J.D. Vance is championing a controversial economic path that has raised eyebrows among economists and global observers. He frequently insists that the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s leading currency is actually a burden on the country, and he openly advocates for weakening the dollar on purpose. The reasoning, according to Vance, is that a strong dollar makes American goods too expensive and drives local factories out of business in favor of cheap foreign imports. But let’s be clear: Vance’s readiness to forfeit America’s financial leverage in order to revive domestic manufacturing is more than just an economic gamble; it is a radical departure from a long-standing economic consensus that could shake the foundations of American power. The immediate and stark risks of such a policy extend beyond U.S. borders. Intentionally weakening the dollar and abandoning its international status would fuel inflation at home and make everyday goods more expensive for ordinary Americans. Moreover, this would strip the United States of a critical tool of geopolitical influence: the power to impose sanctions and exert financial pressure on the global stage. In essence, undermining the dollar’s position is a direct blow to America’s ability to act as a superpower. Vance’s extreme line of economic thinking signals a dangerous turn that is already causing anxiety in financial markets and among global economic stakeholders. For those who prize freedom, open economies, and shared prosperity, Vance’s proposals raise profound concerns. Are we prepared to jeopardize global financial stability and U.S. leadership for a gamble that could leave both America and the world worse off? Sometimes the most alarming scenario is not the extreme idea itself, but the real-world chaos it might unleash. Adam Feder

Lebanon’s conduct over the course of decades has repeatedly demonstrated the depth of the Lebanese state’s failure. The country struggles to function as a sovereign entity, cannot maintain a monopoly over the use of force, and is unable to pursue a unified and independent foreign policy. When a state cannot guarantee the security of its citizens, enforce its own laws, or prevent armed organizations from using its territory to wage war, it becomes difficult to regard it as sovereign in any practical sense. The root of the problem lies in the political structure established with the creation of modern Lebanon, particularly the 1943 National Pact, which entrenched a sectarian division of power among Christians, Sunnis, and Shiites. Instead of cultivating a shared national identity, the political system turned sectarian affiliation into the primary locus of loyalty, and the state into an arena where competing groups struggle for control over resources and institutions. This produced a system in which the central government never fully overcame sectarian power centers. Rather than building a unified Lebanese nationalism, it repeatedly found itself forced to compromise with groups that possessed their own independent sources of power. The erosion of Lebanese sovereignty did not occur overnight. A major turning point was the 1969 Cairo Agreement, which granted Palestinian organizations the ability to operate in southern Lebanon and effectively manage an armed zone beyond the full control of the state. The resulting vacuum contributed to the outbreak of the civil war in 1975—a conflict that lasted until 1990 and transformed Lebanon into a battleground of militias, sects, and foreign powers. The Lebanese army largely disintegrated, and the state lost its ability to impose uniform authority across its territory. The Taif Agreement ended the war but did not resolve the underlying structural problem. Many militia leaders simply transitioned from the military arena into the political one, becoming part of the governing system.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0-it5ZS7lzU