The hottest US Policy Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top World Politics Topics
Phillips’s Newsletter • 341 implied HN points • 22 Mar 26
  1. Ukrainian forces have reorganized around drone-based units and new doctrine, using UAVs (including fibre-optic controlled drones) to inflict record Russian casualties while keeping Ukrainian soldiers safer.
  2. The U.S. policy shift has effectively eased pressure on Russia—lifting or reducing sanctions, opening trade channels for Belarus, and publicly downplaying support for Ukraine—signaling weaker American backing for Kyiv.
  3. Ukraine has escalated long-range drone strikes deep into Russian territory against refineries, factories, and logistics hubs, demonstrating increased reach and prompting Russian officials to admit growing vulnerabilities.
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 2109 implied HN points • 28 Feb 26
  1. The U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran are expected to be short and limited rather than a long, drawn-out war.
  2. This action is being framed as different from the 2003 Iraq invasion — focused more on targeted “regime alteration” than on full-scale regime change and occupation.
  3. Many critics will compare this to past U.S. interventions and warn that aggressive American actions often cause widespread damage and have mixed, unpredictable outcomes.
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 324 implied HN points • 12 Mar 26
  1. Iran is growing regionally isolated and its proxy forces like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas are weakened or sidelined.
  2. That isolation gives the United States and Gulf Arab states a rare strategic opening to deepen security cooperation and counter shared threats.
  3. The Abraham Accords can be upgraded from symbolic normalization into a practical, integrated security architecture linking Israel and the Gulf.
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 843 implied HN points • 01 Mar 26
  1. The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader is a watershed event that could reshape Iran and the wider Middle East, with consequences that may ripple across the world.
  2. The U.S.-led strikes represent a high-stakes gamble: their aims may be noble, but the risks are enormous and the outcomes highly unpredictable, even for American democracy.
  3. It’s unclear whether Iranians can turn this moment into a successful popular overthrow because they lack arms and organization, and uncertainty about succession means a new, possibly more radical leader could emerge or the regime could collapse.
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 370 implied HN points • 08 Mar 26
  1. Kurdish party leaders say they have no interest in operating outside the Kurdish region and are not planning a march on Tehran.
  2. U.S. officials have discussed supporting Iranian Kurdish fighters, but there’s no concrete agreement or deployment yet and the idea remains hypothetical.
  3. Groups like Komala and the KDPI have bases in Iraqi Kurdistan near Iran’s border, yet their forces have not crossed into Iran to start an uprising.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 273 implied HN points • 09 Mar 26
  1. Demanding unconditional surrender is unrealistic and risks prolonging the war instead of producing a clear, achievable outcome.
  2. Iran’s forces, especially the IRGC, are decentralized and prepared to continue fighting, so they are unlikely to capitulate quickly.
  3. A smarter strategy would set limited, achievable goals—like degrading Iran’s missile and drone strike capabilities—so a leader could claim victory and disengage.
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 500 implied HN points • 04 Mar 26
  1. Trump's likely endgame is to pressure Israel into a ceasefire, with the U.S. using its influence to force a quick end to active fighting.
  2. Iran is escalating attacks to try to force that outcome, but its recent miscalculations have backfired and left the regime more isolated while driving closer alignment between Israel and Arab states.
  3. The conflict has already sharply escalated—killing U.S. personnel, striking across the region, and disrupting trade and oil markets—creating a volatile situation that could either spiral further or prompt urgent diplomacy.
John’s Substack • 9 implied HN points • 22 Mar 26
  1. The US is stuck in a bind over the Iran war with no good options, facing only bad choices between escalating or finding a risky exit.
  2. The war is forcing the US to move military and diplomatic resources from East Asia to the Middle East, which weakens America's ability to contain China.
  3. China and Russia benefit: China gains from a distracted US, and Russia is strengthened by eased oil sanctions and a reduced flow of weapons to Ukraine.
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 459 implied HN points • 01 Mar 26
  1. This isn’t a new war but a decades-long struggle that stretches back to the 1979 Islamic revolution and hostage crisis.
  2. The confrontation is framed as targeting theocratic leaders—the mullahs and Islamist regime—rather than the Iranian people as a whole.
  3. A recent U.S. and Israeli strike, initiated under Trump, is seen by some as a possible turning point or the beginning of the end of that long conflict.
Common Sense with Bari Weiss • 292 implied HN points • 01 Mar 26
  1. A joint U.S.-Israel strike killed Iran’s supreme leader, ushering in a sudden and dangerous turning point for the Middle East.
  2. Iran has launched widespread drone and missile retaliations and further U.S.-Israeli strikes are continuing, greatly increasing the risk of a wider, prolonged war.
  3. The attack reflects a shift toward a 'decapitation' strategy and has sparked urgent legal and congressional battles at home; analysts warn the fighting could be long, costly, and might either topple the regime or deepen suffering inside Iran.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 372 implied HN points • 28 Feb 26
  1. The US and Israel have concentrated a huge amount of air and sea strike power around Iran — carriers, destroyers, submarines, and stealth aircraft — making one of the largest strike forces in decades.
  2. The publicly stated goal is regime change in Iran rather than a negotiated nuclear deal, with leaders framing limited military action as a way to overthrow the Iranian government.
  3. Key unknowns are how they will achieve regime change: can they locate and decapitate Iran’s leadership, have they secured inside collaborators, and will the Iranian people or military rise up — watch for leadership hits, defections, or mass protests.
Caitlin’s Newsletter • 1932 implied HN points • 11 Jan 26
  1. US and allied actions like crushing sanctions and covert meddling have been used to weaken Iran by hurting ordinary people, which fuels unrest and can function as engineered pressure for regime change.
  2. Backing regime change in Iran effectively helps the US-centered imperial project, so opposing state violence while cheering for regime change is inconsistent and ultimately strengthens a more powerful, abusive actor.
  3. What’s needed is to weaken that western imperial power rather than topple its enemies into the empire’s hands, because real freedom depends on dismantling centralized global domination, not expanding it.
All-Source Intelligence Fusion • 1668 implied HN points • 03 Jan 26
  1. A former CIA Venezuela chief now runs a lobbying firm that is promoting work to rebuild and profit from Venezuela's energy sector alongside ex-diplomats and private companies.
  2. After a US special forces raid that kidnapped Nicolás Maduro, the US administration said it would oversee the country temporarily and invited large American oil firms to come in and rebuild and extract profit.
  3. Those actions and plans have raised legal and ethical concerns and drawn international condemnation, while the US government points to drug-trafficking allegations and has used sanctions and allied NGOs to justify its moves.
Taipology • 74 implied HN points • 28 Feb 26
  1. The US, with Israel playing a leading role, appears to be pursuing a long-planned regime-change campaign against Iran that may rely on regional proxies rather than large numbers of American ground troops.
  2. Iran has struck back effectively with missiles, making the fight likely to be prolonged and costly; putting Tehran on "death ground" guarantees fierce resistance and raises the risk of a quagmire for the US.
  3. The strategic benefits for the United States are unclear, and the conflict may actually help China geopolitically because China’s oil supply is diversified and it can leverage other economic levers rather than being contained by a war in the Middle East.
The Chris Hedges Report • 178 implied HN points • 24 Feb 26
  1. A U.S. attack on Iran would be a catastrophic mistake driven by incompetent leadership and could spark a wider, prolonged regional war.
  2. Demanding that Iran dismantle its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for no new sanctions is unrealistic and won’t convince Tehran to disarm.
  3. Iran’s size, alliances, and ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and strike regional targets mean such a war would cause heavy casualties, soaring oil prices, and major global economic damage.
John’s Substack • 12 implied HN points • 19 Mar 26
  1. A strike on energy facilities and Iran's retaliation risk a wider escalation that could push oil above $100 a barrel and seriously hurt the global economy.
  2. Israel seems to be pursuing a decapitation strategy, and there are real doubts about whether the US and Israel could successfully seize Iran's 60% enriched uranium.
  3. The situation puts pressure on the US to secure the Strait of Hormuz and highlights uncertainty about whether any viable political exit strategy exists to prevent further escalation.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 291 implied HN points • 15 Feb 26
  1. Recent data suggest Russia lost more troops than it could replace in Dec 2025–Jan 2026, creating roughly a 25% shortfall; if that trend holds or Ukraine raises the pressure, Russian advances could stall.
  2. A major Western speech at Munich omitted any mention of Russia or Ukraine and emphasized seeking a negotiated end acceptable to Moscow, highlighting how many European leaders still rely on US support and have not built a strong, independent European defence pillar.
  3. A senior Ukrainian strategist says durable peace is impossible while Putin sets the terms, so Ukraine should aim for a long, stable positional stalemate that blocks Russian gains, minimizes rear terror, and increases pressure on the Kremlin.
The Chris Hedges Report • 689 implied HN points • 05 Jan 26
  1. America’s democratic checks and balances are collapsing as power concentrates in the executive and corporate interests, sidelining Congress, courts, and diplomacy.
  2. U.S. foreign policy increasingly relies on lawless military interventions and covert actions for strategic and economic gain, producing disasters in countries from Venezuela to Iraq and Libya.
  3. A corporate-controlled media, money-soaked elections, and expanding police and surveillance powers at home suppress dissent, enrich elites, and strip protections for people and the environment.
John’s Substack • 16 implied HN points • 14 Mar 26
  1. A military campaign by the US and Israel against Iran is portrayed as likely to fail and unwinnable.
  2. The Israel lobby is described as a powerful force that shapes and steers US foreign policy decisions.
  3. Those two points are connected: the lobby’s influence helps drive policies that increase the chances of entering a costly, hard-to-win conflict with Iran.
Nonzero Newsletter • 395 implied HN points • 17 Jan 26
  1. Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the harsh sanctions that followed, combined with Biden’s limited reversals, helped strengthen Iranian hardliners, deepen economic suffering, and contributed to deadly repression of protesters.
  2. Economic sanctions tend to backfire: they hurt ordinary people, fuel corruption and black markets, empower military elites like the Revolutionary Guards, and are both morally troubling and strategically counterproductive as a tool to induce regime change.
  3. Recent domestic events show political and media fallout—Trump’s vocal defense of the Renee Good shooting has lowered his approval ratings, and leadership changes at major outlets (e.g., Bari Weiss and potential Ellison influence) could shift how news organizations cover conflicts like Iran.
God's Spies by Thomas Neuburger • 60 implied HN points • 28 Feb 26
  1. The U.S. and Israel have entered a wide-scale Middle East war, with missile strikes and attacks reported across the Gulf and on multiple bases and countries.
  2. Israel appears to have pushed U.S. leadership into attacking Iran, with the U.S. strike reportedly planned months in advance and the attack date set weeks beforehand.
  3. Iran has retaliated and warned it has far stronger weapons to follow, and reported targeting of the Ayatollah and IRGC leaders raises the risk that hardliners could take control and dramatically escalate the conflict.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 274 implied HN points • 18 Jan 26
  1. U.S. policy under Trump has weakened Ukraine’s defenses by delaying aid and limiting air-defense support, which gave Russia time to intensify strikes on energy infrastructure and worsen civilian suffering.
  2. The appointment of Mykhailo Fedorov as defense minister is widely welcomed because he’s young, tech-focused, and prioritizes air defense, drone production, and professionalizing the military to raise brigade performance and morale.
  3. Russia’s ground advances remain slow and have been slowed further by bitter cold, but its campaign of hitting power and heating is causing major civilian hardship even if it has not broken Ukrainian resistance.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 345 implied HN points • 31 Dec 25
  1. In 2025 the US shifted from being a strong supporter of Ukraine and NATO to a policy that effectively sides with Russia, ending direct aid and reversing prior commitments.
  2. That switch had concrete military effects: cuts to weapons, ammunition, and intelligence weakened Ukraine’s air defenses and likely contributed to higher civilian casualties and Russian battlefield gains.
  3. The change reshaped global politics by weakening alliances and emboldening Russia and China, giving Putin time and diplomatic cover, so democracies must acknowledge this new reality if they want to respond.
Aaron Mate • 317 implied HN points • 04 Jan 26
  1. The U.S. carried out a military attack that kidnapped Venezuela’s president and reportedly killed at least 80 people.
  2. Trump framed the operation as a new “Donroe Doctrine,” openly asserting renewed American dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
  3. The apparent goal was to seize Venezuela’s vast oil reserves for U.S. oil interests, and the operation was compared to Mafia-style theft using violence and intimidation.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 320 implied HN points • 03 Jan 26
  1. The U.S. appears to be conducting a military operation aimed at ousting Maduro, with air strikes and possible special forces reported in and around Caracas.
  2. Cuba is a key backer of Maduro through thousands of operatives and relies on Venezuelan oil, so removing Cuban influence will be central to any successful regime change.
  3. Getting rid of Maduro may be the easiest part; who replaces him matters most, and a stable democratic outcome will depend on Venezuelan participation, the military, and regional cooperation rather than outside control.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 326 implied HN points • 14 Dec 25
  1. Ukraine’s recent push around Kupyansk shows it isn’t collapsing and can still mount quick, effective local counterattacks to blunt Russian advances.
  2. The current U.S. diplomatic approach appears to seek Russia’s reintegration without real penalties and to pressure Ukraine into concessions, creating a lopsided negotiation that favors Moscow.
  3. European reaction is shifting: many leaders are wary of the U.S. posture and the EU has moved to freeze Russian assets, indicating growing independent support for Ukraine.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 246 implied HN points • 21 Dec 25
  1. Ukraine is winning the war at sea: unmanned naval drones have damaged a Russian Kilo submarine in Novorossiysk and struck distant shadow-fleet tankers, degrading the Black Sea Fleet and threatening Russia’s oil shipments.
  2. Europe split over funding Ukraine: the EU chose guaranteed loans (about €90bn) instead of seizing frozen Russian assets, a compromise that buys time but raises doubts about European willingness to fully confront Russia.
  3. U.S. policy appears to be easing toward Russia: the Trump administration quietly removed sanctions on some foreign firms and U.S. exports to countries linked to Russia rose, suggesting Washington may be undermining broader sanctions pressure.
Phillips’s Newsletter • 270 implied HN points • 07 Dec 25
  1. The US has shifted toward accommodating Russia and is no longer committed to strongly defending Ukraine or European security. That shift suggests the US would accept a weaker, territorially reduced Ukrainian state.
  2. The Tomahawk episode was a deliberate public tease that made people believe the US would give Ukraine long-range strike weapons, but it was never a realistic policy and served to mislead European and Ukrainian leaders. That false hope distracted Europeans from mobilizing their own urgent support.
  3. Russia is conducting mass drone and missile attacks that cause major power outages while Ukraine struggles with limited air defenses and heavy fighting around places like Pokrovsk. European states need to urgently provide anti-air systems and long-range capabilities because US support is unreliable.
John’s Substack • 14 implied HN points • 25 Feb 26
  1. Trump's State of the Union can be read as him pulling back from attacking Iran because he only demanded a clear pledge that Iran will never get nuclear weapons.
  2. Iran's foreign minister already publicly said Iran will never develop nuclear weapons, and Trump did not insist Iran give up enrichment, ballistic missiles, or support for proxies, which makes a negotiated outcome more feasible.
  3. Almost every country, US military leaders, and Trump's advisers are urging against a war due to its risks and political costs, while Israel and its powerful US lobby remain the main forces pushing for military action.
Dr. Pippa's Pen & Podcast • 42 implied HN points • 21 Jan 26
  1. Greenland is suddenly a high-stakes strategic prize, with the US pushing for greater control as part of bigger security bargains, while the Inuit insist on autonomy and resent being treated like a pawn.
  2. Western unity is fraying as several European countries and Canada cozy up to China or act independently, straining NATO cohesion and intelligence sharing and worrying the US about unreliable partners.
  3. Economic and tech coercion is rising — threats of tariffs and criticism of Europe’s reliance on Chinese-made tech hint at a coming 'digital iron curtain' and increased risk of trade and technology decoupling.
¡Do Not Panic! • 786 implied HN points • 13 Nov 23
  1. History exists and is often manipulated by elites.
  2. Events have causes, but politicians and media may deny this to fit their narrative.
  3. Western foreign policy is driven by strategic interests, supporting oppressive regimes for decades.
John’s Substack • 8 implied HN points • 27 Feb 26
  1. A guest on the 'Judging Freedom' show discussed U.S. misadventures and interventions around the globe.
  2. The conversation focused mainly on Iran and the risks associated with U.S. policy toward that country.
  3. There was a clear hope that President Trump will avoid initiating military action or "pulling the trigger" against Iran.
John’s Substack • 12 implied HN points • 17 Feb 26
  1. Negotiations to end the wars in Ukraine and Iran are mostly performative because the parties’ goals are far apart and meaningful compromise looks unlikely.
  2. The US is relying on inexperienced, partisan private figures rather than seasoned diplomats to run major foreign-policy talks, a sharp contrast with how other great powers handle diplomacy.
  3. Israel and its lobby are exerting strong pressure for US action against Iran despite Iran not posing a clear threat and broad international opposition, highlighting serious ineptitude in US policymaking.
John’s Substack • 11 implied HN points • 13 Feb 26
  1. Trump appears to be seeking a negotiated deal with Iran to avoid using military force, focusing on limits to Iran's nuclear program rather than its full dismantlement.
  2. Israel, led by Netanyahu, demands total elimination of Iran's enrichment, long-range missiles, and support for proxies. It rejects limited agreements like the JCPOA, creating sharp friction with the U.S. approach.
  3. Pro-Israel forces in the U.S. are likely to push Trump toward military action despite it not being in American national interest, while Trump lacks a realistic way to force Israel's maximal demands on Iran.
Caitlin’s Newsletter • 1667 implied HN points • 13 Feb 24
  1. It's important to focus on the actions of Western officials regarding Israel, rather than their words.
  2. Many officials express concern publicly about Israel's actions, but their lack of concrete actions speaks volumes.
  3. By observing the actual movements of money, weapons, and resources, one can uncover the true intentions of officials.
John’s Substack • 10 implied HN points • 01 Feb 26
  1. The United States currently has no good military option against Iran, and launching a full-scale attack would be strategically unwise even though it remains possible.
  2. Israel has carried out major strikes on Iran both independently and with U.S. involvement, but it now appears reluctant to join a U.S.-only campaign.
  3. Israeli leaders pushed different U.S. presidents to act—failing with one and succeeding with another—suggesting political maneuvering where one side may be getting played.
John’s Substack • 9 implied HN points • 16 Jan 26
  1. The US and Israel are trying to upend Iran’s regime and severely weaken the country using their usual playbook of pressure and covert operations.
  2. That strategy has largely failed, and recent events exposed confusion about whether Israel or the US would launch an attack and why Washington ultimately held back from bombing.
  3. Gulf states are increasingly seeing the US–Israel partnership as the bigger threat to regional stability, and destroying Iran would likely embolden reckless policies and make the region less stable.
John’s Substack • 8 implied HN points • 06 Jan 26
  1. The discussion centered on a reported U.S. plan to abduct Venezuela’s president, raising clear legal and ethical concerns.
  2. Two commentators tackled the same issues but reached sharply different conclusions about whether such an operation would be justified or wise.
  3. The exchange shows that U.S. intervention in Venezuela deeply divides expert opinion and fuels a broader debate over foreign policy and interventionism.
Join Activism • 117 implied HN points • 24 Oct 23
  1. The media distorts reality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  2. Media operates under a propaganda model serving powerful interests.
  3. US policy towards Israel conflicts with the Leahy Law regarding human rights violations.
Geopolitical Economy Report • 279 implied HN points • 26 May 22
  1. The US is easing some sanctions on Venezuela mainly due to economic reasons such as the ban on Russian oil and the necessity to stabilize energy prices.
  2. The situation in Venezuela shows that many oppose US sanctions, regardless of their political affiliation, and the sanctions have had severe negative economic impacts on the country.
  3. The US strategy towards Venezuela aims to force economic concessions from the socialist government through hybrid warfare, rather than achieving regime change.