This article introduces “Getting In,” a weekly newsletter offering parents a playbook for college admissions, delivered directly to their inbox each Thursday. Subscribers receive updates from U.S. News & World Report and its partners, along with access to the latest information designed to provide an edge in the application process. Signing up signifies agreement to the platform’s Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Thousands of American troops are reportedly preparing for a high-risk mission to seize Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub, as part of a strategy to gain leverage in ongoing conflicts. This operation, involving an estimated 7,000 Marines and paratroopers, aims to cripple Iran’s economy and force peace talks, though it carries significant risks of direct confrontation with Iranian forces. While proponents compare it to historical amphibious assaults, critics warn of a potential bloody war of attrition and the strategic uncertainties of holding captured territory.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent, from many perspectives, that America has transitioned into a nation that inspires a pervasive sense of danger. This feeling isn’t a sudden development but rather a culmination of trends and actions that have, for a significant portion of the global community and even many within its own borders, painted a picture of a nation that is no longer universally perceived as a force for good, or even stability. The concept of “has become” suggests a change, but the echoes of history, reaching back to the treatment of Native Americans, the transatlantic slave trade, and territorial expansion at the expense of nations like Mexico, paint a starkly different narrative.… Continue reading
The United States, despite its enduring power, is currently pursuing policies that weaken its global standing, leading other nations to strategize how to manage an increasingly unpredictable America. This complex challenge is compounded by the perception of the U.S. as a predatory hegemon, characterized by erratic behavior and disdain for international norms, alongside a foreign policy apparatus deemed incompetent. Consequently, countries worldwide are compelled to consider options ranging from balancing U.S. power through alliances and diplomatic coordination, to bandwagoning, political manipulation, diversification, balking at demands, and actively working to diminish the U.S.’s global image. A far-sighted great power would exercise restraint and foster mutually beneficial arrangements, a wisdom seemingly abandoned by current U.S. leadership.
The assertion that the United States is conditioning security guarantees for Ukraine on Kyiv relinquishing territory in the Donbas region, as reported, paints a concerning picture of how these vital assurances are being perceived and potentially wielded. It’s as if the very concept of security guarantees, meant to be a shield and a bulwark, is being reframed as a bargaining chip, a means to extract concessions rather than offer genuine protection. This fundamental shift in understanding naturally leads to understandable pushback and skepticism, especially from a nation already enduring a protracted and devastating conflict.
The efficacy of US security guarantees, particularly in the current global landscape, is being called into question with unprecedented urgency.… Continue reading
Representative Nancy Mace has broken with Republican party lines, expressing strong opposition to sending U.S. troops to Iran and criticizing President Trump’s motivations as being tied to the “price of oil.” Mace articulated her concerns about a “Washington war machine” pushing for prolonged conflict and noted the administration’s lack of consultation with Congress, a departure from historical precedents. Her stance contrasts with mainstream Republican support for the current military actions and highlights a growing debate over presidential war powers, even as Democratic efforts to restrict them face significant hurdles in Congress.
Germany’s defence minister has criticized the Trump administration’s approach to the Iran conflict, stating there is “no exit strategy” and accusing the US of issuing contradictory demands to European allies. Germany will only participate in securing the Strait of Hormuz after a ceasefire between the US and Iran is established. This position was articulated while Germany and Australia also announced plans to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement and develop an early warning system for space threats.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has articulated Washington’s strategy, stating, “We negotiate with bombs,” despite White House claims of diplomatic engagement. Hegseth described the ongoing military campaign against Iran, conducted jointly with Israel, as historic and decisive, emphasizing the rapid and overwhelming destruction of Iran’s modern military. This assertion highlights a strong reliance on military pressure as central to achieving U.S. objectives, specifically preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The campaign’s intensity is linked to President Trump’s leadership, with troops authorized to engage the enemy with maximum force.
Despite claims by the Trump administration of bombing a “narco-terrorist supply complex” in Ecuador, a new report reveals the target was actually a cattle and dairy farm. The U.S. Southern Command announced joint military operations with Ecuador, stating they were confronting narco-terrorists. However, interviews with farm workers and villagers indicate the site was burned by Ecuadorian soldiers, who then allegedly beat and interrogated workers, before explosives were dropped days later for propaganda purposes. While the Ecuadorian military maintains the property was used by drug traffickers, evidence has not been provided, and the farm’s owner and representatives for alleged drug groups deny any links to illegal activity.
It’s being suggested that a Saudi prince might be actively encouraging former President Trump to continue a hard line, or perhaps even escalate, against Iran through recent phone conversations. The underlying idea seems to be a strategic calculation: why engage in a costly regional conflict yourself when you can leverage a powerful ally like the United States to do the heavy lifting? It’s akin to getting a “big friend” to handle a dispute without bearing the direct financial or human cost.
This perspective suggests that a prolonged period of tension or conflict with Iran would serve the interests of those who wish to see Iran weakened.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood