Iran, the MOU, and the Limits of Lawn Cutting

The recently announced Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran has produced sharply different reactions. Supporters describe it as a historic diplomatic breakthrough that could lead to a broader peace in the Middle East. Critics view it as a dangerous concession that rewards Iran while obtaining little in return.

After reading the text of the MOU, I believe both sides may be overstating their case.

The agreement is not a peace treaty. It is not a final settlement. It is essentially a sixty-day ceasefire and negotiating framework. The war has paused, certain actions will occur immediately, and the most difficult issues have been deferred to further negotiations. Whether this agreement is remembered as a turning point or merely another pause in a long-running conflict will depend almost entirely on what happens during the next sixty days.

Before discussing the agreement itself, it is worth considering what the war actually accomplished.

The military campaign clearly degraded Iranian capabilities. Nuclear facilities were damaged. Military infrastructure was struck. Iranian vulnerabilities were exposed in ways that few observers anticipated. Yet the war did not overthrow the regime, eliminate Iran's influence in the region, or permanently resolve the nuclear issue. The conflict reduced a threat, but it did not remove it.

Israeli strategists have sometimes described this type of operation as "mowing the grass" or "cutting the lawn." The phrase is not particularly elegant, but it captures an important strategic reality. Some threats can be managed, weakened, and periodically reduced without being permanently eliminated. Military force can destroy facilities, degrade capabilities, and impose costs. What it often cannot do is transform the political and ideological motivations that created those capabilities in the first place.

That distinction matters because it shapes how we should evaluate the MOU.

The agreement clearly delivers some immediate benefits to both sides. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz restores the flow of oil and reduces pressure on the global economy. That is no small matter. Every major economy has an interest in avoiding prolonged disruption in one of the world's most important energy corridors. The agreement also provides a mechanism for reducing the immediate risk of further military escalation while negotiators attempt to address the underlying disputes. Beyond those immediate benefits, however, the agreement becomes more controversial.

The MOU contemplates sanctions relief, access to frozen Iranian assets, the restoration of oil exports, and a substantial economic development framework. By contrast, the central objectives of the United States remain largely unresolved. The agreement does not require the immediate dismantlement of enrichment facilities. It does not prohibit future enrichment activities. It contains no restrictions on missile development and no provisions addressing Iranian support for regional proxy organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis.

Iran reiterates that it does not seek nuclear weapons, a position its leaders have publicly maintained for years. The more difficult questions surrounding enrichment, stockpiles, verification, missile programs, and regional activities are deferred to future negotiations.

This does not mean the agreement is destined to fail. It simply means that the most difficult issues remain unsettled.

Supporters of the MOU argue that economic opportunity may encourage a different Iranian path. They suggest that greater integration into the global economy could strengthen those within Iran who prefer prosperity over confrontation. Such an outcome is certainly possible. History occasionally surprises us. Political systems sometimes evolve in unexpected ways, and diplomatic breakthroughs occasionally emerge from circumstances that appear hopeless. At the same time, strategy should not be built entirely upon optimism.

For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice economic opportunity in pursuit of religious, ideological, political, and regional objectives. That history does not prove that change is impossible, but it does suggest caution. The burden of proof rests with Tehran. If Iran intends to pursue a fundamentally different course, it will have every opportunity to demonstrate that during the coming negotiations. The more important question may be what happens if it does not.

One lesson from my time supporting U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf during the late 1980s is that tactical success and strategic success are not the same thing. During Operation Earnest Will, the United States successfully protected shipping and kept the Strait of Hormuz open. The operation worked. Yet the larger vulnerability remained. Iran retained the ability to threaten the strait, and the world remained heavily dependent upon it. Four decades later, we are still dealing with the consequences of that unfinished work. The same lesson applies today.

Much of the current discussion focuses on whether Iran will change. That is certainly important. But it is not the only variable that matters. The United States, Israel, the Gulf states, and other partners also have choices. They are not passive observers waiting to discover whether Iran becomes a different country.

The enemy gets a vote, but so do we.

Even if Iran continues its present course, there are steps that can reduce its leverage and limit its ability to threaten the region and the global economy. Gulf producers can continue expanding pipeline infrastructure that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz. Energy markets can diversify supply sources. Regional security cooperation can deepen. Economic pressure can be maintained. Intelligence cooperation can expand. The objective should be to create a strategic environment in which Iranian threats become less disruptive and less effective over time.

In that sense, the long-term goal is not necessarily regime change. It is strategic change. The objective is to reduce the risks posed by Iranian behavior regardless of who governs in Tehran.

The Partners Problem

There is another challenge that receives far less attention than Iran's nuclear program or the details of the MOU itself. Even the most successful long-term strategy toward Iran depends on willing and capable partners, and maintaining those partnerships may prove more difficult than many Americans realize.

Americans often view the Middle East through the lens of military power, economic output, or oil production. Those factors matter, but demographics and geography matter as well. Iran is a nation of roughly ninety million people with a long history, a strong national identity, significant industrial capacity, and a highly educated population. Its leaders often make poor decisions, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the country itself.

The Gulf monarchies present a very different picture. They possess enormous financial resources and increasingly sophisticated military capabilities, but most govern comparatively small populations. Their leaders must constantly balance external security concerns with internal political stability. Unlike the United States, they do not have the luxury of changing administrations every four years and rethinking their foreign policy. They live in a difficult neighborhood and must plan decades into the future. That reality creates a perspective that is often poorly understood in Washington.

The United States sees Iran as a problem to be managed. The Gulf states see Iran as a permanent neighbor. Regardless of who occupies the White House or who governs in Tehran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman will still be sharing the same region with Iran fifty years from now.

As a result, they frequently pursue strategies that appear contradictory to outside observers. They seek American military protection while maintaining diplomatic channels with Tehran. They purchase advanced weapons while exploring opportunities to reduce tensions. They oppose Iranian influence while simultaneously looking for ways to coexist with it. From their perspective, this is not inconsistency. It is prudence.

The tendency to hedge has been reinforced by the inconsistency of American policy. Over the past two decades, regional leaders have witnessed dramatic shifts in Washington's approach. One administration emphasizes engagement with Iran. Another emphasizes maximum pressure. One administration places strong emphasis on traditional regional alliances. Another signals a desire to reduce American involvement in the region altogether.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with those policy shifts is less important than the message they send. Leaders in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi cannot assume that the policy of any particular American administration will survive the next election. As a result, they naturally seek additional ways to protect their interests.

The recent war may alter some of those calculations. For years, several Gulf states attempted to reduce tensions with Iran while simultaneously strengthening their military capabilities. That approach was understandable if one believed accommodation could reduce the risk of conflict. Iran's actions during this war may cause some leaders to reassess that assumption.

It is entirely possible that two very different futures are being discussed quietly during the sixty-day negotiation period. One future assumes Iran chooses a different path and gradually reintegrates into the regional and global economy. The other assumes that little changes and that the region must prepare for a continuation of the strategic competition that has defined the last four decades.

Rational governments prepare for both.

In that context, the Abraham Accords may prove just as important as the negotiations themselves. If Iran demonstrates a genuine willingness to alter its strategic direction, regional integration could expand in multiple directions. If it does not, the same relationships developed through the Accords could evolve into a more formal framework for intelligence sharing, missile defense cooperation, maritime security, economic coordination, and diplomatic pressure.

The question may not be whether the Abraham Accords expand, but why they expand.

Should the negotiations fail, sanctions are likely to return, investment promises will evaporate, and many of the economic benefits envisioned in the MOU will never materialize. In that scenario, the region could emerge from this crisis more aligned against Iran than it was before the war began. Ironically, a conflict that Tehran may view as a demonstration of resistance could ultimately produce the very coalition it has long sought to prevent.

Israel faces a related challenge. Although the U.S.-Israeli relationship remains extraordinarily strong, Israeli leaders cannot ignore changes in American public opinion. Support for Israel remains substantial, but anti-Israel sentiment has grown on portions of both the political left and right. Israeli planners are almost certainly asking themselves the same question being asked elsewhere in the region: How reliable will American support be twenty years from now?

This does not mean America's partnerships are collapsing. It does mean that our partners are behaving like rational actors. They are evaluating risks, considering alternatives, and preparing for multiple futures.

That matters because containment strategies are not sustained by military power alone. They require confidence, predictability, and a network of partners who believe their interests remain aligned.

Beyond the Next Sixty Days

The next sixty days will tell us much about Iran's intentions. They should also tell us something about our own.

If Iran ultimately agrees to meaningful restrictions on enrichment, accepts robust verification, limits missile development, and reduces support for regional proxy organizations, this agreement could become the foundation for a broader and more stable regional order. Such an outcome would deserve recognition as a significant diplomatic achievement. If not, the strategic challenge will continue.

The good news is that failure of the negotiations would not leave the United States and its partners without options. The same steps that improve regional security under a successful agreement also improve regional security under a failed one. Expanded energy infrastructure, stronger regional cooperation, improved missile defenses, deeper intelligence sharing, and more integrated security arrangements all reduce the leverage available to Iran regardless of its future choices. That is the larger lesson of this conflict.

The purpose of strategy is not simply to cut the lawn when it grows too high. The purpose is to make it grow back more slowly each time. If military action ever becomes necessary again to degrade Iranian nuclear or missile capabilities, it should occur in a strategic environment where Iran's options are fewer, regional partnerships are stronger, and the global economy is less vulnerable to disruption.

For now, the MOU deserves neither celebration nor condemnation. It deserves careful observation. It has created an opportunity. Whether it becomes a genuine turning point or merely another pause in a long-running conflict will depend not on the words contained in the agreement, but on the actions that follow.

The real question is not simply whether Iran is prepared to change. It is whether the United States and its partners are prepared to learn from the last forty years and build a strategy that succeeds whether Iran changes or not.

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or via email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com

DISTRIBUTION: If you would like to receive these blog posts in newsletter form to your email please send an email to libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com 

A Few Gallons of Compassion

The conflict in Iran has driven oil prices from around $60 a barrel to over $100, and those costs roll downhill fast. Gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and natural gas rise almost instantly. Groceries, airline tickets, and anything shipped to market follow more slowly. Inflation climbs. For many Americans, a jump at the pump is frustrating but manageable — we grumble, we swipe our cards, and our routines continue unchanged. For others, it becomes a genuine financial crisis.

Those who suffer most are those least able to adapt: people living paycheck to paycheck, small business owners keeping work trucks on the road, families balancing gasoline, groceries, rent, and daycare while trying to hold their lives together one week at a time. Self-employed farmers don't care about record stock markets — they care about the cost of diesel and fertilizer they pay directly out of pocket. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Americans have collectively spent roughly $45 billion more on gasoline and diesel since the conflict began, while investors in oil-and-gas companies watch their portfolios grow. The burden and the benefit fall on very different people.

I don't want to add another political argument to the noise surrounding this crisis. Instead, I find my thoughts drifting to a moment I witnessed during the gasoline spike of 2008 — when prices climbed to levels that, adjusted for inflation, remain among the highest Americans have seen in modern times.

I was living in Mansfield, Massachusetts, and stopped at a gas station one afternoon to fill my car. A young woman pulled into the space beside me, driving an older car that had clearly seen difficult years. In the back seat was a toddler in a child seat. I overheard her ask the attendant for two dollars' worth of gasoline. Even in 2008, that was less than half a gallon.

Artemis II and the Search for Meaning and Purpose

Something was striking about the public reaction to the ten-day Artemis II mission around the moon. People were genuinely engaged—watching closely, discussing it, and following each development with anticipation. Yet for those of us who lived through the early years of the space program, a quiet question lingered beneath the excitement: haven't we done this before?

We orbited the moon in the 1960s. We landed on it and returned safely. So why does a mission that retraces those steps stir something so deeply again?

The answer lies not in the technology but in what it represents. When John F. Kennedy committed the nation to reaching the moon, he did more than set a goal. He gave a generation direction. That single objective reshaped science and engineering and, more importantly, instilled in people a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. It was not merely an engineering challenge. It was a statement of purpose.

Catholic Just War Doctrine in a Time of War

I am not a theologian, but I relied on the Catholic just war tradition during a time of war, when the decisions before me carried consequences measured in human lives. That tradition, refined over nearly two thousand years, exists precisely for moments like that. Today, the Church articulates that tradition through a clear moral framework—what we call just war doctrine. 

I want to make a case—to Catholics and non-Catholics alike—that this tradition matters now. Pope Leo XIV has spoken powerfully about peace. That emphasis may reflect a pastoral corrective in a violent moment, but he has not engaged with the doctrine the Church itself provides.

The Strait of Hormuz: Secure the Present, Build a Different Future

In the late 1980s, I worked at the Office of Naval Intelligence, supporting U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf. One of those operations was Earnest Will, the largest convoy escort mission since World War II. American warships protected reflagged Kuwaiti tankers from Iranian mines and small-boat attacks. Despite those threats, the operation succeeded. The Strait remained open, and Iran ultimately backed down.

That success, however, masked a larger failure. We solved the immediate problem but left the underlying one intact. Iran retained the ability to threaten the strait, and the world remained dependent on it. Four decades later, we are paying the price.

Today, the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed again. Commercial shipping has fallen by more than 90 percent, and millions of barrels of oil per day have been removed from the market. Prices have surged past $100 a barrel, and economies that depend heavily on Gulf energy, particularly in Asia, are scrambling to adjust. This was not an unforeseen development; it was the predictable result of a vulnerability that was never addressed.

Birthright Citizenship: A Personal Take on the Supreme Court Arguments

This week, I listened to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al.—a case that could redefine birthright citizenship in America. Both sides presented serious legal interpretations, and anyone claiming certainty about the outcome is probably allowing politics to influence their thinking. We should expect a ruling by the end of the Court’s term in June.

My interest in this case extends beyond academic curiosity. I minored in law during college and seriously considered law school, but I ultimately pursued a career as a Naval Intelligence officer. While serving in Washington, D.C., I lived just a few blocks behind the Supreme Court building and the Capitol and spent years witnessing how law and policy function in real-world situations—often in more complex ways than they appear from an outsider's perspective. This case is just as complex.

Some History Worth Knowing

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, ratified between 1865 and 1870, aimed to rebuild the nation after the Civil War and ensure equal rights for formerly enslaved people. The 14th Amendment, in particular, granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” while also securing due process and equal protection.

That language was clear in its immediate purpose but left room for interpretation—especially the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That ambiguity is precisely what the Court is now being asked to resolve.

Book Announcement: Brotherhood and Borders

 After more than a decade of writing about immigration and political division, my new book is now available on Amazon:

Brotherhood and Borders: Immigration, Compassion, and the Rule of Law in America

Immigration is not simply a border issue. It is a moral issue, a structural issue, and ultimately a credibility issue.

This book examines:

• Why reform efforts repeatedly fail

• How political incentives distort outcomes

• Why enforcement moved from controlled settings into public confrontation

• And what success would actually look like

It is written for readers who want structure instead of slogans.

Available now in hardcover and Kindle at this link:  https://a.co/d/0dNb2L9I

Please consider purchasing the book and if you find it informative and helpful in moving us closer to resolving this issue, share the link with friends, family, and influential people on this issue in Congress and in your state and local government.  Thank you, Dan Gallagher

Wake Up, America: Minneapolis and the Escalation We Pretended Wouldn’t Come

The death of Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis is tragic. A life ended suddenly and violently, and no decent person should be indifferent to that. Almost immediately, the country split into familiar camps, each racing to advance a narrative before the facts had settled. As usual, nothing was learned, and tensions only rose.

Whatever the final legal findings say, one thing is already clear: this event did not occur in isolation. It fits a pattern that has been building for years. We can keep pretending these are isolated incidents, or we can face what the evidence is telling us. The divide over immigration enforcement is producing predictable—and preventable—tragedies.

The Data Tells a Story

Immigration enforcement happens in two fundamentally different ways. In cooperative jurisdictions, when local police arrest someone for an unrelated crime, ICE can lodge a detainer—a request to hold that person briefly so ICE can take custody when local charges are resolved. The transfer happens inside a jail, controlled and administrative. In non-cooperative sanctuary jurisdictions, local authorities refuse these detainers. This forces ICE to locate and arrest people in the community—at homes, workplaces, during traffic stops, and on streets. One method happens behind secure walls. The other happens in public—where crowds form, tensions escalate, and split-second decisions can turn deadly.

Between January 20 and October 15, 2025, ICE made more than 217,000 arrests in the country’s interior (Prison Policy Initiative analysis of ICE data). The majority of those arrested had either prior criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, while approximately 33% were arrested for immigration status violations only. It is not known how many individuals in this latter category were arrested in conjunction with another arrest or were subject to final deportation orders.

After Maduro: The Test of U.S. Power, Restraint, and Competence

This is Part III of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part I established why the Western Hemisphere became a U.S. national security priority. Part II explained how that strategy translated into Operation Southern Spear and the military force posture now in the Caribbean.

In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States conducted military strikes across Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, transporting them to the USS Iwo Jima before transfer to face narcoterrorism charges in the Southern District of New York. Operation Absolute Resolve succeeded with no U.S. casualties or equipment losses.

For readers of this series, the question was never whether this would happen—it was when, and what would follow.

In a press conference today, President Trump provided the answer. Asked who would govern Venezuela, he stated simply: "We are going to run it." He clarified that the United States has no intention of executing this operation only to hand authority immediately to officials who may lack capacity or support. The U.S. will establish stability, begin reconstructing the oil industry, and only then identify Venezuelan leadership capable of assuming power.

This represents direct U.S. interim administration—not immediate transfer to Venezuelan opposition figures. It is a significant departure from recent interventions and raises profound questions about execution, timeline, and exit strategy.

From Strategy to Enforcement: What the U.S. Is Doing in the Caribbean

This is Part II of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part I established why the Western Hemisphere became a U.S. national security priority.  Part III examines the removal of Nicolas Maduro and its implications for the future of Venezuela.

The current U.S. military presence in the Caribbean cannot be understood in isolation. What some observers perceive as a sudden escalation is, in fact, the operational expression of a strategic shift articulated years ago and formalized in the 2025 National Security Strategy. 

From Policy to Force Posture

Operation Southern Spear is the most visible manifestation of this change. Announced shortly after President Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, Southern Spear is led by U.S. Southern Command and the Navy’s Fourth Fleet. While it builds on earlier counter-drug and maritime security efforts, including experimentation with manned and unmanned systems, it has undergone a significant expansion in scope, persistence, and enforcement authority over the past six months.

What the Force Is—and Is Not

The U.S. has now assembled a substantial joint force under Joint Task Force Southern Spear: a carrier strike group, an amphibious ready group with a Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked, supporting surface combatants, special operations elements, and forward-deployed airpower operating from Puerto Rico and regional bases.

This is not an invasion force. It is a control force—designed to deny freedom of movement, disrupt logistics, impose costs, and shape outcomes without occupying territory.

America's Neighborhood: Why the Western Hemisphere Is Now a U.S. National Security Priority

This is Part I of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part II explains how that strategy translated into Operation Southern Spear and the military force posture now in the Caribbean. Part III describes the issues of power transition following the removal of Nicolas Maduro from power.

For decades, U.S. national security strategy treated the Western Hemisphere as largely settled terrain. Serious threats were assumed to lie elsewhere—in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia. Problems closer to home were treated as diplomatic, economic, or law-enforcement matters rather than core security concerns.

That assumption no longer holds.

The Trump Administration's 2025 National Security Strategy marks a clear reprioritization. The Western Hemisphere is now described as America's near strategic environment—a region where instability directly affects U.S. security, public health, and geopolitical influence. Migration, drug trafficking, transnational crime, and foreign state penetration are no longer treated as secondary issues. They are treated as strategic threats.

Trump Accounts: What Families Need to Know Before 2026

The creation of Trump Accounts could be one of the most significant changes to American family finances in a generation. Starting in 2026, every parent and guardian of a child under 18 will be able to open a federally approved, tax-advantaged investment account designed to provide lifelong financial security for their child.

The idea is simple but revolutionary: a universal savings account for children, in some cases partly funded by public or charitable donations, invested exclusively in low-cost U.S. stock market index funds, and kept locked until adulthood. Parents cannot use these accounts for toys, vacations, or emergencies. These accounts aim to create a solid foundation for long-term financial stability and retirement security.

Since these accounts will be activated during the 2025 tax filing cycle, families should familiarize themselves with the rules now, well before the first IRS forms are available in mid-2026.

This guide explains what Trump Accounts are, how they differ from 529 plans and custodial accounts, what families will need to do in 2026, and—crucially—why these accounts can be confidently used as a permanent part of the tax code.

Courts in the Crossfire: How Injunctions and Venue Games Are Damaging the Judiciary

On October 27, 2025, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Executive Order 14248, which required proof of citizenship for voter registration on federal forms. The executive order goal was straightforward: ensure that only citizens vote, as mandated by federal law. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the President “lacks authority” to alter election procedures under the Elections Clause.

That ruling conflates two very different constitutional areas. The Elections Clause that she relies on governs how elections are conducted—such as polling hours and ballots—not who is eligible to vote. Citizenship is a legal qualification, and the President’s duty under the Take Care Clause is to enforce those laws faithfully. Cases like Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013) confirm that federal authorities can require proof of eligibility. Under the Youngstown framework, a 1952 Supreme Court test that defines the limits of presidential power, this order clearly falls within the category in which the President acts with congressional approval. The National Voter Registration Act allows the Election Assistance Commission to require information “necessary” to determine eligibility. This isn’t executive overreach; it’s the proper execution of the law. 

Sober Awakening: Faith's Quiet Revolution

 A Wedding Without Wine

Last month, I attended the wedding of a young couple, only twenty-two years old. It was one of the most touching ceremonies I’ve ever seen: love, faith, and reverence filled the hall. Every detail, from the prayers to the communion hymns, moved those in attendance.

At the reception, no alcohol was served—but the dance floor was packed. Laughter, rhythm, and joy filled the night. These were twenty- and thirty-somethings—faithful, confident, and completely comfortable in their sobriety. It wasn’t deprivation; it was joy rooted in faith, the kind that sees no need to dull the senses or cloud the moment.

That evening was symbolic of a quiet revolution that is underway. After generations of associating alcohol with adulthood and success, America is shifting away from that view. Gallup reports that only about 54% of adults now drink, down from two-thirds just a few years ago. This isn’t due to policy—it’s personal. A change of heart, and young people are leading the change.

Vindicated: Trump’s Bold Plan Ignites the Middle East’s Long-Awaited Dawn

Nearly two years ago, in the shadow of Hamas’s barbaric October 7, 2023, assault, I wrote about the unexpected opportunity emerging from that horror. Then, in June of this year, I described a turning point, Israel’s decisive actions against Iran and its proxies that I believed would realign the region. Those posts, offered a prediction: that Iran’s overreach would ultimately collapse its influence, strengthen the Abraham Accords, and open a path toward durable regional peace. What then was hope and optimism is now becoming history and I am profoundly grateful.

The Plan That Changed the Game

President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza War has redefined Middle East diplomacy. Its first phase, securing the release of hostages, a ceasefire, and initial withdrawal, and release of some Israeli held prisoners, has been signed by both Israel and Hamas, with implementation imminent.

From Riyadh to Islamabad, world leaders have hailed Trump’s blueprint as a “bold vision for peace,” combining humanitarian relief, demilitarization, and post-war governance.

This isn’t a symbolic gesture, it’s a structural shift. Hamas is militarily broken, Iran’s proxies are neutralized, Iran is on its heals, and the Abraham Accords are expanding. The cycle of perpetual war is giving way to a framework of mutual security and economic growth.

Trump’s success in the Middle East stems not only from strength, but from fairness. He is trusted precisely because he has acted as a credible, even-handed broker, something few American presidents have achieved. Israel remains America’s steadfast ally, but Trump made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that there would be no annexation of the West Bank, preserving space for Palestinian self-governance. When Israeli operatives overstepped in their failed strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Trump insisted Netanyahu issue a formal apology to Qatar, signaling that even allies must respect the rules of peace. That balance, firm loyalty to Israel paired with accountability and respect for Arab sovereignty, has earned him rare trust across the region. Leaders from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Egypt view Trump as a negotiator who honors strength, keeps his word, and delivers results.

From Despair to Leverage

An Open Letter on the Dignity Act of 2025: A Bipartisan Start

To Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and all Americans:

In a time of partisan deadlock, your Dignity Act of 2025 (H.R. 4393) shows promise through bipartisan backing, including eleven Republicans and eleven Democrats. However, it risks failure because it repeats previous mistakes. As a commentator who recently completed a four-part series on immigration reform, I recommend that you focus on framing your bill strategically, prioritizing overhaul of the 1965 Immigration Act, and enforcement and reform of immigration related policies before legalization.

Where the Act Gets It Right

Your bill’s enforcement measures are robust. A $46.5 billion investment in barriers, technology, and ports of entry, along with 24/7 aerial surveillance and harsher penalties for smugglers and repeat offenders, demonstrates genuine seriousness. The phased rollout of mandatory E-Verify is vital. These measures echo my call for “relentless enforcement” at the border and in the interior as the non-negotiable precondition for any agreement.

Your asylum reforms are equally important. Humanitarian camps to process claims within 60 days, penalties for fraud, and regional processing centers abroad are practical steps to prevent abuse of the asylum system. If executed correctly, as part of broader reforms, these changes could help close the “catch and release” loophole and restore trust in our asylum laws.

I also see value in the Dignity Act’s restitution requirements. Requiring undocumented immigrants to pay $7,000 over seven years, undergo biometrics, check in regularly, and remain ineligible for federal benefits acknowledges that legalization must be earned, not handed out. These elements closely align with the Temporary Guest Resident and Special Legal Permanent Resident models I have proposed.

Gerrymandering: The One Thing Democrats and Republicans Agree On

Gerrymandering is once again in the news. I first wrote about it in 2019, but since then what was once an occasional tactic has turned into a high-stakes battleground in the fight for power. In this post, I suggest one way to control the worst gerrymanders — by empowering federal courts to strike down maps that are grossly disproportionate.

In Texas, Republicans redrew maps to improve their chances in 2026, prompting Democrats to denounce the move as an attack on democracy. Meanwhile, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom aims to expand a heavily Democratic-leaning delegation, where a 22.3% distortion favoring Democrats, combined with the state’s 52-seat delegation, creates one of the most significant imbalances in the nation.

Gerrymandering has been a feature of American politics since the founding of the Republic and has long been a staple of the country's political landscape. In recent decades, however, the practice has become more advanced, more coordinated nationwide, and more central to partisan conflicts. Additionally, technology enables precise manipulation, and national leaders are now investing directly in state-level races.

Immigration Reform Part 4: From Strategy to Action

For decades, Washington has traded promises of border security “tomorrow” for leniency “today.” In Reagan’s 1986 Act, legalization proceeded, but enforcement never followed. Americans now understand that promises alone do not secure borders—only laws, resources, and tangible results do. This plan changes that history by first rebuilding laws, institutions, and enforcement, while registering illegal immigrants only after legislative changes are put in place. Legalization will only begin once the new system has demonstrated its effectiveness.

A Demographic Reality We Can’t Ignore

America faces a fertility crisis. Our fertility rate, at 1.6 compared to the 2.1 needed for stability, risks a 25% population decline by 2085, resulting in a drop from 334 million to 251 million. This would shrink the workforce and decrease economic output. Unless fertility rates rise significantly, immigration will be the most effective way to stabilize the population, requiring 2.5–3 million legal immigrants annually.

But immigration alone is not a solution. The economy of the 21st century will be shaped by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence, which will boost productivity and decrease the need for certain types of labor while increasing demand for others. This means immigration must be managed carefully, not just in terms of volume, but also in terms of composition, balancing birth rates, economic needs, and technological progress. When done correctly, immigration can offer both stability and flexibility during times of demographic decline and rapid change.

Immigration Reform Part 3: The Strategic Imperative

In Part 2 of this four-part series, we looked at how decades of broken promises, political gamesmanship, and misplaced compassion pushed America’s immigration system to the brink. But simply pointing out failures isn’t enough. If we want to restore order, public trust, and fairness, we must go beyond slogans and quick fixes. We need a strategy, a clear and practical framework that explains not just how we handle immigration, but why.

This strategy must support America’s security, economic, and cultural interests while allowing room for responsible compassion. Only then can we provide a humane and disciplined path forward that gains the confidence of the American people.

Tactics Are Not Strategy

The Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz said war is “politics by other means.” Tactics, he argued, are useless without a clear purpose. Immigration policy is no different. Deportations, walls, visa limits, or legalization are tools, not solutions.

Some advocate for mass deportation as the answer. Others support open borders, citing compassion as their reason. Both overlook the main issue: what kind of society are we building, and how does immigration help us get there? Open-border advocates argue that compassion and global humanitarian duties take precedence over national interests, but no country can thrive with unlimited generosity. Mass deportation alone ignores the need for legal paths and economic factors. Without a shared vision based on our nation’s needs, economic growth, cultural unity, and security, we end up with reactive enforcement, unpredictable policies, and a growing gap between what the public expects and what the system actually delivers.

How Immigration Policy Lost Its Way

The United States is an idea built on liberty, responsibility, and unity. However, recent immigration policies have shifted away from these principles, often driven by sentiment, corporate interests, or political gain. Corporate lobbies push for cheap labor. Activists promote demographic change. Politicians modify rules to sway elections. What’s missing is a plan to align immigration policies with America’s long-term interests.

A firm immigration policy starts with clear questions: Who can support our economic interests? How do we bring them in legally and sustainably? How do we ensure they assimilate and follow our laws? These questions focus on the nation’s interests rather than short-term gestures or ideological victories.

Progressives often quote the Statue of Liberty’s poem, “Give me your tired, your poor…,” as if it’s law. But the Statue, a gift from France, celebrated liberty, not open borders. Emma Lazarus’s poem was a later addition, expressing sentiment rather than a strategy.

Historically, immigration met America’s needs. In the 19th century, immigrants were pioneers settling the frontier to support the nation’s expansion. During industrialization, another wave of immigrants contributed to the growth of factories and the economy. Most came from Europe, sharing cultural roots that eased assimilation. They worked to adopt American values despite facing challenges like discrimination.

Immigration Reform Part 2: Why We Keep Failing—and What It Will Take to Succeed

A bipartisan opportunity for meaningful immigration reform may finally be on the horizon, but only if both sides are willing to reflect on how we arrived at this point. This post continues from Part 1 by exploring the political, legal, and cultural choices, on both the left and the right, that have contributed to today’s immigration crisis. For decades, partisan agendas, broken promises, and misplaced priorities have shaped a system that pleases no one and fails everyone. While millions remain in legal limbo and needed systemic change is ignored, political leaders cling to slogans instead of solutions. By tracing the history of immigration policy from the 1986 amnesty to today’s dysfunction, we can begin to understand why real reform has been so challenging and what kind of consensus will be necessary to move forward.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a comprehensive law that provided legal status and a path to citizenship for nearly 3 million illegal immigrants. It was a significant compromise: amnesty in exchange for more vigorous border enforcement. However, only part of that agreement was fulfilled. Legalization occurred, but enforcement did not.

President Ronald Reagan signing the Immigration Reformand Control Act, 1986.  He said during his comments: "Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our effort to humanely regain control of our border and to thereby preserve the value of the most sacred possession of our people, American citizenship."

That broken promise shaped the decades that followed. It hardened Republican skepticism, encouraged more illegal migration, and eroded public trust in the government’s ability to manage immigration. Nearly 40 years later, the failure of that deal still casts a long shadow over every attempt at reform.