Latest
Any new Iran deal should be judged by results, not victory-lap rhetoric
President Trump will present the emerging Iran agreement as vindication of peace through strength. He will argue that American military power forced Tehran to the negotiating table, blocked a nuclear Iran and ended months of choking instability in the Strait of Hormuz.
He is not wrong about the military record. But wars are not judged by the speeches that launch them. They are judged by the conditions they leave behind. That is the standard Carl von Clausewitz set — and it is the standard that must be applied to whatever Washington is about to sign.
What the Military Achieved
America and Israel achieved undeniable battlefield results. Iranian air defenses were degraded, missile sites struck, naval capabilities weakened and key IRGC leaders killed. Tehran’s proxy networks sustained significant setbacks. The operation demonstrated overwhelming U.S.–Israeli military superiority.
Militarily, Iran paid a steep price. Battlefield dominance and strategic success are not the same thing.
The Deal Taking Shape
Trump declared Saturday that a deal reopening the Strait of Hormuz was “largely negotiated.” The framework centers on an immediate opening of the strait in exchange for lifting the U.S. naval blockade, followed by 60 days of nuclear negotiations. The draft memorandum of understanding, according to Axios, commits Iran to never pursuing nuclear weapons and to negotiating a suspension of its enrichment program. Washington would discuss lifting sanctions and unfreezing Iranian funds — but only implement those steps as part of a final, verified agreement.
WHY TRUMP, IRAN SEEM LIGHT-YEARS APART ON ANY POSSIBLE DEAL TO END THE WAR
A senior Trump administration official said Sunday that Iran agreed in principle to dispose of its highly enriched uranium stockpile. The mechanism, however, remains unsettled. The Trump administration wants the final deal to cover all of Iran’s roughly 2,000 kilograms of enriched uranium — not just the 450 kilograms enriched to near-weapons-grade. Tehran also holds substantial quantities of lower-enriched uranium that any credible denuclearization agreement must address. “Nobody disputes that the stockpile will be disposed of. The question is how,” the official said.
The details remain treacherous. Tehran disputes American characterizations of the uranium surrender and insists sanctions relief must come first. Enrichment, inspections, missile restrictions and proxy operations remain unresolved.
Kicking the Can Again
Permanent denuclearization was not achieved. The 60-day clock opens a negotiating window, not a settled outcome. Tehran has played this game before. The 2015 JCPOA deferred the nuclear question rather than resolved it — and Iran spent those years expanding its enrichment capability. This memorandum of understanding may do the same.
The ayatollahs buy time through incremental compliance. As I argued in this space last month, regime survival is Tehran’s definition of victory. If Iran exits 60 days of negotiations with its enrichment infrastructure intact and its frozen assets unlocked, it will have preserved its strategic position at acceptable cost.
Trump’s Broader Vision
Trump is not framing this as a ceasefire alone. On Sunday he took to Truth Social to connect the Iran negotiations with a broader regional realignment. “I would like to thank, thus far, all of the countries of the Middle East for their support and cooperation, which will be further enhanced and strengthened by their joining the Nations of the historic Abraham Accords,” Trump wrote. He added: “Who knows, perhaps the Islamic Republic of Iran would like to join, as well!” According to Axios, Trump told leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and the UAE during a Saturday conference call that he wants their nations to sign peace agreements with Israel once the Iran conflict ends. Senior administration officials described the framework as “Abraham Accords Plus.”
That vision is strategically coherent — and deeply ambitious. Iran’s ayatollahs have never recognized Israel and remain committed to its destruction. Any accord built on Israeli recognition is a concession no sitting Iranian leadership can make and survive politically at home.
Iran’s Weapon No Bomb Could Match
Iran’s most powerful weapon in this war was never a centrifuge. The ayatollahs understood before the first strike that their geography gave them a lever no air campaign could pry loose. The Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes daily — imposed severe economic pressure on the entire world without requiring Iran to win a single military engagement.
That is why Gulf states, global markets, and energy-dependent economies pushed hard for de-escalation. Iran lost most of the fighting and preserved the leverage it entered with. Tehran will not forget that.
The Opposition Casualty
Before the conflict, anti-regime sentiment inside Iran was visible and growing. Wars often strengthen the very regimes they fail to topple. Nationalism intensifies under foreign attack. Wartime crackdowns suppress dissent. Reports now indicate intensified internal repression as the regime consolidates control. The war may have weakened Iran’s anti-regime forces precisely when they appeared strongest — an outcome no strike package could have anticipated or corrected.
History’s Verdict
History will not be kind to the architects of this war. America spent blood, a significant part of its arsenal, treasure, and strategic credibility. The Iranian regime survived intact. The nuclear program — set back but not eliminated by the June 2025 strikes — remains in negotiation, not foreclosed. Proxy networks remain armed. The Strait remains a choke point Tehran knows how to exploit.
TRUMP PUSHED IRAN TO THE BRINK — BUT DID WE WIN ANYTHING THAT LASTS?
The precedents are sobering. Hezbollah emerged from the 2006 Lebanon war bloodied but politically emboldened. The Taliban outlasted two decades of U.S. military pressure. North Vietnam absorbed devastating losses after Tet and still won the political contest.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Cuba should study that record carefully. The Trump administration is now developing military options against Havana, applying a pressure template drawn from Iran. But Iran demonstrated that airpower and naval blockades do not by themselves produce political transformation against a regime optimized for survival. Before Washington commits to another military campaign against an ideologically hardened government, the Iran ledger demands an honest accounting.
America demonstrated overwhelming military power in this war. Iran demonstrated political endurance. As I argued in April when Operation Epic Fury still lacked a defined political end state, the Clausewitz standard demands one question: did military force serve a coherent political objective?
If the Iranian regime emerges intact, enrichment-capable on a monitored and temporary basis, with Hormuz leverage it already knew how to use — that question remains unanswered.
A memorandum of understanding will not resolve it. Sixty days of negotiation will not resolve it. What Iran does when the clock runs out will.
Latest
Tucker Carlson Officially Makes Shock Announcement — He’s Out
A growing divide within the conservative movement is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, as longtime commentator Tucker Carlson declared that he no longer considers himself a Republican, citing frustration with what he sees as the party’s abandonment of its America First roots.
Carlson made the remarks during a podcast appearance with hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, where the discussion turned to the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections and whether voters remain satisfied with the direction of the Republican Party.
While Carlson made clear that he remains aligned with many conservative principles, he argued that some Republican leaders have drifted away from the priorities that helped fuel President Donald Trump’s rise and transformed the GOP into the dominant force it is today.
“I’m out,” Carlson said during the interview.
“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”
Carlson’s comments came as he discussed polling data and voter sentiment ahead of the next election cycle.
“I would not support the Republican party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican party,” he said.
The former Fox News host argued that certain Republican lawmakers had betrayed their voters by supporting policies he believes put foreign interests ahead of American priorities.
“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?
“It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.”
Carlson’s remarks highlight a growing debate inside conservative circles over the future direction of the Republican Party.
At the center of the disagreement is not President Trump himself, but rather how some Republicans have approached foreign policy, military intervention, and America’s role overseas.
Trump built his political movement on the promise of putting American interests first, securing the border, rebuilding the economy, restoring energy independence, and avoiding the endless foreign conflicts that frustrated many voters for decades.
Many of Trump’s supporters continue to view the America First agenda as one of the defining achievements of his political movement.
Carlson suggested that some Republicans have lost sight of those principles.
“I think I’ve voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said.
“I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years, of the Republican party. I mean, a very consistent defender.”
“But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral and it’s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing — which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation.”
“And they’re not doing that,” Carlson concluded.
The comments come amid an ongoing debate among conservatives regarding foreign policy, particularly following recent tensions involving Iran and the broader Middle East.
Carlson has been one of the most vocal advocates of a non-interventionist approach that emphasizes American interests above foreign entanglements. Other conservatives, including commentators and lawmakers aligned with a more traditional hawkish worldview, have argued that a strong American presence abroad remains necessary to protect national security.
The disagreement intensified after military operations involving Iran earlier this year, with Carlson and several other prominent voices warning against policies they believe could lead to deeper involvement in overseas conflicts.
Despite those disagreements, Carlson has generally continued to support many of Trump’s domestic policies, including border security, immigration enforcement, energy production, and efforts to prioritize American workers and taxpayers.
The broader divide illustrates the ongoing evolution of the Republican Party under Trump’s influence.
For decades, the GOP was largely defined by traditional establishment conservatives who favored aggressive foreign policy and intervention abroad. Trump’s rise fundamentally reshaped that coalition, bringing millions of working-class voters, independents, and populist conservatives into the party.
Today, debates like the one Carlson has raised reflect a larger question facing Republicans: how closely the party will adhere to the America First principles that helped fuel Trump’s political success.
Whether Carlson ultimately returns to the Republican fold remains to be seen. But his comments underscore a reality that many political observers have noted in recent years: the future of the conservative movement is increasingly being shaped by debates over foreign policy, national sovereignty, and what it truly means to put America first.
As those discussions continue, one thing remains clear: the America First movement that transformed Republican politics is still driving much of the conversation inside the conservative movement today.
Latest
Top Fox News Host Suffers Deranged Meltdown On LIVE TV — Doesn’t End Well…
A growing divide within the conservative movement spilled into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing the administration of pressuring Israel while pursuing a diplomatic agreement designed to permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues negotiations with Tehran following a series of devastating military strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, eliminated key regime leaders, and left the Islamic Republic in one of the weakest positions it has faced in decades.
President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have argued that the administration is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength after demonstrating a willingness to use military force when necessary. Their goal, they say, is simple: ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon while avoiding another endless war in the Middle East.
Levin, however, remains deeply skeptical.
During a fiery monologue that lasted more than 17 minutes on Saturday, the longtime conservative commentator accused members of the administration of unfairly targeting Israel while becoming too optimistic about Iran’s intentions.
“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”
Levin also rejected any suggestion that Israel should allow outside governments to dictate its security decisions.
“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin continued. “I think it’s outrageous.”
The criticism did not stop there.
Levin also used social media to question several administration policies, including reports surrounding a Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar and modified for use supporting presidential airlift operations.
“If it’s legal and other countries do it so be it. Do you think wealthy countries should be able to lavish gifts on our government?” Levin wrote.
His sharpest criticism, however, focused on the administration’s efforts to secure a broader peace agreement with Iran and its proxies.
“Item #1 in the MOU provides there’s an immediate and permanent end to the war and that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”
In another post, Levin argued that current ceasefire efforts were coming at Israel’s expense.
“Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding,” Levin claimed.
The administration has strongly rejected suggestions that it is abandoning Israel or weakening its support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East.
President Trump responded directly Sunday with a warning aimed squarely at Iran and its regional proxies.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
For supporters of the administration, that message demonstrates exactly why they remain confident in Trump’s approach. They argue that no modern president has shown a greater willingness to confront Iran militarily while simultaneously seeking a diplomatic resolution that serves American interests.
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both emphasized that any final agreement would require Iran to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions, submit to extensive inspections, and comply with strict verification requirements before receiving any economic benefits.
Administration officials also note that no sanctions have been lifted, no frozen assets have been released, and no direct payments have been authorized.
Instead, they argue that Trump has successfully put Iran in a position where the regime must choose between compliance and continued isolation.
The disagreement highlights a broader debate that has been developing inside the Republican Party for years.
Traditional foreign-policy hawks often favor maintaining maximum military pressure and remain deeply skeptical of negotiations with hostile regimes.
Trump’s America First coalition generally supports overwhelming military strength but prefers leveraging that strength into favorable deals that avoid long-term military entanglements.
Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s strategy reflects the same formula that has defined much of his foreign policy: peace through strength.
Strike hard when necessary. Demonstrate unquestionable resolve. Negotiate from a position of power. And avoid the costly nation-building efforts and endless conflicts that frustrated many Americans for decades.
As negotiations continue, the debate between Levin and the Trump administration reflects a larger question facing conservatives: how best to secure American interests abroad while staying true to the America First principles that have reshaped the Republican Party.
For now, President Trump appears committed to proving that military strength and diplomacy are not opposing strategies—but complementary tools for achieving lasting peace and protecting America’s national security.
Latest
It’s Over! The House Votes 396-13 — Trump Just Won!
In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act this week, advancing a package of reforms designed to tackle America’s housing affordability crisis while delivering on several key priorities championed by President Donald Trump.
The legislation passed by a decisive 396-13 vote, reflecting broad agreement that soaring housing costs, rising rents, and limited inventory have pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.
Supporters say the bill addresses one of the country’s most pressing economic challenges by cutting red tape, increasing housing supply, strengthening lending opportunities, and helping ensure that American families—not large corporations—have a fair shot at buying homes.
The legislation combines elements of previous House and Senate proposals and seeks to address housing shortages that have contributed to record-high home prices in many parts of the country.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill praised the measure as a practical, results-oriented solution focused on expanding opportunities for working Americans.
“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Chairman Hill stated.
“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” Hill added.
The legislation includes a variety of reforms aimed at accelerating housing construction and reducing barriers that have slowed development for years.
Among its key provisions, the bill streamlines federal permitting requirements, reduces lengthy environmental review processes for certain redevelopment and infill housing projects, and encourages innovative housing solutions such as modular and manufactured homes.
The measure also provides grants to local governments willing to modernize zoning laws and remove restrictions that limit new construction.
Supporters argue that restrictive zoning policies, excessive permitting delays, and government bureaucracy have significantly contributed to America’s housing shortage.
Rather than relying on massive new federal spending programs, the legislation focuses on empowering local communities, encouraging private-sector investment, and removing obstacles that make housing more expensive.
The bill also raises loan limits for multifamily housing developments, creating incentives for apartment construction and expanding options for renters and first-time buyers alike.
Additional provisions strengthen rural housing initiatives, expand support for veterans seeking housing, modernize financing for smaller mortgage loans, and increase the role community banks can play in local lending markets.
Community banks have long argued that excessive regulations have made it more difficult for them to serve homebuyers and construction projects in their local communities.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters acknowledged the seriousness of the housing crisis despite broader political disagreements.
“America is in the middle of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis, and working families are burdened by skyrocketing rents and a housing market that is pushing homeownership further out of reach,” Waters said.
One of the most notable aspects of the legislation is its effort to curb the growing influence of large institutional investors in the housing market.
For years, investment firms and corporate landlords have purchased thousands of single-family homes, often outbidding families and first-time homebuyers. Critics argue that this trend has driven up prices while transforming communities into rental markets dominated by large corporations.
The legislation includes targeted restrictions designed to discourage large institutional investors from acquiring additional single-family homes.
That approach aligns closely with President Trump’s housing agenda.
Throughout his second administration, Trump has repeatedly argued that homeownership should remain a cornerstone of the American Dream and that government policies should prioritize families over Wall Street investors.
In his National Homeownership Month proclamation earlier this month, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring affordability and expanding opportunities for future homeowners.
“During National Homeownership Month, my Administration recommits to making housing more affordable so that young Americans and hardworking families can raise children, build memories, and create a future in a home of their own,” Trump said.
The president has frequently blamed the housing crisis on “reckless spending, burdensome regulations, and failed housing policies” implemented under previous administrations, as well as “mass illegal immigration and large institutional investors” that have increased pressure on housing supply.
Trump has also taken executive actions aimed at reducing institutional ownership of single-family homes, lowering mortgage costs, and strengthening federal housing programs.
“Under my leadership, America will be a Nation where homes belong to families — not corporations,” Trump said.
At the same time, Trump has emphasized the importance of protecting the value of homes already owned by millions of Americans.
“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. Existing housing, people who own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy. We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year.
He has also repeatedly summarized his housing philosophy with a simple message:
“Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters.”
With overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and growing concern over affordability nationwide, supporters hope the legislation will mark a significant step toward restoring homeownership opportunities and ensuring that the American Dream remains within reach for future generations.
-
Economy4 months agoVance Leaves Meeting, Looks Straight Into Camera, Announces Stunning Arrest
-
Economy4 months agoAdam Schiff Facing 30 Years In Prison After Bank Records Leak
-
Economy4 months agoSupreme Curt Sides With Trump — He Can Remove The All
-
Economy4 months agoAll Hell Breaks Loose On Fox When Jesse Watters Asks Fetterman One Question
-
Economy2 months agoPrayers Pour In After Fox Host Dies: ‘Senseless Murder’
-
Economy4 months agoNBC Stops LIVE Broadcast — Breaks Big Trump News
-
Economy4 months agoTrump Pulls Off Miracle Of A Lifetime — It’s Permanently Open
-
Economy4 months agoSwalwell Facing Jail Time After Sickening New Video Leaks




