THEY HATE TRUMP MORE THAN THEY FEAR A NUCLEAR IRAN

Set aside the hatred, follow the reasoning, and ask whether Israel was obligated to wait until proof arrived in the form of a crater.

WHEN HATRED REPLACES THOUGHT

The problem is not that the political left disagrees with Donald Trump. Disagreement is necessary in a free country.

The problem is that many on the left hate Trump so intensely that they can no longer follow his reasoning. They reject his conclusions before considering how he reached them. If Trump believes something, they assume it must be foolish, dishonest, or dangerous. Any argument leading to the possibility that he might be right is dismissed before it can be heard.

That is not critical thinking. It is the abandonment of critical thinking.

A conclusion does not become false because Donald Trump reached it. An argument must be judged by its facts, logic, risks, and alternatives—not by the personality of the person making it.

What follows is not an argument that Trump must always be trusted or that every decision he makes is correct. It asks only that the reader do what so many of his critics refuse to do:

Set aside the hatred, follow the reasoning, and decide whether he is right.

The Argument in Brief

Iran was not a hypothetical enemy. It armed forces attacking Israel, launched drones and ballistic missiles at Israeli territory, restricted nuclear monitoring, and accumulated enough 60-percent-enriched uranium—if enriched further—for approximately ten nuclear weapons.

Israel was not required to wait for a bomb or proof that the order had been given. You do not owe a pursuer the last five minutes.

Iran’s rulers have shown what they are willing to sacrifice: their citizens, their economy, their neighbors, and peace. Israel could not assume that leaders willing to impose such suffering would become cautious once protected by nuclear weapons.

The Iranian people are not Israel’s enemy. They are victims of the same regime.

The war should end not with Iran destroyed, but with its nuclear, missile, and drone programs dismantled, its power weakened, and its people given an opportunity to reclaim their country.

The full argument—and the reasoning behind this conclusion—follows below.

FINISH THE WAR—AND GIVE IRAN BACK TO ITS PEOPLE

Israel was not required to wait for proof to arrive in the form of a crater. Now the war must end with the Islamic Republic stripped of the weapons it uses against Israel, its neighbors, and its own people.

The question is not whether war is terrible. It is.

The question is whether a nation that has already been attacked, repeatedly threatened with destruction, and confronted with an advancing nuclear capability must wait until its enemy assembles a finished weapon—or until intelligence confirms that the final order has been given.

Israel was not required to make that gamble.

This Was Not a Hypothetical Enemy

Iran was not merely developing a dangerous capability while maintaining peaceful relations with Israel. It armed, financed, and trained forces attacking Israel from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Then Iran crossed another line. In April and October 2024, it attacked Israel directly with waves of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

That fact fundamentally changes the argument.

Israel was not contemplating military action against a country that might someday become hostile. It was confronting an enemy already conducting armed attacks while simultaneously approaching the nuclear threshold.

Iran’s nuclear program could not be separated from Iran’s demonstrated willingness to use force against Israel.

The Duty Not to Wait for the Final Blow

A nation does not have to wait for the pursuer to complete his intended act. You do not owe a pursuer the last five minutes.

Jewish law does not treat self-defense as a courtesy extended only after the knife has entered the body.

Pikuach nefesh places the preservation of human life above nearly every other commandment. The law of the rodef permits the stopping of a pursuer before the intended murder is completed.

These principles do not automatically settle every military or legal question. War threatens innocent life, too. Any use of force must still be judged by its necessity, proportionality, objectives, and available alternatives.

But the moral principle remains: the threatened are not required to surrender the last safe moment to the one threatening them.

A regime that rejects Israel’s legitimacy, arms forces dedicated to killing Israelis, attacks Israel directly, and builds the means of nuclear coercion is not a neighbor engaged in a tariff dispute. Under those circumstances, delay can cease to be prudence and become dereliction.

You do not owe a pursuer the last five minutes.

Iran’s Purpose Did Not Have to Be Imagined

Iran’s rulers did not need to be mind-read.

Their government maintained an eliminationist policy toward Israel. It supported organizations committed to Israel’s destruction. Iran had also conducted an undeclared, structured nuclear program involving activities relevant to the development of nuclear weapons.

In 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had failed to declare nuclear material and nuclear-related activities at three undeclared locations connected to that earlier program. This did not prove that Iran had issued a current order to assemble a bomb. But it established that Iran had concealed weapon-related work and had never provided a complete and technically credible account of it.

That distinction matters.

The case for action does not require claiming that a completed weapon already existed. It rests upon the convergence of hostile intent, previous weaponization work, advanced uranium enrichment, restricted verification, an operational missile force, and direct attacks against Israel.

The Material Facts Had Transformed the Risk

Enriched uranium, restricted monitoring, ballistic missiles, and drones were not separate dangers. Together, they created a loaded interval.

Immediately before the June 2025 strikes, Iran possessed approximately 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent.

If enriched further to weapons-grade, that stock contained enough nuclear material for approximately ten weapons under the IAEA’s standard measurement.

Uranium enriched to 60 percent is not a completed bomb. Nuclear material is not the same thing as a tested warhead mounted on a working missile. But enriching uranium from its natural state to 60 percent accomplishes most of the difficult enrichment work required to reach weapons-grade purity.

No other non-nuclear-weapon state had accumulated uranium enriched to that level.

At the same time, Iran had sharply restricted the additional monitoring arrangements associated with the nuclear agreement. The IAEA’s ability to reconstruct a continuous picture of Iran’s centrifuges, components, facilities, and enriched material had been seriously degraded.

Delivery was not some distant engineering project. Iran already possessed ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel—and had already fired them at Israeli territory.

The danger was not any single piece of evidence. It was the combination:

• Near-weapons-grade uranium in unprecedented quantities 
• Industrial enrichment capacity
• A history of concealed weapon-related activity
• Reduced international visibility
• An operational ballistic-missile force
• Declared hostility toward Israel
• Direct attacks demonstrating a willingness to use that force

None of these facts, standing alone, proved that Iran was about to assemble a nuclear weapon. Together, however, they created a danger that Israel could not responsibly judge as though each fact existed in isolation.

It was a loaded interval.

Diplomacy Delayed the Danger but Did Not Resolve It

Diplomacy was not meaningless.

The 2015 nuclear agreement imposed genuine restrictions and provided substantially greater international visibility into Iran’s nuclear activities. Iran initially remained within many of those restrictions, and the United States’ withdrawal in 2018 helped begin the sequence through which those limitations eventually collapsed.

That history should be acknowledged. Overstating the failure of diplomacy only weakens the argument.

But by 2025, the relevant question was no longer whether diplomacy had once slowed Iran’s nuclear progress. It had.

The question was whether another round of negotiations could reliably eliminate the advanced stockpile, restore intrusive verification, resolve the unanswered questions about undeclared sites, limit Iran’s missile forces, and prevent the regime from rebuilding the same capabilities later.

For approximately two decades, the world had tried negotiations, sanctions, inspections, temporary agreements, diplomatic warnings, and economic incentives. Yet Iran emerged with advanced centrifuges, an unprecedented stockpile of highly enriched uranium, unresolved safeguards questions, a mature ballistic-missile force, and reduced international monitoring.

“One more round of negotiations” was therefore not a cost-free position.

Time was the very resource Iran’s nuclear program consumed—and the one resource Israel could never recover.

The Regime Has Shown What It Is Willing to Sacrifice

Iran’s rulers have shown that they are willing to impose almost any cost in pursuit of their ideological and strategic objectives.

They have slaughtered and imprisoned their own citizens to preserve the regime. They have sacrificed Iran’s economy rather than abandon policies that brought sanctions and international isolation. Through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other armed organizations, they have helped drag Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and the wider region into recurring destruction.

The regime is willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian, the last Lebanese civilian, the last Yemeni child—and, increasingly, to the last Iranian.

Current events have made the pattern impossible to dismiss. The Islamic Republic will endanger its neighbors, impoverish its citizens, and accept staggering national losses before surrendering the ambitions upon which its authority rests.

That record matters when judging the nuclear danger.

Deterrence depends upon the belief that an adversary values the consequences it is threatened with more than the objective it is pursuing. But Iran’s rulers have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to make other people bear almost any consequence.

Israel could not safely assume that leaders willing to sacrifice their citizens, their neighbors, and their economy would suddenly become cautious and conventional once protected by nuclear weapons.

The danger was not merely that Iran might someday use a nuclear weapon. Nuclear possession could give a demonstrably reckless regime much greater freedom to conduct conventional and proxy warfare beneath a nuclear shield.

The Two Possible Errors Were Not Equal

Suppose Israel overestimated Iran’s proximity to a nuclear weapon.

The consequences of acting would be severe: deaths, regional escalation, economic disruption, diplomatic isolation, and the possibility that Iran would attempt to rebuild its nuclear program deeper underground.

Those costs cannot simply be waved away.

But suppose Israel underestimated the danger. It could then confront a nuclear-armed enemy that had already attacked it, surrounded it with armed proxies, and repeatedly denied its right to exist.

The two mistakes were not equal.

The first could produce a costly and possibly temporary military setback. The second could place the continued existence of a small country in the hands of a regime that had already demonstrated both the intent and capacity for aggression.

Israel’s leaders were not required to bet their country on the most reassuring interpretation of every uncertainty.

The People Suffering Most Are the People of Iran

The Iranian people are not Israel’s enemy. They are the longest-suffering victims of the Islamic Republic—and the rightful heirs to Iran’s future.

The people who have suffered longest under the Islamic Republic are the Iranian people themselves—the Persian majority and Iran’s other ethnic and religious communities.

They have endured repression, executions, economic ruin, international isolation, and wars pursued in the name of a revolutionary regime they did not freely choose.

The Iranian people are not Israel’s enemy. They are also victims of the same regime threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East.

For that reason, the most humane course may not be to prolong the conflict through a succession of limited exchanges that leave the regime’s war-making machinery intact. It may be to complete the military task decisively: destroy the remaining nuclear, ballistic-missile, and drone capabilities; severely weaken the armed forces and command structures used to threaten Iran’s neighbors; and cripple the repressive machinery used to keep the regime in power.

The objective should not be the destruction of Iran.

It should be the liberation of Iran from the machinery that has impoverished its citizens, destabilized its neighbors, and protected a revolutionary dictatorship from its own people.

Give the Iranian People Their Opportunity

Military force cannot manufacture a free government. Foreign nations should not occupy Iran or attempt to choose its next rulers. Another externally imposed regime would merely replace one form of domination with another.

But military action can remove the weapons and institutions that make meaningful resistance nearly impossible.

The Iranian people have repeatedly shown that they want a different future. They have taken to the streets knowing they could be arrested, beaten, tortured, or killed. Women have defied the regime openly. Workers, students, merchants, religious minorities, and families of murdered protesters have demonstrated extraordinary courage.

They do not need foreigners to determine their future. They need an opportunity to determine it themselves.

If the regime can no longer protect itself through terror at home, aggression abroad, ballistic missiles, armed proxies, and the threat of nuclear breakout, the people of Iran may finally have the opening they have been waiting for.

No one can guarantee what they will do with that opportunity. But the possibility of an Iran reclaimed by its people is more humane—and ultimately more stable—than preserving a dictatorship that sacrifices them to sustain its revolutionary ambitions.

Finish the War

The case was never simply that Iran might someday build a bomb.

Iran was already waging war against Israel directly and through proxies. It had accumulated the hardest material ingredient for multiple nuclear weapons, possessed missiles capable of delivering them, concealed important parts of its earlier nuclear work, and reduced the international community’s ability to verify its activities.

Force was therefore not the first impulse. It was the conclusion that the remaining interval could no longer safely be donated to the other side.

Now the war should not be prolonged through indecision or ended with the regime’s most dangerous capabilities still intact.

It should be finished by destroying Iran’s remaining nuclear, missile, and drone programs; weakening the military and leadership structures responsible for aggression and repression; and ensuring that the Islamic Republic cannot simply pause, rebuild, and begin the cycle again.

That conclusion does not require pretending that war is costless, that every target is legitimate, that every strike will be proportionate, or that military power alone can permanently erase scientific knowledge or political fanaticism.

It requires accepting this:

A nation already under attack is not obligated to wait for courtroom certainty about the weapon that could make its destruction irreversible. When the cost of waiting may be national annihilation, proof cannot be required to arrive in the form of a crater.

And the Iranian people should not be condemned to another generation beneath a regime that has sacrificed their freedom, their prosperity, and their children to its dream of revolutionary conquest.

The war should end not with Iran destroyed, but with the Islamic Republic stripped of the weapons it uses against Israel, its neighbors, and its own people—and with the people of Iran finally given the opportunity to take back their country.

Sources and Documentation

The factual claims in this article are based primarily upon reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations and other official records. The conclusions and arguments drawn from those facts are my own.

1. International Atomic Energy Agency, “Verification and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” GOV/2025/50, September 3, 2025.

   Reports that, as of June 13, 2025, Iran possessed 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent U-235.

   "Read the IAEA report" 

2. International Atomic Energy Agency, “NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” GOV/2025/25, May 31, 2025.

   Provides the IAEA’s comprehensive assessment of Iran’s earlier undeclared structured nuclear program and undeclared nuclear material and activities at Lavisan-Shian, Varamin and Turquzabad. The report also states that the IAEA had no credible indications of an ongoing undeclared structured program of the same type.

   "Read the IAEA report" 

3. International Atomic Energy Agency, “Verification and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” GOV/2025/24, May 31, 2025.

   Documents Iran’s enriched-uranium inventory and the loss of monitoring and verification measures previously provided under the nuclear agreement.

   "Read the IAEA report" 

4. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, Statement to the United Nations Security Council, June 20, 2025.

   Confirms that Iran possessed more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent and identifies Fordow as Iran’s principal location for enrichment to that level.

   "Read the statement" 

5. Reuters, “Much of Iran’s Near-Bomb-Grade Uranium Likely to Be in Isfahan, IAEA’s Grossi Says,” March 9, 2026.

   Reports the IAEA estimate that Iran’s 440.9-kilogram stockpile, if enriched further, could provide sufficient fissile material for approximately ten nuclear weapons under the agency’s measurement.

   "Read the report" 

6. United Nations Secretary-General, Remarks to the Security Council, April 14, 2024.

   Records Iran’s direct launch of hundreds of drones and missiles from Iranian territory toward Israel.

   "Read the UN statement"

7. United Nations Security Council, “Deadly Cycle of Tit-for-Tat Violence Must Stop,” October 2, 2024.

   Records Iran’s October 1 launch of approximately 200 ballistic missiles toward Israel and the Secretary-General’s condemnation of the attack.

   "Read the UN record" 

8. U.S. Department of State, “Country Reports on Terrorism 2023.”

   Documents Iran’s material, financial and training support for Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and other armed groups operating across the Middle East.

   "Read the State Department report" 

9. United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, March 14, 2025.

   Documents the Iranian government’s continuing systematic repression, surveillance, executions and persecution connected to the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests.

   "Read the UN human-rights report" 

WHEN THE MESSENGER MATTERS MORE THAN THE MESSAGE

ANOTHER HEADLINE, ANOTHER INDICTMENT

Fauci was treated as beyond question. RFK Jr. is treated as beyond consideration. Neither approach serves science—or the American people.

Some Are So Determined to Discredit the Messenger That They Refuse to Consider the Message.

A recent New York Times headline declared that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. received $4 million in book advances from a publisher who also “monetized MAHA.” The article also reported consulting payments made to Kennedy’s wife, Cheryl Hines.

Those financial relationships are fair subjects for investigation. No public official should be shielded from legitimate questions about possible conflicts of interest. If laws or ethics regulations were violated, the facts should be established and appropriate action taken.

But a large book advance is not, by itself, proof of corruption. More importantly, the headline tells us nothing about whether Kennedy’s ideas are right, whether his policies are working or whether the Make America Healthy Again movement is addressing problems that have been neglected for decades.

The article investigates the man. Who is investigating the merits of his mission?

America’s chronic-disease crisis demands an honest examination of what we eat, how we regulate food and how we approach health.

What Kennedy Is Trying to Change

America faces an enormous chronic-disease problem. Obesity, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, allergies and other illnesses affect millions of families and consume an ever-growing share of our healthcare resources. American children obtain much of their daily nutrition from highly processed foods, while food companies have been permitted to introduce many ingredients under a regulatory system that deserves much closer scrutiny.

Kennedy has made those issues impossible to ignore.

Under his leadership, the Department of Health and Human Services has focused attention on highly processed foods, synthetic food dyes, questionable additives, childhood chronic disease and the influence of powerful industries over health policy. The administration has also revised federal dietary guidance around a simple message: eat real food and reduce highly processed foods and added sugars.

HHS reports that 37 states have enacted legislation advancing parts of the MAHA agenda, 18 SNAP waivers have been signed, and companies representing approximately 40 percent of the food industry have pledged to remove synthetic dyes. Kennedy has also directed the FDA to reconsider the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, process that has allowed companies to introduce some ingredients without formal premarket review by the agency. These are actions, not merely slogans.

People can disagree with Kennedy’s methods, priorities or scientific conclusions. I do not agree with everything he has said or done. But confronting chronic disease, improving nutrition, examining food additives and questioning entrenched institutional interests are legitimate objectives. They deserve serious consideration.

Science advances through questions and competing evidence—not by silencing those who challenge official conclusions.

When Fauci Became “The Science”

We witnessed the opposite version of this problem during COVID.

Anthony Fauci was treated by much of the media as if questioning him meant questioning science itself. People who challenged official claims, government mandates, school closures or shifting public-health guidance were frequently dismissed as irresponsible. Some were vilified as conspiracy theorists, and some discussions were restricted or censored on social-media platforms.

Fauci even declared, “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.” But no person is science—not Fauci, not Kennedy and not any government official.

Science is a process. It requires questions, competing hypotheses, transparent evidence and a willingness to revise earlier conclusions. It becomes weaker, not stronger, when authorities treat disagreement as disinformation merely because it challenges the prevailing position.

We now know that government pressure on public discussion was not imaginary. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg later acknowledged that senior Biden administration officials repeatedly pressured Facebook to suppress certain COVID-related content, including humor and satire. Zuckerberg said the pressure was wrong and expressed regret that his company had not been more outspoken against it.

Several questions once portrayed as too irresponsible to discuss eventually became legitimate matters of investigation. The origin of COVID remains unresolved. A laboratory incident has not been established as the cause, but neither has it been conclusively ruled out. Even the World Health Organization has maintained that the possibility requires further investigation.

That does not mean every COVID skeptic was correct. Some claims were unsupported, exaggerated or demonstrably false. It means the authorities were not infallible, official certainty was sometimes overstated, and some people who raised difficult questions had legitimate reasons for doing so.

We should have learned something from that experience.

From Unquestioning Trust to Automatic Rejection

With Fauci, skepticism was treated as dangerous. With Kennedy, skepticism has become so absolute that nothing he says or accomplishes is permitted to have value.

Fauci was treated as though questioning the man meant rejecting science. Kennedy is treated as though considering the man means rejecting science.

These may look like opposite reactions, but they arise from the same intellectual failure: judging evidence according to our feelings about the messenger.

Opposition to Kennedy—and especially his association with Donald Trump—too often settles the question before his work is examined. Every flaw becomes disqualifying. Every controversy becomes defining. Every positive accomplishment is minimized or ignored. Critics do not merely question particular policies; many appear determined to prove that nothing worthwhile can possibly come from this administration.

The New York Times headline fits that pattern perfectly. The financial questions may be legitimate, but the framing supplies Kennedy’s opponents with precisely what they are seeking: another reason to dismiss the man without confronting the substance of his agenda.

The messenger deserves scrutiny, but the message must ultimately be weighed on its evidence and merits.

Apply One Standard to Everyone

I am willing to judge Kennedy critically. I am also willing to judge him fairly.

If evidence demonstrates that he is wrong, then his position should be challenged. If his financial relationships cross legal or ethical lines, they should be investigated. If one of his policies creates more harm than good, it should be reversed.

But the same standard must operate in the other direction.

If removing unnecessary synthetic dyes improves the food supply, acknowledge it. If closing regulatory loopholes produces greater transparency, acknowledge it. If encouraging Americans to eat real food instead of heavily processed products improves public health, acknowledge it. If Kennedy forces government, industry and medicine to take chronic disease more seriously, acknowledge that too.

The question should never be whether we like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Donald Trump. The question should be whether a particular idea is sound, whether a policy is supported by evidence and whether it benefits the American people.

Will Critics Recognize Success?

If Make America Healthy Again produces worthwhile reforms, will its critics acknowledge them? Or will they simply move on to the next accusation, controversy or negative headline?

That question reaches far beyond Kennedy.

A healthy society must be able to investigate misconduct without using every allegation as an excuse to discard worthwhile ideas. It must be able to respect expertise without turning experts into unquestionable authorities. It must also be able to reconsider unpopular arguments without automatically endorsing everything said by the people making them.

Fauci should never have been treated as the embodiment of science. Kennedy should not be treated as its enemy merely because he challenges established institutions.

When hostility toward the messenger prevents us from examining the message, that is not critical thinking. It is confirmation bias.

TRUMP SAW GREENLAND. HIS CRITICS SAW ONLY TRUMP.

They mocked a frozen island. He recognized the future gateway to global trade—and the forward shield protecting America and Europe.

When President Trump first turned the world’s attention toward Greenland, his critics responded with their customary mixture of mockery, outrage and intellectual incuriosity. They treated his interest as a ridiculous real-estate proposal involving a vast, frozen wasteland with little practical value.

They were too busy laughing to look at a map.

Had they done so, they might have seen what Trump saw: Greenland occupies one of the most strategically important locations on Earth. It stands between North America, Europe and the Arctic, near the emerging northern shipping lanes and beneath the shortest flight paths of missiles traveling between continents.

Greenland is not merely a large piece of land covered by ice. It could become the secure Western gateway to a new world trade route—and the forward shield protecting America and Europe.

Climate Change Is Redrawing the Map

We can debate the causes, pace and policies surrounding climate change, but we cannot reverse the changes already taking place in the Arctic overnight. Greenland can either passively endure those changes or prepare to turn them into economic opportunity.

As Arctic ice recedes and navigation seasons lengthen, shipping routes that were once nearly impossible are becoming more accessible. The irony is unavoidable:

As Greenland’s ice recedes, Greenland’s economic importance rises.

Arctic routes could substantially shorten certain voyages between Asia, Europe and eastern North America. Depending upon the ports involved, the route and the ice conditions, northern passages can be approximately 30 to 40 percent shorter than traditional routes through the Suez Canal.

That creates several potential benefits:

• Ships travel fewer miles.
• Less fuel may be consumed.
• Cargo reaches markets sooner.
• Perishable products spend less time in transit.
• Ships and crews can complete more voyages.
• Businesses carry inventory for fewer days.
• The world becomes less dependent upon a handful of vulnerable chokepoints.

In 2025, one direct China-to-Britain Arctic service scheduled an 18-day voyage, compared with approximately 40 days around the Cape of Good Hope, and projected a considerable reduction in carbon emissions. One specialized voyage does not prove that every Arctic transit will achieve identical savings, but it demonstrates the possibilities created by dramatically shorter distances.

The environmental claim must be made responsibly. Ice resistance, slower speeds, reinforced hulls and icebreaker assistance require energy. Shorter distance will not always produce a proportionate reduction in fuel consumption. Nevertheless, fewer miles create the possibility of lower costs, reduced fuel use and faster delivery—especially as navigation technology improves and the operating season expands.

Climate change is opening the Arctic. Properly managed Arctic shipping could use that opening to reduce the distance associated with a portion of world trade.

A Greenland maritime hub could provide the docking, fuel, repairs and logistical support required to keep emerging Arctic shipping lanes open.

The Icebreakers Will Need a Home

The lanes will not remain open by themselves. Reliable Arctic commerce will require fleets of icebreakers—and those vessels will require ports.

Icebreakers cannot operate indefinitely from distant bases in Alaska, Canada, Finland or Norway. They will need secure locations for docking, fueling, repairs, provisions, crew changes and emergency support. Greenland is ideally positioned to become that service center.

A Greenland Arctic maritime complex could include:

• Deepwater reinforced harbors
• Fuel storage and alternative marine fuels
• Dry docks and heavy repair facilities
• Warehouses and spare-parts inventories
• Ice-monitoring and weather centers
• Helicopter, drone and aircraft operations
• Search-and-rescue facilities
• Hospitals and emergency services
• Environmental-response equipment
• Housing, schools, restaurants and stores
• Reliable electricity, water and communications

The icebreakers would become the anchor customers, but the same facilities could serve commercial ships, NATO vessels, research ships, fishing fleets, cruise ships and mineral carriers.

The United States, Canada and Finland are already working together through the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact, to expand Western icebreaker construction and Arctic capabilities. Russia presently possesses a much larger icebreaker fleet, demonstrating both the scale of the requirement and the distance the West must travel to catch up.

Greenland would not necessarily require one enormous port. It could develop a coordinated network: Nuuk as the commercial and administrative center; southern Greenland as an Atlantic staging area; western Greenland supporting the Northwest Passage; eastern Greenland serving future transpolar operations; and Pituffik anchoring high-Arctic security and communications.

Nuuk already has a modern container terminal with approximately 360 meters of quay, cranes, storage and hundreds of refrigerated-container connections. That is a foundation upon which a much larger maritime-support industry could be built.

Ports built for icebreakers would also open access to Greenland’s minerals, fisheries and other natural resources. Airfields, electricity, housing, communications and repair facilities would support both civilian and military operations.

This is how an economic flywheel begins: icebreakers justify the infrastructure; infrastructure makes commercial activity possible; commercial activity creates demand for additional infrastructure.

A Safer Alternative to the Middle East

The traditional route between Asia and Europe concentrates commerce through a series of vulnerable passages: the Strait of Malacca, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. War, terrorism, piracy, political upheaval or one grounded vessel can delay shipping, raise insurance costs and disrupt supply chains around the world.

An Arctic passage supported by the United States, Greenland, Canada and NATO would avoid much of that instability.

The Arctic certainly presents dangers. Ice, storms, darkness, remoteness and limited rescue capacity cannot be minimized. But these are primarily engineering and infrastructure challenges. They can be progressively managed through icebreakers, reinforced vessels, satellite surveillance, accurate forecasting, navigation systems and well-equipped ports.

Middle Eastern instability presents a different kind of risk—one that cannot be solved by better ship design.

Through the Middle East, world commerce depends upon political stability. Through the Arctic, it would depend upon Western technology.

The Arctic route would not have to replace the Suez Canal to become economically transformative. A dependable alternative would give shipping companies greater flexibility, provide protection against disruptions and reduce the ability of a hostile government or terrorist movement to interfere with world commerce.

The world could trust America to help keep that passage open—not as a private American waterway, but as a secure route for lawful international trade.

For generations, American power has helped protect freedom of navigation. Working with Greenland, Canada, Denmark and other NATO allies, the United States could extend that protection into the Arctic. American leadership would give businesses confidence that the lanes would remain open, maritime rules would remain predictable and Russia or China would not be permitted to dominate the route.

Greenland’s position could provide earlier missile detection, improved tracking and another opportunity to intercept threats before they approach North America or Europe.

The Shield Above the Shipping Lane

Greenland’s defense value may be even greater than its commercial value.

Because the Earth is round, the shortest paths for many missiles traveling between Russia, North America and Europe pass across the Arctic. Greenland sits beneath those approaches, making it an exceptional location for detecting and tracking threats while they remain far from American and European population centers.

Pituffik Space Base already operates a powerful phased-array radar supporting missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance. Its position gives American commanders earlier information about a launch and additional time to determine its trajectory and organize a response.

Greenland could support a broader defensive network incorporating:

• Long-range missile-warning radar
• Satellite tracking and communications
• Sensors for hypersonic weapons
• Ground- or sea-based interceptors
• Aegis-equipped naval vessels
• Fighter aircraft and aerial refueling
• Drone and submarine surveillance
• Protection of undersea communications cables
• Monitoring of Russian naval activity

The distinction is important: Greenland already helps America detect and track missiles. Destroying them early would require additional interceptor systems and a layered defensive architecture. No system could guarantee protection against every missile, maneuvering weapon or large-scale barrage. But Greenland can provide earlier detection, better tracking and potentially another opportunity to intercept a threat before it approaches the United States or Europe.

The new agreement among the United States, Greenland and Denmark expressly permits Golden Dome defenses in Greenland, expands America’s military presence and adds facilities at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig. It preserves Greenlandic sovereignty while providing the United States with the long-term access necessary to protect Greenland, North America and Europe.

The commercial and military visions reinforce one another. Ports servicing icebreakers can also support NATO vessels. Airfields transporting workers and cargo can accommodate surveillance aircraft. Satellite systems guiding commercial ships can support missile warning. Power generation, housing, hospitals and emergency services can serve civilian and military populations together.

Below, Greenland can become the gateway to a new Arctic trade corridor. Above, it can become the forward shield protecting the Western world.

They Were Too Busy Hating Trump to See It

When Trump raised Greenland, his critics saw only another opportunity to ridicule him. Very few stopped to consider emerging Arctic shipping lanes, the Western shortage of icebreakers, the need for Arctic ports, Greenland’s mineral resources or its unparalleled position in missile defense.

They were too busy laughing to think.

Trump did not acquire Greenland, but his pressure produced a major strategic agreement: an expanded and enduring American security role, new military facilities, protection against hostile foreign involvement and permission to establish Golden Dome defenses.

That is a substantial accomplishment.

The scoffers have already moved on, searching for their next reason to hate Trump. They are unlikely to acknowledge what happened because their objection was never really about Greenland. It was about Trump. Their reflexive contempt prevented them from recognizing the strategic transformation taking place directly in front of them.

They saw a ridiculous real-estate proposal. Trump saw the future map of global trade and defense.

That is the difference between criticism and critical thinking: Criticism searches for something to condemn. Critical thinking asks what another person may be seeing that we have not yet recognized.

Trump’s critics did plenty of the first and almost none of the second.

The final irony is that many of the same people who insist climate change will transform the planet ridiculed Trump for recognizing that it will transform the strategic and economic importance of the Arctic. They accepted the premise but mocked its unavoidable conclusion.

Trump followed that conclusion all the way to Greenland.

The vision is now coming into focus: shorter voyages, potentially lower fuel consumption, faster access to markets, reduced dependence upon volatile Middle Eastern chokepoints, Western-controlled infrastructure, access to critical resources and an advanced defensive shield protecting North America and Europe.

Climate change is opening the Arctic. Greenland can provide the gateway. Allied icebreakers can keep the lanes navigable. American power can keep them free and safe.

Trump saw it before his critics did. His accomplishment is not simply an agreement concerning a distant island. It may prove to be one of the most consequential strategic achievements of his presidency—one that helps shape world commerce and Western security for generations.

The question is no longer whether Arctic shipping lanes will be developed. The question is how quickly they will be developed—and who will control, service and protect them.

Russia is already building the infrastructure and operating the world’s largest icebreaker fleet. China, despite not being an Arctic nation, has declared its interest in a “Polar Silk Road.” If the United States and its allies hesitate, they will not preserve an untouched Arctic; they will surrender its development to nations whose interests may be hostile to their own.

Greenland gives the Western alliance its opportunity to compete. Its ports could service icebreakers, support commercial shipping and provide search-and-rescue operations. Its airfields, satellites and radar installations could protect the passage. Its location could anchor a secure trade corridor connecting Asia, Europe and North America.

Greenland could become the center of an allied Arctic partnership combining American security, Danish maritime experience, Finnish and Canadian icebreaker expertise, Nordic navigation, Korean shipbuilding, Japanese fisheries investment and European capital.

An Allied Investment Opportunity

Greenland’s development need not be an American undertaking alone. It could unite the capital, technology and experience of America’s closest allies, with each contributing what it does best.

Denmark has the deepest historical and commercial relationship with Greenland. Danish companies could participate in construction, energy, engineering and maritime operations. Maersk is not a shipbuilder, but as one of the world’s largest shipping and logistics companies, it could contribute invaluable experience in ports, cargo networks and international trade.

Finland possesses exceptional icebreaker-design and construction expertise, while Canada brings generations of experience operating ships, ports and communities under severe Arctic conditions. Norway and Iceland could contribute offshore technology, fisheries management, cold-water navigation, search-and-rescue capabilities and North Atlantic logistics.

South Korea, one of the world’s leading shipbuilding nations, could build icebreakers, ice-class cargo ships, tankers and support vessels. Japan would have strong reasons to invest in fisheries, seafood processing, refrigeration, scientific research and faster shipping between Asian and European markets. The European Union could help finance ports, renewable energy, communications and responsibly developed critical-mineral projects. American companies could provide defense systems, satellites, aviation, capital and large-scale infrastructure.

Each country would benefit, but Greenland and its people must remain at the center. Development should create Greenlandic jobs, technical training, local business ownership and lasting public revenue—not merely allow foreign powers to extract resources.

The question is no longer whether Arctic shipping lanes will be developed. The question is how quickly they will be developed—and who will build, service and protect them.

Russia already operates the world’s largest icebreaker fleet, while China is pursuing its vision of a Polar Silk Road. If America and its allies hesitate, they will not preserve an undeveloped Arctic. They will surrender its development to nations whose interests may be hostile to their own.

Greenland offers another path: an allied undertaking combining American security, Danish and Maersk maritime experience, Finnish and Canadian icebreaker expertise, Korean shipbuilding, Japanese fisheries investment and European capital.

The Arctic will be opened. The only real choice is whether America and its allies help shape the rules—or allow Russia and China to write them.

Sources and Further Reading

1. Reuters. “US, Greenland, Denmark Sign Deal in Bid to End Arctic Standoff.” September 22, 2026. Covers the new trilateral agreement, expanded American access, additional military sites, Golden Dome defenses and restrictions on hostile foreign investment.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-denmark-greenland-sign-deal-bid-end-arctic-standoff-2026-09-22/

2. United States Space Force. “Pituffik Space Base, Greenland.” Describes Pituffik’s missile-warning, missile-defense and space-surveillance missions.

https://www.petersonschriever.spaceforce.mil/Pituffik-SB-Greenland/

3. United States Space Force. “12th Space Warning Squadron.” Explains the Upgraded Early Warning Radar operated at Pituffik and its role in ballistic-missile detection.

https://www.buckley.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/2291701/12th-space-warning-squadron/

4. Reuters. “NATO Allies Promised Trump They’d Secure the Arctic; They’ve Got Work to Do.” June 26, 2026. Discusses Russia’s 42 operational icebreakers, NATO’s Arctic investment requirements, missile threats and the strategic importance of the GIUK Gap.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/nato-allies-promised-trump-theyd-secure-arctic-theyve-got-work-do-2026-06-26/

5. Government of Canada. “Icebreaker Collaboration Effort.” Describes the ICE Pact among the United States, Canada and Finland and their cooperation in designing, constructing and maintaining Arctic vessels.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/acquisitions/defence-marine/icebreaker-collaboration-effort-pact.html

6. Sikuki Nuuk Harbour. “Port of Nuuk.” Provides specifications for Nuuk’s container terminal, including its quay, cranes, storage area, water depth and refrigerated-container connections.

https://sikuki.gl/the-ports/port-of-nuuk/

7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Cross-Chapter Paper 6: Polar Regions.” Discusses declining Arctic sea ice, increased maritime access and the potential for faster and more economical trade through the Arctic.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/ccp6/

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “How Do Changes in the Polar Regions Affect Other Parts of the World?” Notes that emerging Arctic shipping routes can offer cost savings because they are shorter than passages through the Suez and Panama canals.

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/about/faq/faq-chapter-3/

9. NOAA. “JPSS Satellites Help Ships Navigate the Northwest Passage.” Explains that the Northwest Passage can be approximately 9,000 kilometers shorter than the Panama Canal route for applicable voyages.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/jpss-satellites-help-ships-navigate-the-northwest-passage

10. Reuters. “Company Launches China-Europe Shipping Route.” September 22, 2025. Reports on an 18-day China-to-Britain Arctic voyage, compared with approximately 40 days around the Cape of Good Hope, and the projected fuel and emissions benefits.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/company-launches-china-europe-shipping-route-global-times-says-2025-09-22/

11. Mohameda, Abdella, Christian Hendricksb and Xiangyu Hua. “Routing-Method Effects on Distance, Time, Fuel, and Emissions in Europe-Asia Trade.” 2025. Compares the Northern Sea Route with the Suez and Cape routes while accounting for realistic speeds, fuel consumption and route constraints.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01076

12. International Maritime Organization. “International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters.” Details the Polar Code, Arctic navigation requirements, voyage planning and restrictions on heavy fuel oil.

https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/polar-code.aspx

13. Government of Greenland. “Greenland Mineral Resources Strategy 2025–2029.” Presents Greenland’s strategy for environmentally and socially responsible mineral development.

https://naalakkersuisut.gl/-/media/nyheder/2025/01/3101_ny_raastofstrategi/greenland-mineral-resources-strategy-2025-2029.pdf

14. Reuters. “Greenland Approves 30-Year Mining Permit for EU-Backed Graphite Project.” December 9, 2025. Reports on the Amitsoq graphite project and Greenland’s effort to attract responsible critical-mineral investment.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/greenland-approves-30-year-mining-permit-eu-backed-graphite-project-2025-12-09/

15. World Bank. “Greenland Economic Data.” Provides population, GDP and other indicators illustrating Greenland’s small population and present economic scale.

https://data360.worldbank.org/en/economy/GRL

16. Embassy of Japan in Denmark. “Greenland Revisited.” Discusses the established relationship between Japan and Greenland involving fisheries trade, shrimp, halibut and Arctic scientific cooperation.

https://www.dk.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_en/ambassador-letter22.html

17. Maersk. “Logistics Services and Solutions.” Describes Maersk’s worldwide ocean shipping, port, cargo, cold-chain and integrated logistics operations.

https://www.maersk.com/logistics-solutions

18. Financial Times. “Denmark’s Investment Fund Has ‘Huge Appetite’ to Invest in Greenland, Says CEO.” Reports on Danish interest in financing Greenlandic minerals, energy and infrastructure.

https://www.ft.com/content/07f9879b-9f06-4b81-b41f-7822ed3797c4

19. AP. “Icebreakers, the Key Technology to Unlock Greenland, Are Made by U.S. Allies or Adversaries.” Examines Western dependence on Finnish and Canadian icebreaker expertise and the need for a greatly expanded allied fleet.

https://apnews.com/article/c69ac5648b97298c537619aa72be5e1f

20. Reuters. “US, Canada and Finland Launch Effort to Build Ice-Breaking Ships.” July 11, 2024. Reports on the formation of the ICE Pact and allied interest in building approximately 70–90 Arctic-capable vessels over the following decade.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-canada-finland-launch-effort-build-ice-breaking-ships-china-russia-cooperate-2024-07-11/

 

LET'S TALK ABOUT DIESEL PRICES

Yes, Let’s Talk About High Diesel Prices

An Op-Ed on Oil

By Jonah

Diesel prices are painfully high, and the consequences reach far beyond the fuel pump. Farmers need diesel to run tractors, combines and trucks. Truckers move nearly everything Americans buy. Construction, mining, manufacturing and emergency services all depend upon it. When diesel rises, the cost eventually works its way into groceries, building materials and almost every product transported across the country.

Democrats have naturally decided to blame President Trump. That is rich. They should begin by holding themselves accountable.

Trump did not create the refinery shortages or decades of policies that left America without an adequate margin of safety. He is the president bringing solutions to the problems he inherited.

The present price spike was triggered by war and disruptions to the international energy system. But America’s vulnerability was created over decades. The political left’s obsession with eliminating fossil fuels discouraged new refineries, complicated expansion of existing facilities and warned investors that petroleum infrastructure might not be allowed to operate long enough to recover its cost. Now some of the same people who created that hostile investment climate want to blame the president trying to reverse it.

Not Trump’s War

“A war which would have never happened if I were president. Would have never happened.”

—President Donald Trump, 2026 State of the Union

Decades of regulatory and energy policy had already stacked the kindling. The wars lit the match. Particularly the recent Ukrainian drone attacks of Russian energy facilities near Moscow.

The continuing war in Ukraine is a setback for world peace, energy security and diesel supplies. But blaming Donald Trump for its origin turns history upside down.

Russia seized Crimea and began its intervention in eastern Ukraine in 2014, while Barack Obama was president invasion during Trump’s first term. Vladimir Putin launched that invasion on February 24, 2022, while Joe Biden was president.

Trump has repeatedly said that the invasion would never have occurred had he remained in office. No one can conclusively prove an alternative history, but Trump makes a serious argument. His first administration armed Ukraine with lethal weapons, imposed sanctions on Russia and opposed the Nord Stream 2 pipeline because it would enrich Russia, bypass Ukraine and deepen Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

Since returning to office, Trump has been among the world’s most active leaders seeking an end to the war. He has spoken with both Putin and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, dispatched senior negotiators, pursued ceasefires and attempted to stop attacks on energy infrastructure. He has also signed additional sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector, defense industry and shadow tanker fleet.

His attempts to stop Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries should be understood within that larger effort. Those attacks may serve Ukraine’s military strategy, but they also remove diesel from the world market and increase costs for American farmers and truckers. Seeking an energy ceasefire is not the same as siding with Russia. It is an effort to de-escalate the war, protect global energy supplies and create an opening for peace.

Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine. Trump is working to end the war he inherited.

Policy Baked In the Vulnerability

Diesel prices reflect several costs: crude oil, refining, distribution, retail margins and taxes. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, crude oil accounted for approximately 51 percent of the average retail price of diesel between 2004 and 2025. But today’s crisis is not merely about the availability of crude. It is also about the world’s limited ability to refine crude into diesel.

“War-related damage has simply taken too many refineries offline.”

—Reuters energy analysis 

Russia has historically been a major exporter of diesel and gasoil. Ukrainian drone attacks have damaged or interrupted production at important Russian refineries. Russia then restricted petroleum-product exports to protect its own domestic supply. That removed diesel from an international market that was already dangerously tight.

Iran Took the World Hostage

On October 7, 2023, Iran-backed Hamas took 251 human beings hostage. On February 28, 2026, Iran’s leaders attempted to take the world hostage.

This time, their weapon was the Strait of Hormuz. By effectively closing a narrow passage through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade normally flows, Tehran turned the global energy supply into an instrument of coercion. Tankers stopped moving, fuel supplies tightened and prices surged across the world.

The parallel is chilling. Hamas used innocent men, women and children as bargaining chips. Iran used the world’s dependence on oil and gas. In each case, the strategy was essentially the same: seize something indispensable and then demand concessions for its release.

That is the larger threat Trump is confronting. High diesel prices are painful, but surrendering to energy blackmail would reward the tactic and ensure that it is used again.

Iran's leaders want the world to suffer, so they are disrupting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and holding the world hostage

Underinvestment: The Predictable Result

For years, climate activists and Democratic policymakers opposed pipelines and refineries, imposed increasingly complex fuel requirements, promoted mandates intended to phase out internal-combustion vehicles and created tremendous uncertainty about the future of petroleum. A large refinery costs billions of dollars and must operate for decades to justify that investment. Why would a company accept that risk when political leaders repeatedly announce their intention to eliminate its market?

Environmental regulations produced genuine reductions in pollution, but those benefits were not free. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel requires additional processing, energy, equipment and distribution controls. The EIA specifically acknowledges that America’s transition to cleaner, lower-sulfur diesel increased diesel production and distribution costs. Different regional requirements also make it harder to move replacement fuel quickly when a refinery shuts down.

Meanwhile, major new refineries were not being built. Existing facilities added capacity through modernization and expansion, but older refineries closed and the remaining system became increasingly concentrated. The plants still operating now run close to their practical limits. That may appear efficient during calm periods, but it leaves very little margin for war, accidents, maintenance or unexpected demand.

The Trump administration is trying to rebuild that missing margin. It has made expanding refining capacity a national priority, pressed refiners to enlarge and modernize existing plants, pursued faster permitting and regulatory relief, and considered using the Defense Production Act to help finance equipment and efficiency improvements. The administration has also used emergency fuel waivers, acted on small-refinery exemptions and released strategic reserves to ease immediate supply pressures. 

These measures cannot reverse decades of underinvestment overnight, but they send the market an essential long-term signal about America'sclong term needs for refining capacity in order to encourage investment. 

Of course, a future Democratic administration could reverse those policies and recreate the very uncertainty that discouraged investment in the first place. That possibility is precisely why lasting reform—not merely temporary relief—is necessary.

Trump Isn’t the Cause, But He Is Bringing Solutions

“Expanding that capacity is a top priority for the President and his energy team.”

—White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers

Trump is acting on the immediate crisis by protecting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, while other countries refused to.  The United States has committed naval resources to clearing mines, monitoring international shipping lanes and protecting commercial vessels willing to make the passage. Trump announced that mines had been removed from international waters and warned Iran against replacing them.

“The main objective…was to find the right deal in order to open the Strait of Hormuz.”

—French President Emmanuel Macron

 

Iran Knows the American Political Calendar

Iran’s leaders know exactly when America holds its midterm elections. They also understand that prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz means higher fuel prices, angrier voters and mounting political pressure on President Trump.

There is no need to imagine secret coordination between Tehran and the Democratic Party. Their interests simply converge. Iran wants Americans to lose patience with Trump before his pressure campaign forces Tehran to retreat. Democrats want to turn every painful trip to the fuel pump into an argument against Trump and congressional Republicans.

Iran is using control of the Strait as bargaining leverage while Trump faces increasing domestic pressure ahead of the midterms. Democrats, meanwhile, are making rising fuel costs and the Iran conflict central elements of their campaign against the administration.

Iran’s leaders are counting on America’s political divisions to weaken the country’s resolve. Every Democrat who blames Trump for the consequences at the fuel pump—while glossing over Tehran’s deliberate disruption of global energy supplies—helps Iran’s strategy succeed.

Trump knows that high fuel prices could hurt Republicans in November. Nevertheless, he has said that the midterms are not influencing his Iran policy, while his administration continues to identify preventing a nuclear-armed Iran as its overriding objective.

In my view, Trump deserves credit for putting the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran ahead of the potential political cost in the midterm elections. He is refusing to allow the electoral calendar to determine America’s response to a far greater and more enduring threat.

Tehran understands the calendar. So does Trump. The difference is that Iran hopes to exploit it, while Trump appears willing to risk the election rather than surrender to it.

Iran refuses to make a deal in which they must abandon their nuclear weapon ambitions. The diesel cricis is evidence of Iran's determination.

The First Chess Move: Removing Venezuela’s Criminal Leader

Trump anticipated the obvious. A strong case can be made for that. Maduro’s removal preceded the worst of the diesel crisis and gave the United States access to the heavy crude its Gulf Coast refineries are designed to process.

Trump’s first major move on the energy chessboard may have come before most Americans realized how serious the diesel problem would become: removing Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.

Maduro was not simply another unfriendly foreign leader. He presided over an authoritarian narco-state that drove millions of Venezuelans from their country, allowed one of the world’s richest petroleum industries to decay and opened the door to growing Russian, Chinese and Iranian influence in America’s own hemisphere.

When American forces captured Maduro, Trump did more than remove an indicted leader accused of participating in an international cocaine-trafficking conspiracy. He changed the strategic alignment of the country possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

The effect on energy policy was immediate. The United States reached an agreement to redirect between 30 million and 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil toward the American market rather than China. Washington encouraged American and international companies to invest in restoring Venezuela’s badly damaged petroleum industry. By mid-2026, Venezuelan oil and fuel exports had risen from an average of approximately 847,000 barrels per day in 2025 to more than 1.2 million barrels per day.

That oil is especially important because much of it is heavy crude—the type many sophisticated Gulf Coast refineries were constructed to process. Increasing that supply helps those facilities operate efficiently, supports American diesel production and reduces competition for other limited sources of heavy crude.

“The rules of the global energy game have changed.”

—Reuters analysis following Maduro’s removal»

It would be an overstatement to claim that Maduro was removed solely because of oil or that Venezuelan crude could prevent every future price increase. Restoring a neglected petroleum industry takes enormous investment and time. 

Nevertheless, the strategic consequences are difficult to ignore. Trump removed a hostile and criminally accused ruler, weakened the foothold of America’s adversaries, redirected oil from China toward the United States and began rebuilding a nearby source of crude particularly valuable to American refineries.

When the wars in Iran and Ukraine later disrupted international energy supplies, that earlier move looked increasingly consequential. Venezuela could not eliminate the diesel shortage, but its additional oil helped prevent an already serious American problem from becoming even worse.

Home Front Fix

Venezuelan crude cannot replace lost global refining capacity. It can, however, keep American refineries supplied with the feedstock they were designed to process. That supports domestic diesel output and helps prevent American prices from rising even further.

Trump is also pushing to expand refining capacity at home. His administration has pursued faster permitting, regulatory reform and investment in refinery modernization. It has considered using the Defense Production Act to support petroleum refining and logistics, met directly with refinery executives and announced a proposed 168,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Brownsville, Texas.

None of this can reverse decades of underinvestment overnight. A refinery cannot be ordered today and begin producing diesel next month. The time required to add capacity is precisely why the country should not have spent years discouraging it.

Farmers Need Help Now

Farmers cannot wait years for new refining capacity. Harvest must proceed, regardless of the price of diesel.

Trump has directed his administration to examine targeted relief. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has said that the president personally called her to discuss diesel costs for farmers and that additional action was being prepared. Republican lawmakers have proposed temporary assistance and measures to keep more diesel inside the United States during the harvest.

The administration has already provided broader assistance through the Farmer Bridge Assistance program, which offers billions of dollars to row-crop producers confronting disrupted markets and rising production costs. It has also reduced expenses associated with diesel equipment by protecting farmers’ right to repair and changing troublesome Diesel Exhaust Fluid rules that caused costly shutdowns, repairs and engine derating.

Those measures do not make six-dollar diesel painless. They demonstrate, however, that Trump recognizes both sides of the problem: America must increase supply over the long term while helping farmers survive the immediate emergency.

Democrats Blaming Trump Is Rich—They Should Hold Themselves Accountable

Accountability Requires Looking Backward—and Forward

Presidents deserve to be judged by their policies. Trump should be judged by whether his efforts ultimately increase refinery capacity, strengthen energy security and lower prices. But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that the diesel system he inherited was created in January 2025—or that wars and refinery shortages developed because he suddenly returned to office.

Democrats spent years telling the petroleum industry that its days were numbered. They celebrated blocked pipelines, opposed refinery development, imposed costly mandates and treated investment in fossil-fuel infrastructure as morally suspect. They cannot credibly express surprise when companies decline to invest billions in that infrastructure.

President Trump is championing a fundamental change in American energy policy—one designed to increase refinery capacity, strengthen domestic diesel production and reduce prices over time. He is pursuing more crude supply, more refining, less regulatory obstruction and greater security for the international routes upon which the energy market depends.

The current crisis will not disappear immediately. The war in Ukraine continues. Iran continues to threaten international shipping. Refineries take time to expand, and global diesel inventories remain dangerously low.

A Question of Priorities

Trump’s priorities are an important part of this story. A president focused exclusively on the midterm elections might retreat from Iran, lift the pressure and accept whatever short-term reduction in fuel prices followed. Trump has chosen a different course.

His stated first priority is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That means confronting a radical regime openly hostile to Israel, protecting international shipping and refusing to exchange long-term security for temporary political relief. His second priority is ending the wars and restoring stable energy markets. Lower diesel prices remain important, particularly for farmers and truckers, but Trump argues that they cannot come at the cost of allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.
That choice carries real political risk. High fuel prices are hurting American families, weakening Trump’s approval ratings and threatening Republicans in the midterm elections. Yet he continues pursuing the larger objective. In my view, that tells us something important about his priorities: he is placing the security of America and Israel—and the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran—ahead of his own immediate political advantage.

Critics may challenge his strategy or question whether military pressure will achieve its objective. That is a legitimate debate. But it is unfair to portray Trump as indifferent to diesel prices without acknowledging the more dangerous threat he believes he is confronting. He is not ignoring the economic pain. He is making a difficult judgment about which danger must come first.

Look in the Mirror Liberals

Democrats blaming him for today’s diesel prices is rich. Before pointing fingers, they should examine the consequences of their own energy agenda—and finally accept some responsibility for the shortage they helped bake into the system.

Liberals who exploit Iran-driven fuel prices to weaken Trump—while saying little about Tehran’s use of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage—are, whether they acknowledge it or not, playing on Iran’s side of the chessboard.

Sources

U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Factors Affecting Diesel Prices”:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/factors-affecting-diesel-prices.php

U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Diesel Prices and Outlook”:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/prices-and-outlook.php

U.S. Energy Information Administration, “When Was the Last Refinery Built in the United States?”:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=29&t=6

U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Refining Capacity Decreased During 2025”:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67807

Reuters, “Half of Russia’s Top Diesel-Producing Refineries Cut Back Output After Drone Strikes,” September 15, 2026:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/half-russias-top-diesel-producing-refineries-cut-back-output-after-drone-strikes-2026-09-15/

Reuters, “How the U.S. Could Clear Mines From the Strait of Hormuz,” April 16, 2026:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/how-us-could-clear-mines-strait-hormuz-2026-04-16/

Reuters, “Trump Says Strait of Hormuz Has Been Demined,” August 25, 2026:

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-strait-hormuz-has-been-demined-warns-iran-not-plant-more-2026-08-25/

Reuters, “Refiners Elbow Traders to Take a Larger Slice of Venezuela’s Oil,” July 21, 2026:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/refiners-elbow-traders-take-larger-slice-venezuelas-oil-2026-07-21/

Reuters, “White House Weighs How to Use Defense Production Act to Expand U.S. Oil Refining Capacity,” September 11, 2026:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/white-house-weighs-how-use-defense-production-act-expand-us-oil-refining-2026-09-11/

USDA Farm Service Agency, “USDA Announces Enrollment Period for Farmer Bridge Payments,” February 20, 2026:

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/02-20-2026/usda-announces-enrollment-period-farmer-bridge-payments

EQUALITY FOR ALL?

The Irony: Capitalism Spreads the Prosperity Communism Promises

Communism promises a classless society in which wealth and productive resources are held in common. 

Communism promises to share wealth. Capitalism promises people the freedom to earn it. The irony is that capitalism has done a better job of spreading prosperity.

Look at the United States and China. Both are economic giants. Yet the latest income figures suggest that an American household receives roughly six times what a Chinese household does. 

The measures differ, but the gap is too large to dismiss. When China’s workers help produce so much of the world’s goods, how much of that wealth reaches them?

The workers provide the low wage advantage; those with power reap the richest rewards.

The same question reaches beyond wages. What are the conditions in which people work? Can they speak freely and defend their rights? What happens to the air, water, and land we all share when production is prized above accountability?

"China cannot count on ever higher exports to drive durable growth." So says a recent IMF February 2026 article, “How China’s Economy Can Pivot to Consumption-led Growth.”⁠ The IMF report describes China’s economy supported by strong exports while domestic demand remains weak. It then argues for stronger social protection and more income for lower-income households. 

Capitalism has its failures, and wealth can concentrate here too. But its record poses an uncomfortable question for those who promise equality through state control: If equality is the goal, why does the system built on that promise leave so much power at the top?

The irony is that Communism promises "Equality for all." Yet, Capitalism delivers greater prosperity.

As Orwell put it, “Some animals are more equal than others.”

THE NUMBERS TELL A STORY THAT DEMOCRATS WON'T

The Trump Numbers You Won’t Hear Before the Midterms

Economic Strength, Military Strength, Geopolitics, and Social Well-Being

With the midterm elections weeks away, Democrats want you to believe the sky is falling. The mainstream, Trump-hating media gives that story plenty of airtime. But there is another side voters deserve to see: record household income, the lowest recorded official poverty rate, a historic drop in violent crime, record energy production, and a resurgence in military recruiting. These figures come from government releases. Taken together, they tell a story that deserves a place in the national conversation before Election Day.

Economic strength:

1. A smaller federal workforce. Federal employment stood at 2.674 million in August 2026, roughly 336,000 below its January 2025 level. Private-sector hiring continued even as the federal payroll shrank.
2. Record household income. Real median household income reached $87,460 in 2025, the highest in the Census Bureau's historical series.
3. Manufacturing jobs are growing. Manufacturing payrolls rose by 58,000 from December 2025 through August 2026. Companies have also announced substantial plans to bring production to the United States.
4. Record energy production. Total U.S. energy production set a record in 2025, including a record 13.6 million barrels of crude oil per day. A proposed new refinery in Brownsville, Texas, remains in development.
5. A surge in energy exports. U.S. liquefied natural gas exports rose 23% in the first half of 2026 compared with the same period in 2025.
6. A renewed commitment to nuclear power. The administration has set a long-term goal of expanding American nuclear generating capacity. Building that capacity will take time.
7. Major foreign investment. Foreign investors spent $232.2 billion acquiring, establishing, or expanding U.S. businesses in 2025, up 49.5% from 2024. The administration has also announced larger future investment commitments; those pledges should be judged as they become actual projects.
8. A reversal in prescription drug prices. The prescription drug component of the consumer price index fell 2.9% over the year ending in August 2026.
9. Labor productivity is rising. Output per hour in nonfarm businesses rose at a 1.4% annual rate in the second quarter of 2026; manufacturing productivity rose at a 2.4% annual rate. Artificial intelligence may bring larger gains as businesses learn to use it, but those future gains are not yet measured results.

Military strength and national security:

1. A recruiting resurgence. The Pentagon reported its strongest recruiting numbers in 15 years for fiscal 2025. The Army met its fiscal 2026 enlistment contract goal four months early, signing more than 61,500 future soldiers. Americans are stepping forward to serve and protect the country.
2. A new generation of military capability. New aircraft and ships are in development, alongside plans for the Golden Dome missile defense system. These programs represent investment in future strength, with different delivery timelines.
3. Historically low southwest border apprehensions. Border Patrol recorded 8,870 southwest border apprehensions in August 2026. The measure counts people apprehended, rather than every attempted crossing.

Good news beyond our borders

1. A record NATO commitment. Allies agreed to work toward spending 5% of GDP on defense and related security by 2035. European allies and Canada also increased core defense spending in 2025. Trump's pressure helped bring that commitment into focus.
2. A stronger security partnership across the Americas. Representatives of 17 countries joined the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition pledge. New regional trade frameworks offer opportunities to strengthen economic ties alongside cooperation against cartels and cross-border crime.
3. Pushing back on Communist China's influence in our hemisphere. Ports, critical minerals, infrastructure, and communications networks all have strategic value. The administration is working to make the United States a stronger trade and security partner for its neighbors, reducing the appeal of dependence on China.
4. Greater attention to Arctic defense. Greenland's Pituffik Space Base already plays a missile warning role. Growing Arctic shipping adds urgency to cooperation on northern security and trade routes.
5. An extraordinary pace of international engagement. President Trump has made extensive trips and held numerous meetings with foreign leaders in pursuit of trade and security agreements.
6. A shift in the Middle East's balance of power. Israel has demonstrated military, intelligence, and defense technology capabilities far beyond its size. Israeli defense exports reached a record $19.2 billion in 2025, nearly 30% above the previous year. Israel is emerging as a regional superpower, supported by a strong U.S.–Israel security partnership under President Trump.

Social well-being and public safety:

1. The lowest recorded official poverty rate. The Census Bureau reported a 2025 official poverty rate of 10.2%.
2. A historic drop in violent crime. The FBI reported that the violent crime rate fell 9.3% in 2025, its largest annual decline since national estimates began in 1936.
3. A murder rate tied for the lowest on record. The 2025 rate of 4.1 murders per 100,000 people matched the lows recorded in 1955 and 1956.
4. Overdose deaths continue to fall. CDC estimated 67,798 deaths in the 12 months ending March 2026, down 12.3% from the preceding 12 months. The decline began before Trump's current term and has continued during it.
5. High-profile fugitive captures. FBI Director Kash Patel reported ten captures from the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list during his tenure.
6. Visible restoration of the nation's capital. Previously inoperable Washington fountains have returned to service, including the Meridian Hill fountain.

What comes next

These numbers tell a story, but they may be only the beginning. Factories take time to build. Investment commitments take time to become jobs. New energy capacity and trade relationships take time to deliver their full value. So does artificial intelligence: its greatest economic impact may come as businesses learn to help workers produce more. We are still in the early stages of what could become a meaningful economic expansion. 2026 numbers are most impressive. President Trump calls it “America's Golden Age.” Whether it earns that name will depend on what happens next, but the results already coming into view deserve to be seen.

Postscript: Seeing With the Good Eye

After posting this article, I watched President Trump address the United Nations General Assembly. As I listened, I realized that he touched on virtually every major point I had just written about—America’s economy, energy production, manufacturing, border security, military strength, international alliances, trade, crime, and the broader renewal taking place across the country. The speech became an unexpected confirmation of the story told by these numbers.

Then I read the mainstream coverage and wondered whether the commentators had watched the same speech. Much of the reporting concentrated on its most confrontational moments while paying far less attention to the record of American renewal he presented. This goes beyond a partisan filter. There is a deep contempt for President Trump that makes many of his critics incapable of acknowledging anything good associated with him, regardless of the evidence. They have lost what Jewish tradition calls the ayin tovah—the good eye: the willingness to recognize what is good, even when it comes from someone they dislike.

And if any regime deserves to be confronted, it is the one ruling Iran. This is not merely another government with which America has policy differences. It is an authoritarian theocracy that brutally represses the Iranian people, finances armed proxies, threatens Israel and its neighbors, and has obstructed full verification of its nuclear activities. Thank God our president has the courage to stand against it. Confronting such a regime requires strength, leadership, and a clear distinction between the Iranian people and the evil, apocalyptic autocracy that rules over them.

Source appendix

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation, August 2026; Productivity and Costs, second quarter 2026; Consumer Price Index.

U.S. Census Bureau, Income and Poverty in the United States and Income data.

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Foreign direct investment in the United States.

Energy Information Administration, Record energy production in 2025 and LNG export growth in 2026.

Department of Defense, Fiscal 2025 recruiting results; U.S. Army, Fiscal 2026 recruiting results.

FBI, 2025 reported crime statistics.

CDC, Provisional overdose death estimates.

NATO, The Hague Summit Declaration.

The White House, Western Hemisphere trade frameworks and 2025 National Security Strategy.

Israel Ministry of Defense, Record 2025 defense exports and U.S.–Israel defense partnership talks; Bank of Israel, September 2026 economic update.

Additional agency releases: U.S. Customs and Border Protection border statistics; FBI Ten Most Wanted announcements; National Park Service fountain restoration updates; White House and Department of Defense military program releases.

The figures above distinguish measured results from announced plans and commitments. No single statistic establishes how much of an outcome was caused by any one president or policy.