The U.S. really doesn't import much coal from the Middle East. Coal is what powers most electric-generation plants in the U.S.
I agree, though, that it's good to reduce our energy sources based on fossil fuels. The U.S. really needs to greatly beef up it's electrical transmission and distribution system, then (or concurrently) can move toward a larger base of 100% electric automobiles.
Also at issue is that transferring large amounts of electricity over long distances causes a relatively significant loss of energy through resistance (and similar losses through inductive loading) of the transmission lines themselves. The idea that we can just stick a bunch of generation out in the windy areas where "no one" lives and haul it all over the country isn't as good as somehow trying to generate it closer to where it's consumed, to reduce transmission losses.
I mean, part of being eco-friendly, or green, or whatever the term is today, is not just alternative sources, but a reduction in use and increase in efficiency.
You're going to have transportation losses with any energy source (petrol/diesel gets pumped through non-frictionless pipes or carried in trucks that consume petrol/diesel; resistive/inductive losses with electricity, regardless of whether nuclearl, wind, coal, etc.)
I know N.I.M.B.Y. is a strong force against having electrical generation geographically closer to consumption, but wouldn't that be cheaper in the long run than installing and maintaining aluminum cables (with losses) or superconducting cables (with not as much loss, but higher costs in manufacturing and maintenance)? At some point, it's up to the individual person in the U.S. to decide whether the future will be better or worse than current and take a role in the local community to attempt to do the right thing for the good of that community.