How Bald Eagles, Black Swans are Analogous to U.S. Foreign Policy

Newsmax

May 18 2026

As the U.S. approaches its 250th anniversary, it is worth remembering the American bald eagle.

Chosen in 1782 for the Great Seal of the United States, the eagle is native to North America, a symbol of a people who sought independence from Britain.

The eagle holds an olive branch in one talon and arrows in the other, reflecting the Founders’ understanding that a free nation must seek peace, but remain ready to defend itself.

That balance, peace through strength, has been central to the successful American foreign policy from Presidents Truman to Reagan.

American national security debates are often framed as a competition between hawks and doves.

However, the real divide is between pragmatic hawks and doves and the ideological ones.

Under this formulation, there are four camps: pragmatic hawks, pragmatic doves, ideological hawks, and ideological doves.

The first two, pragmatic hawks and pragmatic doves, are the informal “Eagle coalition.”

Eagles may disagree sharply, but they share a common premise: policy must be flexible, nonideological, and serve the U.S. by pursuing goals that are necessary and workable.

Pragmatic hawks believe Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and that if and when the regime cannot be reliably deterred, the U.S. needs to use force.

Pragmatic doves oppose war with Iran because they do not believe it serves our national interests.

These are healthy disagreements because both sides are arguing within the same framework. Eagles are opposed by an informal “Swan coalition.” Swans are motivated by abstract ideas, from isolationism to Wilsonian internationalism, and, in some cases, sympathy for some version of socialism and communism.

Some ideological hawks might support intervention to promote democratization. The ideological doves among the swans oppose American action regardless of context.

In our modern age, defined by a deluge of misinformation and global connectivity, swans are increasingly prevalent.

At best, swans are uncompromising, inspirational advocates for freedom. At worst, they can become detached from America’s national interests.

In Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake” ballet, the white swan represents purity.

The black swan represents deception. Today’s swans are increasingly gray.

Some who ostensibly advocate for “peace” echo narratives that can align with the interests of Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing.

Dovish swans often approach foreign policy in an absolutist fashion, narrowly focused on the perceived justice of their cause to the exclusion of all else.

This tendency is sometimes evident among émigré groups in the U.S. For example, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and the Armenian Assembly of America have played an important role in securing recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

That legacy deserves respect. However, 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 America’s national interests.

Outmatched in financial resources and population, Armenia has relied on America’s adversaries, Russia and Iran, to counterbalance Turkey and Azerbaijan.

That approach has largely failed.

After winning the first Nagorno-Karabakh war (1988–1994) but losing the 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.

The project will strengthen Armenia and contribute to regional peace by combining infrastructure investment with 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 aren’t the only ideological swans.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the ANSWER Coalition was formed to oppose the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

Code Pink was founded in 2002 to oppose the 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.

Singham is married to Jodie Evans, a co-founder of Code Pink.

The New York Times has described a network of organizations Singham funds as promoting messaging aligned with Chinese government narratives.

In the same article, it was reported that Singham has expressed admiration for Maoist ideas and that Code Pink has taken positions defending or soft-pedaling Beijing’s policies, including toward the Uyghurs. According to the House Oversight Committee, Singham’s network includes The People’s Forum, ANSWER Coalition, the International People’s Assembly, and several groups active under the Shut It Down for Palestine umbrella.

Beyond groups funded directly by Singham’s network, the Anti-Defamation League has identified a wider ecosystem of progressive donors and organizations that, at times, overlap with or support some of the same groups.

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.

Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer. His work focuses on foreign affairs, national security, and presidential history. He’s been published in numerous outlets. Read more Robert Zapesochny Insider articles — Click Here Now.

https://www.newsmax.com/robertzapesochny/armenia-reagan-truman/2026/05/18/id/1256641/