An anniversary is a moment for story-telling, and the U.S. loves grand stories. Yet as the country marked its 250th anniversary, the stories its leaders told were as much linked to the electoral politics of the moment as to a grand national narrative. The left condemned President Donald Trump for turning the spotlight on himself; the right accused New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani of being unpatriotic. Yet focusing on domestic politics, even in light of November’s midterm elections, ignores the broader significance of the occasion—not least, the highly contested question of how Trump’s fateful war with Iran changes the U.S. position in the world.
Trump and Mamdani’s July 4 speeches continued a long American tradition of contest over the national zeitgeist. While neither presented a new narrative of the country’s global standing, or specified lessons learned from this year’s war, they embodied an ongoing debate over the meaning and symbolism of the anniversary.
Trump spoke on the National Mall about the legacy of the U.S. fighting for independence, its expansion, and creation of powerful industries. He plugged the narrative of defeating communism, which he deployed as a line of attack against progressive Democrats who had won recent primary elections. By contrast, Mamdani spoke about the U.S. as a place of opportunity, where even newly naturalized citizens share “the power to determine what America means.”
These July 4 speeches encapsulated two major, competing narratives: using foreign policy to project U.S. strength, or emphasizing global interdependence and restraint.
A Moment of Strength or Defeat?
At face value, both Trump and Mamdani’s speeches were aimed at domestic audiences. However, their descriptions of U.S. relations abroad undergirded their narratives. Trump talked up his foreign policy record, claiming military successes in Venezuela and Iran, placing them alongside past wars including World War II and a tradition of honoring U.S. veterans. Many have criticized the U.S. administration for lacking a coherent objective about the Iran war. Yet this overlooks the fact that the president’s concern is less about what was achieved than the demonstration of force itself; his supporters have argued that “the war showed that the United States is still willing and able to engage in large-scale military action.”
Mamdani offered a different description of the U.S. in the world, focusing on its immigrant makeup—particularly that of New York, with its diverse communities from across the globe. This was a narrative of a U.S. that is interlinked with the world. The mayor did not specifically refer to the Iranian war, widely viewed as a strategic defeat, but did criticize costly military aggression and its impacts on the taxpayer.
The president’s opponents did not use the anniversary to describe what the war on Iran means for the country’s place in the world. Yet the occasion coincided with a major shift in U.S. public opinion, partly fueled by that war: changing attitudes among American voters across the political spectrum toward the relationship with Israel. Mamdani represents an increasing number of voters who question military aid to Israel and express concern at U.S. complicity in the level of civilian casualties in Gaza caused by Israel.
Right-leaning voters, too, are questioning that relationship. If this is sustained, it could be one of the more profound implications following the war with Iran. However, it would be a mistake to leap to a conclusion that U.S. skepticism towards Israel will become the new status quo, with minimal opposition. Similarly, while there has been broader backlash among Americans to “forever wars,” the current war precisely begs questions about how that backlash will translate to actual changes in U.S. policies.
Backlash to “Forever Wars”
While polls indicate a majority of Americans view the conflict with Iran negatively, Trump has dismissed that “forever war” concerns apply to him and doubled down on his doctrine of peace through strength. However, the splinters within Trump’s coalition are seen in the fact that figures like Vice President Vance attempt to defend the Iran war, but maintain their anti-interventionist credentials.
The way that opposition to “forever wars” is articulated matters. When it is focused solely on the material impact of war on Americans, it narrows the aperture of the debate. Trump has responded by claiming that the economic costs to the public are short-term and American casualties are minimized in the Iran war. He has also justified the war as linked to broader values: the need for sacrifice and defending freedom.
There is potential resonance to this values-based framing. While the narratives in response should still incorporate how the Iran war does not serve the interests of the U.S. and hurts the pocketbooks of its citizens, the arguments should extend to what the war means for the larger role of the U.S. in the world. Political leaders have generally failed to articulate clear narratives about what the war teaches: the hubris of assuming military superiority guarantees submission, the risks of justifying large-scale aggression as “preventive” defense, and the global reputational costs to the country.
Admittedly, the difficulty of this self-reflection is far from new. How leaders discuss the nation’s failures emerges as a common political flash point. Trump and Mamdani’s narratives differ critically in how they deal with the interplay of U.S. successes and failures. Trump spoke of reclaiming pride, emphasizing “that American strength and power is not something to be ashamed of,” and implying that his opponents believe that the U.S. is weak. Mamdani’s counterargument is that an honest accounting of the American story addresses its contradictions: its opportunities and flaws together.
It is incumbent on political leaders to craft narratives about what the U.S. should learn from the Iran war, while recognizing that compelling stories are not divided by a simple binary of emphasizing only the country’s strength or restraint. There are many appeals to common motivational and patriotic themes in the nation’s story-telling. Trump and Mamdani delivered remarkably similar lines about freedom, and about opportunities not being given, but needing to be fought for.
In this sense, both echoed President Gerald Ford at the 200th anniversary in 1976, who spoke of Americans building on the work of the past two centuries to win and expand their freedom. Notably, Ford was also circumspect about previous wars, and referred to the U.S. Civil War of a century earlier as “tragic.” It would be unfortunate if U.S. leaders attempt to brush past the Iran war as one among many other crises, without careful reflection on what it means for the nation’s understanding of itself in the world.
