Read more

THE MEDIA POWER GRAB: How Consolidation Is Reshaping What America Sees—and Believes

Most of the time, there’s a moment—right before something fundamentally changes—where everything still feels normal.

That’s where we are right now.

Because while we’ve been scrolling, streaming, and half-watching the news…

People with money, access, and agendas have been buying the entire system.

They have made it a point to do it quietly... But decisively and with precision.

Paramount is massive. Now Imagine It Bigger.

Let’s start with what Paramount Global already controls:

Broadcast & News

• CBS

• CBS News

• CBS Sports

• Local CBS Television Stations in select markets across the country

Cable Networks

• MTV

• VH1

• BET

• Comedy Central

• Nickelodeon (Nick Jr., TeenNick, Nicktoons)

• Paramount Network

• TV Land

• CMT

• Smithsonian Channel

Streaming

• Paramount+

• Pluto TV

• Showtime (recently integrated into Paramount+)

Film & Production

• Paramount Pictures

• Paramount Television Studios

• CBS Studios

This isn’t just a company.

It’s a pipeline of culture, information, and influence—from children’s programming to primetime news.

For a ’90s kid like me, the cultural impact of shows like All That, Kenan & Kel, Drake & Josh, Ned’s Declassified, and iCarly isn’t just nostalgia—it’s proof of how deeply media shapes societal norms. And today, that same kind of influence is being consolidated under fewer and fewer corporations, controlled by a shrinking number of connected people... Now, just a handful of companies—and an even smaller group of decision-makers—control a dominant share of what Americans watch across cable, streaming, and social media.

Now ask the obvious question:

What happens when control of that magnitude shifts?

Well... The Shift Is Already Happening

You don’t need to speculate.

You can watch it— in real time.

CBS News has begun to change after its merger with Skydance last year:

• More ‘both sides’ framing—even in situations where that balance doesn’t really exist

• Softer treatment of conservative narratives

• A shift that feels less like neutrality—and more like something intentional

This is how influence works now.

Not through censorship.

Through subtle editorial control.

The Real Power Move: Warner Bros. Discovery

Now scale that influence dramatically.

Because Paramount isn’t just consolidating—it’s pursuing Warner Bros. Discovery.

If that deal closes, the combined entity would control:

• CBS + CNN (two of the most influential news brands in the world)

• HBO (arguably the most prestigious storytelling platform in television)

• Warner Bros. Studios

• Discovery Channel

• HGTV

• Food Network

• TLC

• Cartoon Network / Adult Swim

• TBS / TNT

That’s an unprecedented level of influence across:

• News

• Entertainment

• Lifestyle

• Kids content

• Streaming infrastructure

And if CBS is already swinging hard to the right…

What do you think will happen to CNN?

Now, we got to talk about TikTok...

Now comes the part most people are underestimating. The power of the feed.

Because controlling media isn’t just about making content anymore.

It’s about controlling distribution.

TikTok—one of the most powerful content engines in the world—has now been restructured into a U.S.-controlled entity, following a deal that places its American operations under an investor group led by Larry Ellison, the father of David Ellison… who now controls Paramount following the Skydance merger—placing legacy media and a major distribution platform within the same family’s control.

TikTok’s original owner, ByteDance, remains involved at a reduced level.

But operational control—data oversight, governance, and platform direction—now sits with Larry Ellison’s group of American investors tied to the same financial ecosystem influencing traditional media.

That changes the equation.

Because now we’re looking at overlapping influence across:

• What gets produced (the studios)

• What gets aired (the networks)

• And what gets amplified (TikTok’s algorithm)

That’s not just consolidation.

That’s narrative control. That’s control over deciding what people should care about and when! That’s a lot of power for a handful of people, especially from one family...

Public Media Is Being Weakened at the Same Time

And this is where the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.

Because while private media is being consolidated…

Public media is being decimated.

In July 2025, Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress passed and signed a rescissions bill that cut roughly $1.1 billion in federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—the entity that supports PBS and NPR. The move came alongside a broader legislative push, branded by Republicans as the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ aimed at reshaping federal spending and public institutions.

That funding supports more than 1,500 local stations, many of them serving rural and underserved communities.

And it didn’t stop there.

Earlier in 2025, the administration also directed federal agencies to eliminate funding for public broadcasters entirely, framing them as ‘politically biased’.

So, at the exact moment corporate media power is being consolidated into the hands of a select few billionaires close to the President…

public, non-corporate media is being weakened by his administration.

Out with old... in the new...

At the same time, another shift is happening:

• Funding and visibility for PragerU, a digital-first ideological media operation, continues to grow

• Younger audiences are being targeted directly through platforms like YouTube

• One of my first episodes of Pragmotiv News highlighted how PragerU portrayed Frederick Douglass saying “Slavery was a compromise to achieve something great”.

Taken together, the strategy becomes clear:

• Consolidate traditional media

• Weaken public alternatives

• Build new ideological pipelines

That’s not by mistake...

That’s a system designed to create bias, something they claim to be trying to combat.

The Blueprint: Project 2025

If this all feels coordinated, there’s a reason.

The Heritage Foundation—the conservative think tank behind Project 2025—has been explicit about its goals:

• Reshape federal institutions

• Challenge perceived media bias

• Reassert influence over cultural and educational systems

And since January 2025, we’ve seen clear alignment between those priorities and actions taken by Donald Trump and his administration.

Because this isn’t about governing …It never was.

They not only want to control the institutions; they want to control the culture.

The Comcast Spin-Off

While one side is consolidating power, Comcast took a different approach.

It spun off MSNBC, CNBC and several NBCUniversal cable assets into a new company: Versant.

That sounds like decentralization.

But the reality is way more complicated.

Those networks were already facing:

• Declining cable audiences

• Advertising pressure

• A shrinking traditional TV model

Now they’re operating independently—without the financial backing of major conglomerate Comcast.

And now they will most likely have to compete against a consolidated Paramount-Warner giant.

So the real question is:

Can they even survive?

Or do they become a weakened competitor, a target for acquisition, or worse—a casualty of a rapidly consolidating industry?

Versant isn’t stability.

It’s a stress test.

This Is Bigger Than Politics

It’s easy to frame this as left vs. right.

That misses the point.

This is about concentration of power.

Because when fewer entities control the news, entertainment, distribution, and algorithms…

They don’t just influence opinion.

They shape reality itself.

What gets covered.

What gets ignored.

What feels normal.

Why Independent Media Matters NOW More Than Ever

There used to be space between power centers.

That space is shrinking.

And when it disappears, independent media stops being optional.

It becomes essential.

Not because it’s perfect.

But because it’s not centralized.

Because it answers to its audience—not a boardroom.

Because it can still say what others won’t.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t just another wave of mergers.

This is the construction of a system where:

• Fewer voices control more narratives

• Fewer companies shape more perception

• And fewer incentives exist to challenge power

And once that system is fully built…

You won’t notice what’s missing.

Because you’ll only see what they want you to see.

Support What Isn’t Owned

If you care about: A press that isn’t consolidated, narratives that aren’t coordinated and systems that still allow real dissent...

Then now is the moment to support independent media.

Because freedom doesn’t exist on it’s own…

It exists because people choose it, support it, and fight for it.

Pragmotiv News exists outside that system.

And in the media landscape that has emerged…

That might be the most important thing about us.

Subscribe now

Reports about the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz have been dominating the news cycle for the past weeks since tensions in the Middle East have continued to escalate. Historically, any time there is conflict in the region, this waterway becomes the focus of attention because of its strategic, commercial, and operational value.

Usually, the coverage goes something like this:

• Oil tankers

• Military buildup

• Gas prices

Those things do matter, but oil and gas prices are not the only things affected when shipping is halted on the waterway.

Closure of the channel triggers a global domino effect that ripples through supply chains, manufacturing systems, and everyday essentials in ways most people never think about, until they see prices rising or goods disappearing from store shelves.

The Waterway That Supplies the World

The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow shipping channel located off the coast of Iran. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply moves through this narrow stretch of water. In addition to oil, about one-third of the world’s supply of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) also passes through the waterway—particularly from Gulf countries such as Qatar.

Most of us, when we hear the words oil and natural gas, we think of fuel, but these products are also inputs that are used in manufacturing other important goods for various industries:

• Pharmaceuticals

• Agriculture

• Manufacturing

• Technology

So, when flow through the Strait slows—or stops—it’s not just energy that is affected. It’s everything derived from oil and gas and adjacent to oil and gas.

Medicine: How Conflict in the Middle East Can Affect Your Access

Most of the drugs we consume are generic drugs. That is because they are the cheaper alternative and most health insurers either will only pay for generics and/or will charge hefty copayments for brand name medications.

1. India as a supplier of medicines and vaccines

India is the largest supplier of generic drugs globally. They provide about 1 in 5 generic medicines worldwide, including a significant portion of those consumed here in the U.S.

India also produces about sixty percent of vaccines globally. They are often referred to as the “pharmacy of the world”. Their dominance is the result of a mix of policy focus, technical capability, and economics:

§ Their government supports pharma through policy and manufacturing incentives

§ They produce many Chemists, Pharmacists and Engineers

§ They have very low production costs in terms of labor, supply chain and factory scale

§ Their patent laws do not favor product patents

§ They have the largest number of FDA compliant manufacturing facilities outside the U.S.

In short, India designed a system that made low-cost, high-volume manufacturing a priority and focused on global export, making them an indispensable supplier to global healthcare.

Spikes in oil prices and/or supply disruption:

• Manufacturing costs rise

• Transportation costs increase

• Export prices follow

These higher costs trickle down to consumers like pharmacies and hospitals and then it trickles down to the everyday consumer.

Also, when we think of oil production, we mostly think in terms of gas prices, but petrochemicals are used in the manufacture of drugs:

Oil is used to produce:

• solvents

• plastics for packaging

• chemical intermediates in drug synthesis

This is how conflict half-way around the world can affect the price of and your access to medicine. Next, I’ll explain how oil industry disruption affects the food on your table.

Fertilizer: The Cost of Food Starts Here

Fertilizer is another essential good that is one of the most oil- and gas-dependent products in the world.

One of the key ingredients in ammonia-based fertilizers is natural gas. Ammonia-based fertilizers are essential for large-scale agriculture. Big Agriculture gets it

When the supply of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is disrupted:

• Fertilizer production slows

• Prices spike globally

Which directly impacts:

• crop yields

• food supply

• grocery prices

Qatar is one of the world’s largest LNG exporters and they export through the Strait of Hormuz. This is how a shipping disruption thousands of miles away causes higher prices for eggs, vegetables, and meat at your local store. And that’s not all, there is a third product that will most likely see disruption because of the situation in the Middle East caused by the Trump and Netanyahu’s War.

Helium: The Shortage No One Sees Coming

Now here’s where it gets unexpectedly specific.

Helium—yes, helium—is a byproduct of natural gas production.

And one of the world’s largest suppliers is Qatar, which exports helium derived from LNG processing.

When LNG exports are disrupted, helium production slows and global supply contracts.

Helium is not just what you put in mylar balloons, it is a critical input for:

• MRI machines

• semiconductor manufacturing

• scientific research

A shortage can delay:

• medical imaging

• tech production

• hospital operations

Again, this directly impacts human lives and could mean life or death. Another example is plastics.

Plastics, Packaging, and Everyday Goods

From shampoo bottles to food containers, plastics become more expensive to produce when the supply of oil is disrupted. Oil derivatives are embedded in nearly everything you buy.

When supply chains tighten, you see increases in packaging costs, electronics, and consumer goods; and companies will respond the same way they always do: they will raise prices, cut corners, and reduce production.

And now, let’s bring it back to what is usually at the forefront of everyone’s minds when there is trouble in the Middle East: gas prices.

Even if a product isn’t directly tied to oil, it still has to be transported from point A to B.

When fuel costs rise:

• shipping becomes more expensive

• delivery timelines slow

• logistics systems strain

This affects:

• online shopping

• grocery restocking

• medical supply distribution

Transportation doesn’t just add cost—it amplifies it at every stage.

What This Means for Everyday Americans

This is where the domino effect becomes personal. What looks like a distant geopolitical issue rarely stays distant for long. It shows up quietly—when you go to pick up your medicines at the pharmacy, on your receipt from the store, when you can’t find that item you’re looking to buy. Not as a single shock, but as a steady disruption of and burden in daily life.

These aren’t isolated problems. They’re symptoms of a system built for efficiency, not resilience—where a single disruption can ripple across supply chains and into your home.

And that’s the real risk: not just higher prices, but reduced access, longer waits, and growing uncertainty.

So, the question isn’t just how high gas prices will go.
It’s how deeply those hidden connections are already reshaping what you can afford, what you can find, and how you live.

Share

No NATO.
No Japan.
No South Korea.
No Canada.
No allies at all.

Just the United States… by itself.

In this video, we break down a real scenario: North Korea launches a nuclear ICBM at the United States. How would America detect it? Track it? Try to stop it? And what happens next if…

Read more

Just days after calling on U.S. allies to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office and claimed he never needed their help.

On the surface, it sounds like a political pivot.

But in reality, it exposes something much bigger.

Because the question isn’t whether the United States can act alone.

The question is what it actually costs when it does.

The Illusion of Going It Alone

For decades, the United States has been the most powerful military force in the world. Our defense budget dwarfs every other nation. Our technology is unmatched. Our global reach is unprecedented.

So, it’s easy to believe in the idea that America doesn’t need anyone.

That we can fight—and win—on our own.

And in the short term, that belief isn’t entirely wrong.

If a conflict broke out tomorrow, the United States could still project overwhelming force. We could deploy aircraft carriers, dominate the skies, and strike targets across the globe.

But wars are not won in days.

They are won over time.

And that’s where the reality begins to shift.

Power vs. Sustainability

Without allies, the United States doesn’t suddenly lose all power.

The power becomes limited.

Military strength isn’t just about weapons. It’s about logistics, geography, intelligence, and endurance.

Allies provide all of those things.

They provide bases closer to conflict zones. They provide ports for resupply. They provide intelligence networks that span continents. They provide troops, funding, and political legitimacy.

Take those away, and the U.S. is still powerful—but it has to carry the entire weight of war alone.

And that changes everything.

The Ground War Problem

On paper, the U.S. Army remains one of the most capable fighting forces in the world. But without allies, every deployment becomes harder.

Instead of staging troops from bases in Europe or the Middle East, they’ll have to move directly from the United States. That adds time, cost, and complexity.

There are no coalition partners to share the burden. No additional ground forces to rotate in. No shared responsibility.

Every casualty, every deployment cycle, every logistical challenge falls entirely on us. And over time, that strain adds up.

Control of the Seas—With Limits

The U.S. Navy is still the most dominant naval force on Earth. No country comes close to us on the number of aircraft carriers or global reach.

But even that dominance depends on access.

Allied ports in places like Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Middle East allow our ships to refuel, repair, and resupply without returning home.

Without those access points, operations become more stretched.

Ships stay deployed longer. Maintenance cycles tighten. Supply lines grow longer and more vulnerable.

The Navy doesn’t lose its strength.

It loses its efficiency.

Air Power Without a Forward Presence

The U.S. Air Force is built around speed and reach.

But that reach depends heavily on forward bases.

Air bases in Germany, Qatar, Japan, and South Korea allow our aircraft to operate close to potential conflict zones. They enable faster response times and higher sortie rates.

Without those bases, aircraft must operate from much farther away—or rely heavily on aircraft carriers.

That means fewer missions, longer flight times, and greater logistical strain. The U.S. would still control the skies. But doing so would cost more—and take longer.

The Hidden Backbone: Logistics

If there is one area where allies matter most, it’s logistics.

Wars are not won by weapons alone. They are won by supply chains.

Fuel. Ammunition. Spare parts. Food. Medical support.

All of it has to move, constantly.

Allied nations provide critical infrastructure that makes that movement possible. Bases, roads, ports, and regional networks that keep operations running.

Without that network, we’ll have to build or supply everything on our own—often across thousands of miles.

That’s expensive and slow.

And in a prolonged conflict, that can become decisive.

The Intelligence Gap

Another often overlooked advantage of alliances is intelligence.

The United States benefits from shared intelligence networks with allies across the world. Surveillance, signals intelligence, regional expertise—all of it contributes to a clearer picture of the battlefield.

Without those partnerships, blind spots grow.

Decisions become riskier. Mistakes become more likely.

And in modern warfare, information is just as important as firepower.

The Cost of Standing Alone

There is also a financial reality.

War is expensive. Even with allies, the costs are enormous.

Without them, the United States absorbs everything.

No shared funding. No burden-sharing agreements. No logistical contributions.

Every ship deployed. Every aircraft flown. Every operation conducted—paid for alone.

And in a long conflict, that cost doesn’t just affect the military.

It affects the economy.

Why Time Matters More Than Power

This is where the bigger strategic picture comes into focus.

Because the real question isn’t whether the United States can win a fight.

It’s whether it can sustain one.

Countries like Iran understand this.

Their strategy has never been about defeating the United States outright. It has been about endurance—absorbing pressure and extending conflict long enough to raise the cost for their opponent.

In other words, they don’t need to win quickly.

They just need to outlast America.

And fighting America without her allies, that becomes much easier.

A Shift in Global Dynamics

What we’re seeing now isn’t just a disagreement between the President and our allies. It’s a shift.

A moment where countries are increasingly willing to make decisions based on their own interests rather than automatically aligning with Washington.

That doesn’t mean alliances are gone.

But it does mean they are no longer guaranteed.

And that has real consequences.

Conclusion: Strength Isn’t the Same as Leverage

The United States remains the most powerful military force in the world.

That hasn’t changed.

But power and leverage are not the same thing.

Allies amplify power. They extend it. They sustain it.

Without them, we’re still strong.

But we’re isolated.

More stretched.

And more vulnerable over time.

So, when ignorant leaders say America doesn’t need allies…

The reality is more complicated.

Because going alone isn’t impossible.

It’s just a lot more costly in the short term but devastating long term.

Most Americans think our conflict with Iran began in 1979.

It didn’t.

To understand why Iran refuses to surrender to U.S. pressure today, you must start with a CIA coup that took place more than seventy years ago.

If you were to ask the average American citizen when Iran became an enemy of the United States, they would most likely say in 1979, when Iran seized our embassy in Tehran.

It didn’t.

Hostility between the United States and Iran stretches back more than 70 years, through coups, revolutions, wars, and broken agreements. Those events shaped how Iran’s leadership—and many ordinary Iranians—view the United States today. In fact, if you were to ask the average Iranian when our two countries became enemies, they would most likely say 1906.

This decades-long history of enmity is also why Iran is unlikely to simply surrender in any confrontation with the United States, no matter how powerful our military capabilities are.

To understand this current conflict, we must understand the past.

A Timeline of U.S.–Iran Relations

In the timeline below, I explain the events that have shaped our current geopolitical reality, as it pertains to Iran.

1906 — Iran’s Constitutional Revolution

Between 1905 and 1911, Iran experienced a transformative political uprising known as the Constitutional Revolution. Sparked by public anger over economic hardship, government corruption, and growing foreign influence from Russia and Britain, a coalition of merchants, clerics, intellectuals, and urban activists pushed back against the absolute authority of the Qajar monarchy. Their protests forced Shah Mozaffar ad-Din Qajar to approve a constitution in 1906 and establish Iran’s first elected parliament. This was the country’s first serious attempt to introduce constitutional rule and a representative government and one of the first constitutional movements in the Middle East. In 1907, Britain and Russia

During this period, specifically by 1907, Britain and Russia formalized their influence over Iran through the Anglo-Russian Convention, an agreement that effectively divided the country into spheres of influence without consulting the Iranian government.

• Russia gained dominance in northern Iran, including major cities such as Tabriz, Tehran, and Mashhad.

• Britain controlled a southern zone, particularly areas near the Persian Gulf that were strategically important for protecting British India and trade routes.

• A central “neutral zone” was created where both powers could pursue economic and political influence.

Although Iran technically remained an independent state, the agreement significantly limited its sovereignty. Britain and Russia were able to influence Iranian politics, economic concessions, and even military actions within their respective zones. This foreign intervention angered Iranian nationalists and undermined the country’s constitutional movement, which was already struggling to establish parliamentary rule. This internal turmoil coupled with foreign influence eventually suppressed the revolutionary government by 1911.

Fast forward to 1941, during World War II, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran to secure a supply corridor for military aid to the Soviet Union. Under intense military and political pressure from the occupying powers, Reza Shah Pahlavi, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, was forced to abdicate his throne on September 16, 1941.

He stepped down in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who then became the new Shah of Iran.

Photo Credit: Associated Press/ Harvard Magazine

1953 — CIA-Backed Coup

In 1951, Muhammad Mossadegh became the Prime Minister of Iran through Parliamentary Appointment. He had strong national support from the Iranian people. Mossadegh was a secular nationalist concerned with Iran’s sovereignty and control of its own resources, namely oil. At that time, Britain’s Anglo-Iranian Oil Company extracted Iran’s oil under terms the Iranian people considered unfair and exploitative.

Saudi Arabia had negotiated a 50/50 deal with American oil companies, and the Iranians wanted the same deal. Britain refused to renegotiate their deal, saying they could not be flexible because of the war debts they faced. Prime Minister Mossadegh and the Iranian Parliament then nationalized Iran’s oil industry, which Britain viewed as theft. They imposed sanctions and sought international legal remedies. When these efforts failed, Britain successfully pressured the United States government into viewingIran as a communist threat. The CIA agreed to participate in a covert operation, Operation Ajax.

They sent an operative to Tehran. His name was Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy Roosevelt and cousin of FDR). Working along with British Intelligence, Roosevelt carried CIA funds to distribute and fund protests and propaganda. The efforts were sufficient to mobilize unrest and eventually succeeded in the removal of Muhammad Mossadegh as prime minister. The U.S. government saw this as a victory against the spread of communism. But the Iranian people saw this as a foreign power toppling a democratic government; a national trauma.

1953–1979 — Rule of the Shah

The Shah of Iran returned to full power and over the next 25 years, he ruled Iran as one of America’s most important allies. Iran purchased large quantities of weapons from the United States, and the United States treated The Shah as a pillar of stability. TheIranian people were subjected to a repressive Iranian government under The Shah.

SAVAK, which stands for Sāzmān-e Ettelā’āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar (Organization of Intelligence and National Security), was established in 1957. It was created with assistance from the United States’ CIA and Israel’s Mossad to help the Shah consolidatepower and monitor political opposition.

1979 — Iranian Revolution

SAVAK functioned as Iran’s secret police and domestic intelligence service. Its responsibilities included:

• Surveillance of political opponents

• Censorship of media and publications

• Interrogation and detention of suspected dissidents

• Suppression of opposition groups, including leftists, nationalists, and religious activists

The organization became widely feared for its extensive surveillance network and allegations of torture and repression. Opposition to SAVAK’s practices contributed to growing resentment toward the Shah’s government, which ultimately played a role in the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the monarchy. The Islamic Republic was then established under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Photo Credit: Reuters

1979–1981 — U.S. Hostage Crisis

For many Americans, the 1979 Iranian Revolution was initially viewed as the collapse of a long-standing U.S. ally. Washington had supported Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for decades following the 1953 CIA-backed coup that removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In November 1979 Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

The students seized the embassy primarily because they believed the United States was interfering in Iran’s affairs and might try to restore the recently deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power.

The immediate trigger occurred in October 1979, when the U.S. allowed the Shah to enter the country for cancer treatment. Iranian students feared this could lead to another American-backed attempt to return him to power.

Also, the United States backed Iraq during the war between the two nations, further deepening Iranian mistrust of the U.S.

After the 1981 hostage crisis, U.S.–Iran relations were defined by decades of sanctions, proxy conflict, and rising tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, with periodic military confrontations and diplomatic breakdowns.

Photo Credit: U.S. State Department

2015 — Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

Hostilities eased temporarily in 2015 with the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), the first major agreement between the two countries since the revolution.

The Obama administration got the Iranians to agree to restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

2018 — U.S. Withdrawal from the Nuclear Deal

The Trump administration exits the agreement and reinstates sweeping sanctions.

The embassy seizure that same year permanently altered relations between the two countries.

In American politics, Iran became a symbol of anti-Western extremism.

In Iranian political rhetoric, the United States became known as the “Great Satan.”

III. Iran’s Strategic Network

Iran has spent decades building regional influence through allied movements and militias across the Middle East.

Often referred to by analysts as the “Axis of Resistance,” this network includes:

• Hezbollah in Lebanon
• Shiite militias in Iraq
• the Syrian government
• Houthi forces in Yemen

These groups allow Iran to project influence across the region without relying solely on its conventional military forces.

Russia and China: Strategic Backers

Iran has also cultivated relationships with major global powers.

Russia and Iran have expanded military cooperation in recent years, while China has become one of Iran’s largest economic partners.

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement that includes infrastructure investment, energy cooperation, and expanded trade.

While neither country is likely to directly enter a war on Iran’s behalf, these partnerships provide Tehran with economic resilience and diplomatic support.

Current War Developments

Recent reporting suggests the confrontation between the United States and Iran has entered a dangerous new phase, with sustained military exchanges and widening regional fallout.

According to multiple reports, U.S. and Israeli forces have carried out large-scale strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, including a major March 13 bombing campaign targeting more than 90 sites on Kharg Island, a critical hub tied to Iran’s military and energy network.

The conflict has intensified in recent days. Israeli strikes have reportedly killed senior Iranian leadership figures, including top security officials, signaling a direct effort to weaken the Iranian state’s command structure.

Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks across the Persian Gulf, targeting U.S. positions (including our Embassies), allied states, and commercial shipping. These retaliatory strikes have expanded the conflict geographically, with reported attacks or incidents affecting vessels and infrastructure near the Strait of Hormuz and even reaching Gulf cities such as Abu Dhabi and Doha.

The Strait of Hormuz has become a central flashpoint. Iranian actions—including attacks on tankers and efforts to disrupt shipping—have halted traffic through the waterway, a critical artery for roughly 20 percent of global oil supply.

The economic consequences have been immediate and severe. Oil prices have surged around or above $100 per barrel, while global energy markets remain volatile amid fears of prolonged disruption. Domestic gas prices have increased dramatically in just days.

At the same time, human and strategic costs are mounting. U.S. officials report hundreds of American service members injured including thirteen fatalities, while regional casualties continue to rise across Iran and neighboring states. Analysts also warn that sustained operations could strain U.S. precision munitions stockpiles and impose long-term financial costs.

Diplomatically, the conflict is exposing fractures among U.S. allies. European governments have so far declined to commit forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz, instead urging a diplomatic resolution even as Washington presses for broader support.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department has expanded emergency evacuation efforts for American citizens across the region as security conditions continue to deteriorate.

IV. The Implications of a Prolonged Conflict

A long war with Iran would carry far-reaching consequences for the United States, both abroad and at home.

Energy Markets
Disruptions in the Persian Gulf—particularly in the Strait of Hormuz—could drive global energy prices sharply higher, increasing the cost of oil, gasoline, and transportation worldwide.

Domestic Economic Impact
Rising energy prices would likely feed directly into the U.S. economy, contributing to higher inflation, increased costs for goods and services, and added pressure on household budgets. Prolonged conflict spending could also expand the federal deficit, while supply chain disruptions and market volatility could severely impact business investment and consumer confidence. In a sustained crisis, sectors such as shipping, aviation, and manufacturing would be especially vulnerable to cost spikes and uncertainty.

Regional Instability
Iran’s network of allied militias and partner groups across the Middle East raises the risk that fighting could spread beyond a single battlefield, drawing in multiple countries and threatening key trade routes.

Strategic Competition
A prolonged conflict could strain U.S. military resources and attention at a time when Washington is already balancing strategic competition with China and managing tensions with Russia, potentially stretching U.S. global commitments.

Why Iran Is Unlikely to Back Down

Iran’s leadership views confrontation with the United States as a struggle tied directly to the survival of the Islamic Republic.

Backing down under American pressure could undermine the ideological legitimacy of the regime.

Instead, Iranian strategy has historically focused on endurance—absorbing pressure while raising the cost of conflict for its opponents.

In other words, the goal is not necessarily to defeat the United States outright.

It is to outlast it.

Conclusion

Iran’s resistance to U.S. pressure cannot be understood through military comparisons alone.

It is the product of a century of historical grievances, geopolitical competition, and national identity shaped by resistance to foreign influence.

Understanding that history does not require agreement with Iran’s government.

But it does explain why the conflict between Washington and Tehran has proven so persistent—and why it is unlikely to end quickly.

If you value clear, fact-driven analysis grounded in real historical context—not just headlines—then this is the place for you.

At Pragmotiv News, we connect the dots, helping you understand not just what’s happening, but why it matters.

Support independent journalism that prioritizes depth over speed and clarity over outrage.

Subscribe now

Subscribe to Pragmotiv News for sharp insight on geopolitics, culture, and society—and stay informed in a world that moves fast but rarely slows down to explain itself.

If you’ve been following Pragmotiv for a while, you may have noticed something.

Substack got quieter.

Not abandoned. Not forgotten. Just quieter.

But here’s the important part:

We never actually left.

Every flagship Pragmotiv News video has continued to be published here on Substack alongside YouTube, Spotify, and the other platforms where our content lives.

What slowed down wasn’t the videos.

What slowed down was the Substack-specific content — the written articles and bonus shows that make this platform special.

And that’s the part we’re bringing back.

A Quick Note About the Pragmotiv Podcast

Some of you discovered us through The Pragmotiv Podcast — the long-form show where three generations sit down to unpack politics, culture, and life from very different perspectives.

Season 1 of that show wrapped after a strong run, and for now it’s on hiatus while we focus our time and energy on growing Pragmotiv News.

The podcast will return when the timing is right.

But right now, our focus is building something equally important: a consistent home for research-driven analysis and commentary through Pragmotiv News.

What You Can Expect Moving Forward

Here’s what our schedule looks like as we bring more content to Substack.

Tuesday & Thursday
New Pragmotiv News flagship videos breaking down the political, cultural, and media stories shaping the moment.

These videos will be published across YouTube, Spotify, Substack, Apple Podcasts and other platforms.

Friday (Pragmotiv+ Members Only)
A bonus show with deeper conversations, expanded analysis, and topics we don’t always get to in the main videos.

Throughout the Week
Written articles that dig deeper into the stories behind the headlines.

Our goal is to publish four articles each week to help connect the dots and provide context that doesn’t always fit into a video.

Why Substack Matters

Independent media doesn’t grow by accident.

It grows because people decide it should.

Substack gives us a space where we can speak directly to readers without algorithms deciding who gets to see the work.

It also allows us to go deeper — through written analysis, bonus discussions, and a community that actually wants to think about the issues shaping our world.

That’s why growing this platform is such an important part of the future of Pragmotiv News.

How You Can Help

If you believe in what we’re building, there are two simple ways to support it.

Subscribe.
Subscriptions allow us to invest more time into research, writing, and bonus content.

Subscribe now

Share the work.
Every time you share an article or episode, you help new people discover Pragmotiv.

Independent media grows when readers decide it should.

Share Pragmotiv+

Thank You for Being Here

Whether you’ve been here since the early days or you’re just discovering Pragmotiv News, we’re grateful you’re part of this community.

This next chapter is about showing up consistently, going deeper into the stories that matter, and continuing to bring honest analysis to a media landscape that often avoids it.

And we’re just getting started.

— Tre, Stephanie and Kameron

Share

Read more