As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, it is worth reflecting on the American bald eagle. Chosen in 1782 for the Great Seal of the United States, this bird symbolizes a nation that sought independence from Britain. The eagle holds an olive branch in one talon and arrows in the other, representing the Founders’ understanding that a free nation must seek peace while remaining ready to defend itself. This balance—peace through strength—has been central to successful American foreign policy since the administrations of Presidents Truman and Reagan.
American national security debates are often framed as a competition between hawks and doves. However, the real divide lies between pragmatic hawks and doves and ideological ones. Under this framework, there are four camps: pragmatic hawks, pragmatic doves, ideological hawks, and ideological doves. The first two—pragmatic hawks and pragmatic doves—form the informal “Eagle coalition.” While they may disagree sharply, they share a common premise: policy must be flexible, nonideological, and serve U.S. interests by pursuing necessary and workable goals.
Pragmatic hawks believe Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances. If the regime cannot be reliably deterred, they argue that the United States must use force. Pragmatic doves oppose war with Iran because they do not believe it serves U.S. national interests. These disagreements are healthy because both sides operate within the same framework. Eagles are opposed by an informal “Swan coalition,” which is motivated by abstract ideas ranging from isolationism to Wilsonian internationalism and, in some cases, sympathy for socialist or communist movements.
Some ideological hawks might support intervention to promote democratization. Ideological doves among the swans oppose U.S. action regardless of context. In today’s world—defined by a deluge of misinformation and global connectivity—swans are increasingly prevalent. At best, they are uncompromising advocates for freedom; at worst, they become detached from America’s national interests.
Inspired by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s ballet Swan Lake, the white swan symbolizes purity, while the black swan represents deception. Today’s swans are increasingly gray. Some who advocate for “peace” echo narratives that align with the interests of Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing. Dovish swans often approach foreign policy in an absolutist manner, narrowly focused on the perceived justice of their cause at the expense of all else.
This tendency is evident among certain émigré groups in the United States. For example, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and the Armenian Assembly of America have played a significant role in securing recognition of the Armenian Genocide. While this legacy deserves respect, ANCA’s roots in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation—the Dashnaks—a movement with a complex ideological history that has included decades of violence and socialist leanings—do not always align with U.S. national interests.
Outmatched in financial resources and population, Armenia has relied on its adversaries, Russia and Iran, to counterbalance Turkey and Azerbaijan. After winning the first Nagorno-Karabakh war (1988–1994) but losing subsequent conflicts in 2020 and 2023, Armenia’s leader, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, appears to recognize that the current peace deal with Azerbaijan cannot be improved upon. In contrast, ANCA opposes the 2025 peace agreement in part because it supports a “safe, secure and dignified return of forcibly displaced Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh.” This maximalist demand is politically unrealistic. Prime Minister Pashinyan is taking a pragmatic approach by seeking stronger ties with the United States.
The Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) corridor will connect Azerbaijan and Armenia with Europe, strengthening Armenia and contributing to regional peace through infrastructure investment and economic integration. For Armenia, improved transport corridors—roads, rail links, and border logistics—could reduce isolation, lower trade costs, and diversify export routes beyond traditional dependencies.
ANCA and other émigré groups are not the only ideological swans. After September 11, 2001, the ANSWER Coalition was formed to oppose U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan. Code Pink was founded in 2002 to oppose wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today, Code Pink is part of an activist network tied to Neville Roy Singham, an American-born businessman based in Shanghai. According to the House Oversight Committee, Singham’s network includes The People’s Forum, ANSWER Coalition, the International People’s Assembly, and groups active under the Shut It Down for Palestine umbrella. Reports indicate that this network promotes messaging aligned with Chinese government narratives. A congressional committee has noted that Singham has expressed admiration for Maoist ideas and that Code Pink has taken positions defending or soft-pedaling Beijing’s policies, including toward Uyghurs.
Well-intentioned and ill-intentioned activists alike risk leading America toward its swan song. The Eagle coalition must win the public debate on foreign policy.
