translate into three tangible domains: personal risk, economic pressure, and strategic clarity.

Share Dear America Network

On personal risk, both Jamie and Alex push back against the idea that a ground war could remain contained. Jamie highlights the inevitability of casualties; Alex explains the mechanism by which they occur. Iran’s geography, population size, and network of aligned militias create a layered battlefield, not a singular front. That means any deployment would likely involve not just initial combat operations, but ongoing force protection, supply line defense, and potentially counterinsurgency efforts. History suggests that once those dynamics take hold, timelines stretch. For families with members in uniform, that uncertainty is not abstract—it shapes years of life decisions.

On the economic front, the two perspectives again reinforce each other. Jamie points to rising defense spending and the perception that benefits accrue unevenly, while costs diffuse across households. Alex narrows the lens to energy markets and inflation, particularly the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz. Both are valid, and together they capture the broader picture: a ground war would not just require direct military expenditure, but would likely prolong instability in global energy flows, feeding into fuel prices, transportation costs, and ultimately the price of everyday goods. For most Americans, that’s how distant conflicts become immediate.

Where the two diverge more meaningfully is in their interpretation of strategic intent. Jamie questions who the war is “for,” suggesting a disconnect between public sentiment and policy momentum. Alex, by contrast, argues that current U.S. strategy is deliberately calibrated—focused on leverage rather than occupation, pressure rather than entanglement. Alex frames restraint not as hesitation, but as discipline.

That distinction matters, because it points to the central strategic dilemma. The United States does have tools short of invasion that can shape outcomes: sanctions, maritime control, regional alliances, and long-range strike capabilities. These instruments allow Washington to impose costs and maintain deterrence without assuming the burdens of governance or territorial control. But they also have limits. Air and naval power can degrade capabilities and signal resolve, yet they rarely produce decisive political outcomes on their own. That gap—between military dominance and political resolution—is where pressure builds for escalation.

From a broader perspective, the most important question is not simply whether the United States can succeed militarily on the ground, but what “success” would require afterward. Iran is a far more complex state than recent U.S. intervention targets—larger, more cohesive, and more deeply integrated into regional dynamics. Removing or destabilizing its leadership could trigger second-order effects that extend beyond its borders, drawing in non-state actors and neighboring countries in unpredictable ways. In that sense, Jamie’s concern about a wider regional conflict is not alarmist; it reflects the interconnected nature of the modern Middle East.

For everyday Americans, then, the calculus comes down to tradeoffs. A ground invasion might promise greater control in the short term, but it would almost certainly increase exposure—militarily, economically, and politically—over the long term. Restraint, as Alex suggests, preserves flexibility and limits immediate costs, but may leave underlying tensions unresolved.

The sober conclusion is that there are no clean options, only gradients of risk. But history offers a consistent lesson: the threshold of “boots on the ground” is not just another step in escalation—it is a point of strategic commitment that reshapes the conflict and the country engaging in it. For a public that has spent decades absorbing the consequences of such commitments, skepticism is not fatigue alone; it is a form of hard-earned judgment.

Subscribe now

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.

2. Considering that first building block that Iran does have – nuclear material – the June 2025 U.S. bombing operation inflicted significant damage on Iran’s nuclear sites. A White House press release shortly afterwards titled, ‘Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News,’ (see Reference #2) even stated that Iran’s nuclear program had been set back “years.” Further, U.S. intelligence agencies recently assessed and testified to Congress that following the June 2025 attack, Iran had not yet attempted to rebuild their damaged nuclear program.

3. Two days after the February 2026 bombing began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio – one of the more deliberate and articulate communicators in the Trump administration – stated that the reason that the U.S. attacked Iran was because the administration knew there was going to be an Israeli attack on Iran first, and the U.S. assessed that this action would cause the Iranians to attack U.S. military bases in the region in response. Therefore, the U.S. decided to join the Israelis in a first strike in order to mitigate or prevent Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases. This claim was later backed up by the Trump appointed former Director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, when he very publicly resigned from his role alluding to this convoluted justification for the war as his primary reason.

Leave a comment

After considering all of this, the best answer we are left with as to why this war was launched boils down to the Trump administration’s diplomatic patience wearing thin, and concluding that the best option left was military action with Israel. Therefore, as the logic goes, better to do it now rather than wait any longer and risk the Iranians restarting their nuclear program and dashing for a bomb.

This logic chain is straightforward on the surface, but there are two major considerations we must grapple with. One, unless you’re willing to kill all of the thousands of Iranian regime hardliners or annihilate a “whole civilization,” you will have to keep coming back periodically to bomb again in the future – a high-stakes game of whack-a-mole, or a military concept the Israelis know as ‘mowing the lawn’ – not a commitment many Americans are likely to sign up for. And two, a preemptive, bombing approach has not yet dealt with the laundry list of second-order effects or risks it creates.

Two days before the U.S. got involved in June 2025, I warned about several of these potential risks: the inability to fully destroy the Iranian nuclear program; the illusion of a quick, successful operation; disruption to the Strait of Hormuz and global oil markets; the subsequent involvement of Iranian allies and U.S. strategic adversaries China and Russia; Iranian retaliation against U.S. interests in the Gulf; and, another unsupported, spiraling regime change operation in the Middle East (see Reference #3 to revisit those warnings). Those risks are just as relevant now and in February 2026 as they were in June 2025.

Did the Trump administration take these risks into consideration before striking Iran? Possibly, but based on various administration public statements since the war began, it is appearing increasingly likely that the president did not weight them too heavily in his decision. Moreover, from recent detailed reporting of White House Situation Room deliberations in the weeks leading up to the attack (see Reference #4), it does appear these risks were heavily discounted by the president even as some of his Cabinet officials brought them to light, and especially after a convincing briefing by Israeli intelligence and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

This briefing and supporters of the war likely appealed to the president’s confidence following the recent, extraordinary tactical success of the military operation in Venezuela in January 2026. However, as we have all come to see very publicly – Iran is not Venezuela. Regardless, ultimately from this reporting, and as a recurring theme in the administration that will not surprise anyone, although the president consulted his Cabinet it is clear that the final decision to go to war was exclusively President Trump’s.

But once again, why did the U.S. really decide to attack Iran, and why now? This is what I think happened. President Trump has said for years that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a red line for him. He exercised significant diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran during his first administration (2017-2021), but he has grown increasingly militaristic in his second term. I think he still loves making a grand deal more than using military force, but I also think he has become enamored by the impressive capabilities of the U.S. military (e.g., Iran in 2025, Venezuela, and five other countries the U.S. bombed during the first year of the second Trump administration).

So – encouraged by Iran hardliners such as Netanyahu, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, and others – he finally grew impatient with the diplomatic process underway via nuclear negotiations with Iran, saw them as very weak due to Israel’s degradation of Iranian proxy groups and much of Iran’s air defenses in recent years, and thought the quick success in Venezuela could be replicated in Iran. Kill their leader, overwhelm them with raw military power, and they will fold. Further, the president would get to become the U.S. president that finally solved the Iran challenge vexing other presidents since 1979 – a legacy defining feat that the history books would say only ‘Trump’ could accomplish. The opportunity was too good to pass up for the president, and despite his “no more foreign wars” campaign from earlier years, he made his bet.

Subscribe now

Question 2: What have the American people gained from the war?

Another way to think about this question is: how has the security of Americans improved as a result of this war? We’ve already established that prior to the war, in the short to medium term, there was not an identified threat from Iran to the U.S. homeland. Therefore, conceptually what was available to be gained from the war was improved long-term security for the American people, as well as improved security for U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East. This is what was on the table, but at what cost, and was war the best option to achieve this?

In a White House memo sent to Congress shortly after the war began, the Trump administration laid out four objectives for the war:

1. Obliterate Iran’s missile supply and production capacity

2. Annihilate its navy

3. Sever Iran’s support for terrorist proxies in the Middle East

4. Prevent them from ever developing a nuclear weapon

A fifth objective – regime change – was not officially stated, but certainly discussed privately and implied by President Trump’s recorded video message the day the war began (see Reference #5). In his message, the president called on the Iranian military to lay down their arms and for the people to take over the government. Further, the first strike of the war was a successful assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and many other top regime officials.

After over a month of persistent bombing by the U.S. and Israel – with the Trump administration even stating at one point that “well over 1,000 targets a day” were being hit – U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran’s missile capacity has been reduced by 50 percent, their naval capabilities by as much as 90 percent, and their nuclear material still likely buried under (even more) rubble than before. Militarily, the war has unsurprisingly been a story of domination by the U.S. and Israel, with a handful of successes by the Iranians targeting the U.S. and Israeli militaries directly. Outside of this, the Iranians response has centered around targeting U.S. Gulf allies and damaging the global economy by disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (e.g., oil, natural gas, fertilizer, etc.).

On the surface, this may seem like a success for the U.S. – as the White House is fond of reminding us – and from a military operations perspective, in many ways it is. However, operational success does not guarantee strategic success. Let me explain what I mean from the perspective of the first- and second-order effects of this war. In other words, the impacts we saw immediately and the impacts we are just beginning to see.

» First-order effects (by war objective)

( 1 & 2 ) Missiles and Navy. As mentioned, significant damage has been done to Iran’s capabilities here. The Iranian military is significantly less capable today of projecting power regionally and beyond than they were before the war. Yet, with half their missiles and thousands of drones remaining, they still have the ability to do damage and create significant disruption in the region.

( 3 ) Proxies. This war objective has largely fallen off White House talking points and has not been a focus for the U.S. in the war. Iran’s two primary proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen – are damaged, but Iranian support has not been severed, and expect them to continue to be a boost to Iran’s overall military capabilities.

( 4 ) Nuclear weapon. Iran’s nuclear production facilities are significantly damaged, and their enriched nuclear material is likely buried under rubble. However, we do not know this for sure, and regardless the nuclear material still exists. Iran either keeps it (likely unacceptable to the U.S.), hands it over willingly to the U.S. or an international organization (likely unacceptable to Iran), or the U.S. military executes a risky operation to physically remove the nuclear material using boots on the ground.

( 5 ) Regime change. Iran’s former Supreme Leader is dead. However, he was very sick already and recently described preferring to die as a martyr rather than from sickness in a hospital. This war granted him that wish. Moreover, shortly after his death, his son filled his spot. There is speculation that he is incapacitated or dead as well, but regardless, there are hundreds of regime ayatollahs and mullahs ready to fill the role, while the Iranian military exerts increasing control over the government. New leader, same regime.

Share

» Second-order effects (by select risk (highlighted earlier))

( 1 ) Persian Gulf disruption. Iran’s primary response in this war has been to attack U.S. regional allies (e.g., Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others), attack U.S. military bases in the region, and block shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This caused immediate disruption to the global economy, but the full impact has yet to be felt even if the war stops today. U.S. Gulf allies’ economies are getting hit hard, several U.S. bases and embassies in the region have been damaged and evacuated, and much of the 20+ percent of the world’s oil that typically flows through the strait is not getting to market. While it is true that the U.S. is not as reliant on Middle Eastern oil as it once was, the oil market is global, and U.S. prices are still impacted. Of course, most Americans already realize this as they are reminded each time they fill up their car. Since the war began, average U.S. gas prices have increased well over $1 / gallon, with Americans paying over $400 million more at the pump every day ($10-15 billion so far in the war). Additionally, because oil is at the root of the modern economy – for anything shipped, manufactured, and more – expect prices on many goods you buy to increase as well (i.e., inflation).

( 2 ) Nuclear program sprint. Iran’s nuclear program has clearly been hit hard by all the bombing last year and more recently. There is no doubt this war has delayed their ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Yet, they still have enriched nuclear material, as mentioned, and fully destroying their program is all but impossible as long as there is a will to continue. This is especially true in a society as highly educated, resource rich, and resilient as the Iranians. Moreover, consider the mindset of their new leader, who was already considered to be more hardline than his father before he came to power. He just had his father, mother, wife, son, and likely other relatives, killed in this war – how should we expect him to respond? For this and other strategic reasons, it is likely the Iranian regime’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapon will be more intense now than they were before the war. Since this is unacceptable to the U.S. and global community, and because Americans do not have a desire for perpetual military action in Iran any time a new nuclear program is believed to be progressing in the future, any solution for the U.S. is always going to come back to diplomacy.

( 3 ) Iranian regime hardliners. In addition to the new Supreme Leader, the Iranian regime leaders that have survived the war so far are emerging as some of the more extreme. Additionally, the military is increasing its control over society and the government, and has a historically close relationship with the new Supreme Leader. Despite the losses they have taken in this war, simply surviving the bombardment with some of their military capabilities still intact will embolden them. Rather than a new, democratic Iran with free people and moderate leaders emerging from the war, we should not be surprised if instead what the world gets is a military dictatorship.

( 4 ) Other risks. There are of course additional second-order effects and risks with a war of this global significance, but highlighting just a few others that have already shown signs that they are occurring: spiraling escalation of the war and deeper U.S. military involvement; the entrance into the war of Iranian allies and U.S. strategic adversaries China and Russia; and third-order effects and beyond that are difficult to predict (e.g., food scarcity in some countries due to fertilizer shortages (over 25 percent of global fertilizer trade typically passes through the Strait of Hormuz)).

Taking a step back, these first- and second order effects just discussed should be a primary consideration when assessing what Americans have gained from this war. In addition to the costs (e.g., gasoline prices, inflation, etc.) directly mentioned and implied by those effects, Americans should also consider that at least 13 U.S. service members have been killed and several hundred wounded, while military spending alone is estimated to average $1-2 billion each day ($40-50 billion total, through the April 7^th ceasefire).

With all of this in mind, we have to ask ourselves again: has this war improved the long-term security of the American people and the security of U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East? It is tempting to say that degrading the Iranian military makes for a more peaceful world, but as we are seeing in real time it is not that simple. Iran is acting even more belligerent now than they ever have in the past, they are led by even more extreme hardliners and military leaders motivated to seek revenge and likely pursue a nuclear weapon, and they have more leverage in negotiations with the U.S. than they did before the war started (e.g., effective control over the Strait of Hormuz). The Iranian regime and military are deeply battered – physically and economically, to be sure – but survival is a skill they have honed well throughout their 47 years in power, and unlike the U.S., this alone is enough for them to consider the war a win.

The long-term is notoriously difficult to assess, but on the whole, I expect that this war has done more to decrease Americans’ long-term security rather than improve it. As a proud American myself, I would love to be wrong.

Subscribe now

Question 3: What’s next?

The war in Iran is very volatile and its trajectory can change at any moment, particularly once the president posts the next update or extraordinary military threat on social media. However, the good news is that there is currently a fragile two-week ceasefire in place until Wednesday (April 22^nd), and the U.S. and Iran may continue formal negotiations in the next few days. The bad news is that the negotiating positions of each side are still far apart and are likely to take weeks to months to be fully resolved.

Just yesterday (April 17^th), several optimistic claims were made by President Trump – an agreement to allow the U.S. to physically remove enriched nuclear material from Iran, a full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and more that the Iranians have already denied they agreed to. This is just a continuation of more posturing and ‘negotiating tactics’ at this point. However, Americans should ignore the words, and watch for actions.

Observing actions, this is how I read the situation currently. Iran’s effective control and mining of the Strait of Hormuz have created significant global economic disruption and the U.S. has not had an effective strategic response to change the situation up to this point. Bombing alone, no matter how damaging to Iran, has not worked for this purpose. However, the recent U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports shows promising signs of an effective tool in the war so far. If you are wondering why this was not done earlier, it is because there are clear geopolitical risks to this approach. Unlike U.S.-Gulf ally countries, because Iran has been in control of the strait, their oil shipments have (ironically) not been impacted yet by the war, allowing them to make even more money selling oil during the war than before (due to higher prices). This is what the blockade will change. Yet, over 80 percent of that oil goes to our foremost strategic adversary – China. Moreover, with U.S. intelligence agencies assessing that China is already providing intelligence and air defense systems to Iran, how the Chinese react to the blockade if it continues for an extended period of time is something to keep an eye on.

Further, what I also see is the largest U.S. military presence in the Middle East in over 20 years. I see additional U.S. troops in the thousands that have been deployed to the region in the past few weeks with all of them having arrived recently. Many of these aren’t U.S. Navy or Air Force troops assisting with the blockade or bombing campaign – these are U.S. Army paratroopers and Marines with specific skillsets for air-to-land and water-to-land (amphibious) assaults and extraction. In addition to this, I see a U.S. Secretary of War (Hegseth) consistently speaking bombastically in the press about the state of the war, and saying the U.S. will get Iran’s nuclear material by “any means necessary.” Two weeks ago, this same secretary also fired three U.S. Army generals, including the highest-ranking officer in the Army, with no official reason provided – an unprecedented wartime action in U.S. history. There was speculation as to the reason, but what could their disagreement possibly have been about I wonder…

Share Dear America Network

With all of that said, this is what I expect could happen in the coming days. I am optimistic that the ceasefire will hold and negotiations go smoothly, but realistically, there is not much basis for this position. Both President Trump and the Iranians are known to be tough negotiators, often taking maximalist positions. The president in particular has shown a fondness for escalation, and for better or worse, the U.S. system holistically (e.g., militarily, economically, etc.) provides a large base of power for the president to weaponize during negotiations (see Reference #6 for strategic analysis of that power base historically).

Taken together, I expect negotiations to have many setbacks and potentially unravel altogether in the near-term. I expect the president to become frustrated with the progress of negotiations and order the U.S. military to resume bombing Iran – potentially as soon as next week. In response to this, Iran will once again choke off the Strait of Hormuz to what little traffic began moving through on April 17^th & 18^th. Further, if increased bombing of Iranian military sites and civilian infrastructure is severe enough, I expect the Iranian regime to ask their ally in Yemen, the Houthis, to begin disrupting and effectively blocking shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and Red Sea. This has already occurred recently in 2023 and 2024 (see Reference #1), so it is clear that the Houthis have this capability. If both of these straits on either side of the Arabian Peninsula are effectively blocked, the global economic disruption and ripple effects could be catastrophic.

Therefore, if this scenario were to happen, I fully expect President Trump to escalate the situation even further. This is where the specialist U.S. troops recently deployed to the Middle East come into play. It’s worth mentioning first that despite President Trump’s claim on April 17^th, the likelihood of the Iranians allowing the U.S. to enter the country and physically remove their enriched nuclear material is very low. The likelihood of the Iranians agreeing to give up their nuclear program entirely is near zero. As a result, whether in response to both straits being blocked, frustration with negotiations, or a combination of both, I believe President Trump is prepared, and at that point willing, to use ground troops in Iran.

By no means will these troop numbers be enough for anything resembling a full-scale invasion, but it could be enough for a military operation that is a (theoretically) quick assault on a defined location in Iran, followed by excavation and extraction of nuclear material. If there is any military in the world that could pull something like this off successfully, it is the extraordinarily capable and professional U.S. military. However, this is an incredibly difficult and risky gamble that could take hundreds of U.S. service members’ lives and embroil the U.S. in (another) costly, intractable war in the Middle East. Americans were confidently told “4 to 6 weeks” at the start of this war, and we are already past that window. Regardless of the timing, are Americans really ready for boots on the ground in Iran?

Leave a comment

I want to end this letter by zooming out and keeping in mind the bigger picture of all of this, as it tends to get lost in the daily chaos of politics and war. One way to look at the war is using an international relations topic called ‘grand strategy.’ I have spoken about this extensively, but most relevantly I have provided an analysis and explanation of America’s grand strategy (through 2024) (see Reference #7).

When you look at issues like the war in Iran from this perspective, a very clear question begins to emerge: what the hell are we doing in the Middle East again? Every U.S. National Defense Strategy of the past 15+ years has described reprioritizing U.S. defense to focus on Asia and the Indo-Pacific, which is, by the numbers, the new epicenter of the global economy as well as home to America’s foremost competitor and strategic adversary, China. There is a reason for this consistency across multiple Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. Notably, this prioritization of Asia is also true for the first and second Trump administrations, including the latest National Defense Strategy issued in January 2026 just a month before the war in Iran began. Reprioritizing doesn’t mean abandoning lower priorities – including the Middle East – but it does require changing our approach.

We get it, we just don’t do it, and that’s bad strategy for America. This is not a new issue for the U.S., but it is coming to light fully during the war in Iran. While the U.S. shifts its focus and expends an extraordinary amount of increasingly limited military firepower to fight in the Middle East:

• China covertly supports Iran in the war, continues to rapidly build up its military and industrial base at home, and increases its reputation as the stable, responsible great power (vs. the U.S.) for other leading nations to partner with;

• Russia provides battlefield targeting intelligence and drones to support Iran, their war in Ukraine continues while the world is now preoccupied elsewhere, and due to the war in Iran and global oil crunch, the U.S. has lifted sanctions on Russian oil, which along with high prices, is providing the Russian petrostate with billions more in revenue to boost a strained government budget focused on military reindustrialization;

• in Asia more broadly – a region heavily dependent on imported oil and natural gas from the Middle East – America’s allies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines) are being weakened strategically from the U.S. moving military assets from that region to the Middle East, and economically by oil and other petrochemical shortages (with some nations already resorting to rationing of gasoline and other goods);

• and in Europe, countries are experiencing many of the same economic disruptions already described, and are left wondering why their closest historical ally is berating them for not assisting in risky military operations for a war in which they had no warning or say in starting – increasing public sentiment towards the U.S. as, not a centuries-old friend, but a potential adversary just behind Russia and China – a stunning turn of events in just over one year.

Ultimately, it should become clearer to Americans that the choice for the U.S. to go to war with Iran has already had sweeping impacts both domestically and globally. Some of these we see now and could be temporary, while others are still to come and could stay with us far into the future. Yet, for Americans trying to understand this choice to go to war or even develop an informed perspective on its consequences, it can quickly become overwhelming. This need for Americans to have clarity on what we’re doing in the world and why is the reason I started Dear America Network. It is also the reason I wrote a book last year – The Great Disorder (see Reference #8) – in which I provided a diagnosis of our trajectory as a nation and laid out principled solutions, grounded in American values, that will ensure our nation’s success well into the future. The key messages in the book are even more relevant today than they were when initially written.

With so much happening with the war in Iran each day and week, it’s easy to lose sight of the bigger, longer-term picture, but both are important to America’s future. What will happen in the war tomorrow and what the president will do to deal with it are impossible to predict. Staying level-headed and equipping yourself with trustworthy, thoughtful information is the best way to prepare yourself for the uncertainties ahead.

Subscribe now

Think freely,

Zack Spratling
Founder & CEO
Dear America Network

References:

1. Iranian proxy groups

2. White House press release (June 2025)

3. U.S. Middle East warnings (June 2025)

4. White House Situation Room (February 2026)

5. President Trump war announcement (February 2026)

6. American power

7. American Grand Strategy

8. The Great Disorder

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.

Key Facts

• The war began on February 28, 2026, with coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran.

• Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks targeting Israel, U.S. bases, and Gulf allies.

• Both sides have targeted energy infrastructure, including gas fields and power facilities.

• Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz to nearly all traffic, disrupting global oil shipments.

• The conflict has expanded regionally, with attacks reported in countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.

• U.S. military assets, including aircraft carriers and bombers, have been deployed, increasing strain on U.S. defense resources globally.

Timeline

• February 28, 2026: The U.S. and Israel launch surprise airstrikes on Iran, targeting military and nuclear sites.

• Early March: Iran retaliates with missile and drone attacks on Israel and U.S. positions in the region.

• Mid-March: Fighting intensifies, with both sides striking energy infrastructure. Oil prices begin rising as shipping is disrupted.

• Late March (weeks 3–4):

  • Iran expands attacks to Gulf energy facilities and U.S. bases.

  • The U.S. issues ultimatums related to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and threatens further strikes on Iranian infrastructure.

Current Situation (as of end of March 2026)
The war is ongoing with no confirmed ceasefire. Airstrikes, missile exchanges, and cyber or proxy attacks continue across multiple countries. Iran has warned it will escalate further if its energy facilities are targeted again, while U.S. and Israeli leaders have indicated the possibility of continued or expanded operations.

There are conflicting reports about diplomacy. U.S. officials have suggested that talks may be underway or possible, while Iranian officials publicly deny any negotiations.

Relevance to Americans

• Energy prices: Disruptions in oil shipping and attacks on energy infrastructure have contributed to higher gasoline and energy costs.

• Military involvement: The U.S. is directly engaged, deploying significant forces, which may affect defense priorities globally.

• Economic impact: Rising oil and fertilizer costs could affect food prices and supply chains.

• Security concerns: The U.S. government has advised increased caution for Americans abroad due to potential retaliation or regional instability.

Share Dear America Network

The Story According to Jamie on the Left.

The war in Iran is being sold to the American public in the oldest language Washington knows: security, strength, necessity. But strip away the rhetoric, and a harder question emerges—one that every working American should be asking: Who is actually paying the price for this war? Because it’s not the people making the decisions. It’s you.

The Cost You Feel First: Your Wallet

Let’s start with the most immediate, undeniable reality: this war is already hitting Americans where it hurts most—the cost of living.

Gas prices have surged nearly a dollar per gallon nationwide since the conflict began, costing Americans hundreds of millions of dollars more every single day. And that’s just the beginning. When oil supply is disrupted—especially through choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, which handles a massive share of global energy—prices ripple outward. That means higher grocery bills, more expensive shipping, rising utility costs, and more.

Economists warn that nearly everything—from food to transportation—gets more expensive in a war like this. So ask yourself: when you’re paying more at the pump, when your rent goes up, when your paycheck doesn’t stretch as far—who decided that was a price worth paying?

The Cost You Don’t See: Your Tax Dollars

Now let’s talk about something even bigger—what this war is costing you as a taxpayer. In just the first week, the United States spent over $11 billion on military operations. Eleven billion dollars—in seven days. Think about that. That’s money that could have gone to healthcare, infrastructure, student debt relief, climate resilience, and more. Instead, it’s going into bombs, missiles, and a conflict with no clear end. And history tells us something uncomfortable: wars like this rarely stay cheap, and they rarely stay short.

The Human Cost: Soldiers and Civilians

Then there’s the cost measured in human lives. American service members have already been killed in retaliatory attacks. Families across this country will carry that loss forever. And abroad, civilians are caught in the crossfire—critical infrastructure hit, water systems disrupted, entire regions destabilized.

We’ve seen this story before. Iraq. Afghanistan. Promises of quick victories followed by years—decades—of consequences. So we have to ask: what is the actual objective here? And more importantly, what is the exit?

The Risk at Home: Security and Freedoms

War doesn’t stay “over there.” Experts warn that retaliation—whether through cyberattacks or terrorism—could reach U.S. soil. That’s not speculation; it’s precedent. And historically, war has also meant something else: expanded surveillance, reduced civil liberties, and a government asking for more power in the name of safety. So the question becomes: are Americans safer—or simply more controlled?

The Bigger Picture: Who Benefits?

Finally, let’s step back. This war is already driving up oil prices, destabilizing global markets, and increasing inflation risks. Defense contractors will profit. Energy companies will profit. But will ordinary Americans? Or will they once again be told to sacrifice—while the benefits flow upward?

The Bottom Line

This isn’t just a foreign policy story. It’s a kitchen-table issue. It’s about whether your life becomes more expensive, less secure, and more uncertain because of decisions made thousands of miles away. And here’s the uncomfortable truth: wars are easy to start. They are politically useful. They project strength. But for the vast majority of Americans, they deliver something else entirely: higher costs, greater risks, and fewer resources at home.

So the real question isn’t whether this war can be justified in theory. It’s whether it can be justified to the people who are living with its consequences every single day.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Alex on the Right.

Let’s cut through the noise and talk about what actually matters for the American people when it comes to the war in Iran.

First, understand this: this conflict didn’t come out of nowhere. Iran spent years pushing toward nuclear capability, building missiles, funding terror networks, and threatening U.S. interests across the Middle East. That’s not speculation—that’s reality. The decision to act was about one thing: stopping a hostile regime before it becomes an unstoppable threat.

Now, here’s the key point—this war is being fought from a position of strength. The opening strikes took out critical Iranian leadership and military infrastructure in a matter of hours. That’s what decisive leadership looks like. You don’t wait around, you don’t negotiate from weakness—you act, and you act hard.

But let’s bring this back home, because that’s what matters most.

Number one: energy and your wallet.
Right now, the biggest immediate impact for everyday Americans is gas prices. Iran has tried to choke off the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global oil—about 20% of the world’s supply flows through it. When that gets disrupted, prices go up. We’re already seeing pressure at the pump. That’s real. That hits families, commuters, truckers—everyone.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth: this is exactly why energy independence matters. When America produces its own energy, we don’t get held hostage by regimes halfway across the world. That’s not theory—that’s common sense.

Number two: avoiding endless war.
The president has made it clear—this is not about getting stuck in another forever war. The goal is to hit hard, achieve objectives, and get out. We’re already hearing timelines measured in weeks, not years. That’s a completely different mindset from what Washington elites pushed for decades.

Americans don’t want another Iraq. They don’t want nation-building. They want strength, results, and then our troops back home. Period.

Number three: economic ripple effects.
This conflict is shaking global markets—shipping routes disrupted, flights halted, supply chains strained. That translates into higher costs for goods, potential stock market volatility, and pressure on jobs tied to global trade.

But here’s the flip side: a weakened Iran means less long-term instability. Less chaos in the Middle East ultimately means more predictable markets. Short-term pain, long-term stability—that’s the calculation.

Number four: national security at home.
Iran has already shown it can retaliate—missiles, drones, cyber activity targeting U.S. interests and allies. Americans should expect heightened security vigilance. That’s the cost of confronting a regime like this.

But again—would you rather deal with that now, or later when Iran has nuclear weapons? That’s the real choice.

Finally: fairness and burden-sharing.
One of the most important messages coming out of this is simple: America is done carrying the world on its back. Other countries rely on Middle Eastern oil just as much—if not more—than we do. They need to step up, secure their own interests, and stop expecting U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill. That’s not isolationism. That’s common sense.

So when you zoom out, here’s the bottom line: This war is about preventing a bigger, more dangerous future conflict, protecting American strength, and reshaping how the U.S. engages globally—on our terms. It’s not risk-free. Gas prices, economic pressure, security concerns—those are real. But the alternative—doing nothing while Iran grows stronger—is far worse. And that’s the choice in front of the country. Strength now, or regret later.

Leave a comment

The Story According to Dan.

The debate over a potential war with Iran is unfolding along familiar lines, but for most Americans, the stakes are less about ideology and more about tangible consequences—cost of living, security, and whether the country is entering another open-ended conflict. Jamie and Alex offer two sharply different interpretations, and each captures part of the picture, though neither fully resolves the deeper strategic tension at play.

Jamie’s argument centers on burden—who pays, and how quickly. They point to rising gas prices, inflationary pressure, and the sheer scale of military spending as evidence that Americans are already absorbing the costs. That concern is not misplaced. Energy shocks tied to instability in the Persian Gulf have historically translated into higher prices across the U.S. economy, and war spending does compete, at least indirectly, with domestic priorities. Jamie’s broader warning—that conflicts tend to expand beyond their initial scope—reflects lessons learned over the past two decades.

Alex, by contrast, frames the conflict as a necessary act of preemption. Their argument rests on the premise that Iran’s trajectory—militarily and regionally—poses a growing threat that becomes harder to manage over time. From that vantage point, acting early, decisively, and with limited objectives is not recklessness but risk management. Alex also emphasizes that Americans should care about avoiding a larger future war, even if that means accepting short-term disruptions now.

Both perspectives converge on a key reality: Americans will feel this war most immediately through economic pressure and uncertainty. Where they diverge is on whether those costs represent an avoidable burden or a necessary investment in long-term stability.

What neither perspective fully grapples with, however, is how difficult it is to control the trajectory of a conflict once it begins. Modern wars—especially those involving regional powers like Iran—rarely remain confined to initial plans. Iran’s strategy historically has not depended on conventional dominance but on asymmetric response: proxy forces, cyber operations, maritime disruption. That means even a “limited” U.S. operation can trigger dispersed and prolonged retaliation, not necessarily a direct, decisive counterstrike.

For everyday Americans, this introduces a different kind of risk—less visible than troop deployments, but potentially more persistent. Cyberattacks on infrastructure, disruptions to global shipping, or sustained pressure on oil markets can create a drawn-out sense of instability without a clear endpoint. This is not the Iraq model of large-scale occupation; it is something more diffuse, and in some ways harder to measure or conclude.

Share Dear America Network

There is also a strategic paradox at the heart of this conflict. The United States may be able to degrade Iran’s capabilities in the short term, but unless that pressure translates into a durable political outcome—whether deterrence, negotiation, or internal change—the underlying tensions remain. Military action can buy time or shift leverage, but it rarely resolves the core political disputes on its own. That raises a critical question: what does success actually look like, and how will Americans recognize it when they see it?

Energy remains the most immediate connection between distant conflict and daily life. Even with increased domestic production, the U.S. is still tied to global pricing. A prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would not just raise gas prices temporarily; it could reinforce broader inflation at a time when many households are still recovering from recent economic strain. That creates a political and economic feedback loop—public frustration at home can shape how long the U.S. is willing to sustain operations abroad.

At the same time, there is a legitimate strategic argument that allowing adversarial regimes to expand their capabilities unchecked carries its own long-term costs. The challenge is not choosing between action and restraint in the abstract, but calibrating force in a way that advances security without triggering a wider spiral. That requires clarity of objectives, discipline in execution, and, perhaps most importantly, a credible plan for what comes after the initial phase of conflict.

For Americans watching this unfold, skepticism and concern are both reasonable responses. History offers examples that support Jamie’s caution about costs and overreach, as well as Alex’s warning that inaction can allow threats to grow more dangerous. The difficulty is that policymakers rarely get to choose between clean options; they are managing risk in a world where both action and inaction carry consequences.

In the end, the measure that will matter most is not the opening phase of the war, but its trajectory. If it remains contained, achieves limited objectives, and avoids dragging the United States into a prolonged regional struggle, it may be seen as a difficult but justified use of force. If it expands—economically, militarily, or politically—it will reinforce the sense that ordinary Americans are once again paying for a conflict whose benefits are uncertain and whose endpoint is unclear.

That uncertainty, more than any single data point, is what defines this moment. And it is what Americans, more than anyone, will ultimately have to live with.

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 about dropping bombs in the Middle East.

Maybe you heard this week about “Signalgate,” “another hoax,” or discussion of ‘classified war plans,’ depending on which source of information you defer to. Nevertheless, I’m going to lay out the basic facts in this letter, my read in between the lines based on the information made public to this point, and the story that actually matters here. But to start, what happened in short was that high-level Trump administration officials accidently leaked a highly sensitive, and timely – as in, down to the hour and minute of missile strikes – national security discussion to the press in near real-time (note, I’ll share all of those texts for your reference at the end of this letter).

This basic fact has not been disputed. However, beyond that is where the political machines spin up to create a whirlwind of blame shifting that causes sane Americans to tune out and flip to March Madness or The White Lotus. Since this is a Republican administration, Democrats have seized on this blunder to make a potent example of “incompetence,” and even charges as extreme as “espionage.” To be sure, Republicans would do much the same, as it would be considered political malpractice in Washington to let a good crisis go to waste. It’s rarely the case, but this is one of the few occasions where raising some political hell is entirely justified – if for no other legitimate reason than to make the political PR so painful that it deters future mistakes like these.

Typically, as I’ve discussed before, I disregard much of our domestic political infighting as irrelevant to the real strategic challenges America faces as a nation. However, there is a story in this particular situation that matters – it’s just not the one you’re seeing in headlines. Americans deserve truth and substance. So, let’s get past the spin and cut to what matters and why.

Share

The Facts

Fact #1. The portion of the text conversation that leaked took place over the course of three days, leading up to the initial U.S. strike in Yemen on Saturday, March 15^th. The military operation is still ongoing, with strikes occurring daily, and is targeted at a terrorist group in the region called the ‘Houthis.’ U.S. strikes against the Houthis began off-and-on under the Biden administration over a year ago in January 2024. This most recent strike marked a continuation of that military campaign, now under the Trump administration.

The background for these strikes, in short, is that the Houthis have been creating chaos for military and commercial ships transiting a key shipping lane in the Middle East for well over a year. They claim solidarity with another terrorist group, ‘Hamas,’ as well as the Palestinian people in Gaza, and say that they will continue targeting ships in the Red Sea until the war in Gaza stops. For more background on the geopolitics at play here, you can go to our Grand Strategy series here to get the full story, including maps and analysis of the situation.

Fact #2. On Thursday, March 13^th, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz created a Signal chat group that included 19 members. President Trump was not on the group chat, but pretty much everyone else in the administration that mattered for the topic of discussion, was. That primarily included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, top national security officials Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Director of the CIA John Ratcliffe, as well as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.

Fact #3. In addition to these intentional additions to the chat, there was one, clearly unintentional, addition of a journalist. That was Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic magazine. President Trump initially said it was a staffer on Mike Waltz’ team that mistakenly added Goldberg to the chat. But later, Waltz took personal responsibility for the oversight, although he indicated that it was not clear to him how exactly Goldberg’s number was added and that this is being investigated.

Share Dear America Network

Between the Lines

This was a major screw up with potentially dire consequences. The level of information that was provided in the chat (particularly by Hegseth) was clearly ‘classified’ by any basic measure of categorizing national security information. Don’t let the spin convince you otherwise. Yet, also do not let the spin convince you that this mistake alone is a full-on indictment of the incompetence of the Trump administration – it is not that either. To put it very simply, the two most critical mistakes were Waltz adding someone (Goldberg) without the proper security clearance to this discussion, and Hegseth providing an hour and minute play-by-play of a live military operation. That’s the crux of it.

Yet, real leaders own their mistakes, and that is what needs to happen here. As of this writing, Waltz has begun to do that (partially), but not Hegseth (yet). …Guys, the American people aren’t stupid, and in this case the evidence/texts are staring us in the face. Own your shit, take one on the chin, and march onwards. You serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States, and an investigation should take place, but let the chips fall where they may now. Assuming you keep your jobs, in addition to your passion for defending our nation, as any good leader and national security professional does, add a bit more skepticism and maybe even a shot of paranoia to your morning diet. Americans will be safer for it.

Was it odd that of all people Jeffrey Goldberg was added to that chat? Yes, very. How Mike Waltz – an accomplished business leader, congressman, and a decorated veteran, including a Green Beret in the Army Special Forces – of all people in the discussion made this particular blunder, I can’t wrap my head around. But I will certainly give him the benefit of the doubt he deserves, and you should too. Americans need to let the investigation(s) play out, hold those responsible accountable, and ensure this doesn’t happen again. Democrats and courageous Republicans should force an independent investigation, and if the Trump administration wants to investigate the technical side of what happened, per Waltz’ insinuation, then that’s their right as well. Between the two, if there is a “there there” as political-types like to say, we’ll certainly learn more as this story evolves.

Excluding the two key mistakes by Waltz and Hegseth, in regards to the debate about the technology that was used, it’s important to be intellectually honest about the fact that having sensitive discussions via encrypted chats is not uncommon and not unique to the Trump administration. Signal is end-to-end encrypted, and known to be one of the most secure, publicly available communication methods. As the head of the CIA (Ratcliffe) said in his testimony this week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, even CIA officers use it for work purposes. That being said, for the detailed, real-time attack plans that Hegseth sent in particular, we obviously have more appropriate, secure, and specially designed communication channels for highly classified national security information such as this.

Regardless, it’s important to keep in mind that everything digital has vulnerabilities. If it’s digital, it can be hacked. Further, if your device is compromised, the security of your communication method is irrelevant. Ironically, the Pentagon identified a vulnerability within Signal just a few days after this leaked discussion took place (see the email below). Yet still, as someone who has had their information compromised while working at one of the most technically sophisticated government agencies there is – NASA – I have to laugh a bit when I hear that government systems are inherently more secure than private ones; some that are specially and exquisitely designed for that purpose, yes, but not all by any means.

Leave a comment

What Really Matters

What really matters about this story to Americans’ security and prosperity long-term is not what you’re hearing in the press. It is a very important, strategic question: what should America’s, and Europe’s, roles be in the Middle East?

In the text message exchange, you will see that early in the discussion Vice President Vance raises the question of whether or not we should be executing this strike on the Houthis at all. What follows is a very brief foreign policy discussion that occurs primarily between Vance, Waltz, and Hegseth. Vance makes the point that, “3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez. 40 percent of European trade does.” In other words, he’s indicating that protecting the global shipping lane that the Houthis are disrupting is in Europeans’ interests, but not Americans. However, Waltz’ response effectively disputes those numbers by acknowledging that “15% of global” trade goes through the region and determining how much of that is specific to the U.S. is not straightforward.

These are both legitimate vantage points, and this is a much larger debate that needs to continue. But regardless of the exact trade numbers, what’s clear is that Europe and Asia (specifically, and ironically, China) are more reliant on the free flow of ships and goods through the Middle East than America. Because ‘Middle East oil’ is so embedded in Americans’ psyche, many still do not realize that we are now fairly energy independent as a nation and particularly as a continent (North America).

I’ve discussed this before on our Grand Strategy series, and as I said then, American involvement in the Middle East is no longer a top priority. This is not just because of energy, but because there is a strategic realignment occurring globally that is still in process and requires the U.S. to make hard choices, prioritize, and for the first time in many decades, have a real grand strategy that drives our global decision making. In this new world, the role of our allies and partners becomes increasingly important for global stability, particularly in the Middle East.

Subscribe now

So, although Hegseth makes a good point in the leaked chat justifying the current operation against the Houthis – by “restoring freedom of navigation … and reestablish(ing) deterrence” – this is a short-term solution. It accomplishes these two objectives, while also making it very evident that firing at the U.S. Navy will not go without a response. However, it’s clear that longer-term, allies and partners in the region, including the Europeans, have to play a larger role defending themselves and the free world by improving their military capabilities and “invest(ing) in their defense,” as Waltz put it in the chat. That message will sound familiar to Americans, as President Trump has lambasted Europeans in no uncertain terms about the need to do this.

Yet, let’s not forget that U.S. leadership asking the Europeans to spend more on defense (and consequently, less on social programs), is not a message Trump pulled out of thin air. If you thought it was President Trump that said the Europeans were close to “making a sucker out of Uncle Sam” due to their reliance on the U.S. military, you would be wrong. That was President Eisenhower in 1959, who also happened to be the General and Supreme Allied Commander that led the D-Day invasion of Normandy, France in 1944, effectively saving Europe from Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Every presidential administration since Eisenhower, through to Obama and Biden has asked Europe to invest more in its defense. The only difference is that they asked politely, while Trump demanded it. After 70 years of asking, and Europeans, on the whole, only now beginning to change their tune on defense spending, it raises a legitimate question: was public embarrassment and the threat of abandonment by the U.S. the only way to get results?

To be fair, Europeans did not get something for nothing. Let’s not forget that we had a Cold War going on for 40+ years, and the agreement we effectively made with Europe was that they would unquestioningly take our side on matters of international affairs and in the Cold War against the Soviets, while we would backstop their defense. It was an arrangement that benefited both sides, but the Cold War ended a long time ago, the world has changed, and the U.S. has new strategic priorities, as I’ve discussed.

As America navigates this new world, our relationships will inevitably evolve, but one thing will remain true – we still need allies. Allies are assets, and if you understand the benefit of an asset as an individual, then you understand the benefit as a nation. As was discussed in this Signal chat by Trump administration officials, we need to hold allies accountable to remaining an asset, and not becoming a liability (as they should similarly do to us, including on matters such as mistakenly leaking classified information). I prefer persuasion over coercion and disparagement, but in the end, we need results. The free world depends on it.

As promised, just below is the recent Pentagon email identifying the Signal vulnerability, as well as all the leaked Signal messages released publicly to this point.

Think freely,

Zack Spratling
Founder & CEO
Dear America Network

P.S. If you are still sending your texts using standard messaging services provided by your wireless carrier (i.e., SMS/MMS texts), know that from a security perspective, this is like sending your physical mail without an envelope, and it can easily be compromised. So, use encrypted messaging folks (e.g., Signal, WhatsApp, Android-to-Android RCS, and Apple-to-Apple iMessages; Android-to-Apple RCS encrypted messaging is currently not available, but allegedly coming soon per Google and Apple).

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.