Thomas Friedman discusses the challenges faced by young Americans, the impact of the war on the economy, and the need for a foreign policy built around restraint rather than escalation.
Thomas Friedman on Trump's Iran War : It's Bad... Now Let's Make It WorseThe US Fails Young People by Mobilizing for War, Not Jobs A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across oceans.
It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending.usually measures American decline in external terms: China’s rise, Russia’s revisionism, strained alliances, and military crises in the Middle East. But one of the clearest warnings is coming from inside theit was a good time to find a job where they lived, 21 points below Americans 55 and older. In no other surveyed country was the generational gap this wide.
That finding should unsettle a country that is still speaking the language of primacy. Young Americans are not turning gloomy because they have forgotten how to be optimistic. They are reading the economy in front of them. Youthto a record-low 21%, while the median first-time buyer’s age rose to 40.
For a generation told that education, discipline, and work would translate into stability, the bargain looks broken. This is not only a domestic story. It is also a foreign policy failure, because budgets reveal what a government treats as urgent. The Defense Department’s 2026 requestcould be mechanically converted into a job, an apartment, or a mortgage.
The point is that Washington still knows how to mobilize at scale—but most reliably when the beneficiaries are weapons programs, contractors, and permanent militaryenergy flows through one of the world’s most important corridors, raising the risk that households already squeezed by rent, debt, insurance, and food costs will face still more pressure. For young, “foreign policy” is not abstract when it comes back as higher prices, lower confidence, and another delay in leaving home.
If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys. Washington often treats these costs as unfortunate side effects of leadership. They are better understood as evidence of an outdated model of security. A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across.
It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending. A state that can finance escalation faster than housing, debt relief, or public investment teaches its younger citizens a bleak lesson: Their insecurity is manageable, but imperial credibility is an emergency. A serious foreign policy would start from that recognition. It would pursue diplomacy with Iran rather than convert each crisis into a test of dominance.
It would restore the congressional role in decisions of war and peace. It would subjectto the same moral and fiscal scrutiny imposed on social programs. And it would treat economic security at home as part of national security, not as an afterthought to be discussed after the next supplemental defense bill.militarization, provide humanitarian assistance, and support climate resilience without treating armed escalation as the default proof of seriousness.
In fact, a foreign policy built around restraint would be more credible abroad precisely because it would be more defensible at home. The warning from young Americans is not just that the job market feels weak. It is that the future feels rationed. If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys.
It will appear in politics, institutions, and the country’s declining ability to persuade anyone—including its own citizens—that American power still serves a public purpose. The real measure of decline is not only what rivals do to the United States. It is what the United States keeps choosing to do to itself. It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser.
We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors.
No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire.
To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work.
But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying.
We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you.
When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Ericka Feusier is an American freelance writer focused on the Middle East and US relations with Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Her work centers on policy analysis and international reporting.
Views expressed are her own.usually measures American decline in external terms: China’s rise, Russia’s revisionism, strained alliances, and military crises in the Middle East. But one of the clearest warnings is coming from inside theit was a good time to find a job where they lived, 21 points below Americans 55 and older. In no other surveyed country was the generational gap this wide. That finding should unsettle a country that is still speaking the language of primacy.
Young Americans are not turning gloomy because they have forgotten how to be optimistic. They are reading the economy in front of them. Youthto a record-low 21%, while the median first-time buyer’s age rose to 40. For a generation told that education, discipline, and work would translate into stability, the bargain looks broken.
This is not only a domestic story. It is also a foreign policy failure, because budgets reveal what a government treats as urgent. The Defense Department’s 2026 requestcould be mechanically converted into a job, an apartment, or a mortgage.
The point is that Washington still knows how to mobilize at scale—but most reliably when the beneficiaries are weapons programs, contractors, and permanent militaryenergy flows through one of the world’s most important corridors, raising the risk that households already squeezed by rent, debt, insurance, and food costs will face still more pressure. For young, “foreign policy” is not abstract when it comes back as higher prices, lower confidence, and another delay in leaving home.
If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys. Washington often treats these costs as unfortunate side effects of leadership. They are better understood as evidence of an outdated model of security. A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across.
It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending. A state that can finance escalation faster than housing, debt relief, or public investment teaches its younger citizens a bleak lesson: Their insecurity is manageable, but imperial credibility is an emergency. A serious foreign policy would start from that recognition. It would pursue diplomacy with Iran rather than convert each crisis into a test of dominance.
It would restore the congressional role in decisions of war and peace. It would subjectto the same moral and fiscal scrutiny imposed on social programs. And it would treat economic security at home as part of national security, not as an afterthought to be discussed after the next supplemental defense bill.militarization, provide humanitarian assistance, and support climate resilience without treating armed escalation as the default proof of seriousness.
In fact, a foreign policy built around restraint would be more credible abroad precisely because it would be more defensible at home. The warning from young Americans is not just that the job market feels weak. It is that the future feels rationed. If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys.
It will appear in politics, institutions, and the country’s declining ability to persuade anyone—including its own citizens—that American power still serves a public purpose. The real measure of decline is not only what rivals do to the United States. It is what the United States keeps choosing to do to itself. Ericka Feusier is an American freelance writer focused on the Middle East and US relations with Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
Her work centers on policy analysis and international reporting. Views expressed are her own.usually measures American decline in external terms: China’s rise, Russia’s revisionism, strained alliances, and military crises in the Middle East. But one of the clearest warnings is coming from inside theit was a good time to find a job where they lived, 21 points below Americans 55 and older. In no other surveyed country was the generational gap this wide.
That finding should unsettle a country that is still speaking the language of primacy. Young Americans are not turning gloomy because they have forgotten how to be optimistic. They are reading the economy in front of them. Youthto a record-low 21%, while the median first-time buyer’s age rose to 40.
For a generation told that education, discipline, and work would translate into stability, the bargain looks broken. This is not only a domestic story. It is also a foreign policy failure, because budgets reveal what a government treats as urgent. The Defense Department’s 2026 requestcould be mechanically converted into a job, an apartment, or a mortgage.
The point is that Washington still knows how to mobilize at scale—but most reliably when the beneficiaries are weapons programs, contractors, and permanent militaryenergy flows through one of the world’s most important corridors, raising the risk that households already squeezed by rent, debt, insurance, and food costs will face still more pressure. For young, “foreign policy” is not abstract when it comes back as higher prices, lower confidence, and another delay in leaving home.
If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys. Washington often treats these costs as unfortunate side effects of leadership. They are better understood as evidence of an outdated model of security. A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across.
It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending. A state that can finance escalation faster than housing, debt relief, or public investment teaches its younger citizens a bleak lesson: Their insecurity is manageable, but imperial credibility is an emergency. A serious foreign policy would start from that recognition. It would pursue diplomacy with Iran rather than convert each crisis into a test of dominance.
It would restore the congressional role in decisions of war and peace. It would subjectto the same moral and fiscal scrutiny imposed on social programs. And it would treat economic security at home as part of national security, not as an afterthought to be discussed after the next supplemental defense bill.militarization, provide humanitarian assistance, and support climate resilience without treating armed escalation as the default proof of seriousness.
In fact, a foreign policy built around restraint would be more credible abroad precisely because it would be more defensible at home. The warning from young Americans is not just that the job market feels weak. It is that the future feels rationed. If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys.
It will appear in politics, institutions, and the country’s declining ability to persuade anyone—including its own citizens—that American power still serves a public purpose. The real measure of decline is not only what rivals do to the United States. It is what the United States keeps choosing to do to itself. The 1% own and operate the corporate media.
They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission?
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How?
Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read.
Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls.
No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in?
Current Affairs Foreign Policy Thomas Friedman Iran War US Decline Job Market Young Americans Budget Defense Department's 2026 Request Rent Debt Insurance Food Costs Diplomacy With Iran Congressional Role In Decisions Of War And Pea Social Programs Emergency Climate Resilience Armed Escalation Restraint Defensible At Home Public Purpose
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
The Latest: Trump scores another win against Republican rival with Rep. Thomas Massie’s primary lossPresident Donald Trump has scored another win against a Republican rival, dislodging Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky’s primary and knocking out one of his most outspoken critics on Capitol Hill.
Read more »
Tank Developments and Innovation in World War II and the Cold War EraExplore the evolution of tanks during World War II and the subsequent innovations in tank designs, including the significance of the Battle of France, Operation Barbarossa, and the integration of lessons learned from World War II into tank designs during the Cold War era. Understand the role of German forces, Allied-Soviet rivalry, and the introduction of new weapons and designs, such as the Soviet T-34/76 and Allied Sherman tanks.
Read more »
Thomas Massie's Defeat to Trump-Backed Ed Gallrein Speaks Directly to America's Moral DeclineA healthy society rewards honesty, independence, transparency, and institutional courage. A diseased culture—even if we look beyond particular ideologies or partisan alignment—values something altogether different.
Read more »
After Thomas Massie, who could Trump and MAGA target next?Massie lost his primary election in Kentucky after Trump backed a challenger and spoke out against him.
Read more »