Connect with us

Latest

Inside the US military playbook to cripple Iran if nuclear talks collapse

Published

on

If negotiations with Iran collapse, the U.S. likely is to move quickly to degrade Tehran’s military capabilities — a campaign analysts say would begin with missile systems, naval assets and command networks before escalating to more controversial targets.

Negotiators are still working toward what officials describe as a preliminary framework agreement — effectively a one-page starting point for broader talks centered on Iran’s nuclear program and potential sanctions relief. But deep mistrust on both sides has left the process fragile, raising the stakes if diplomacy fails.

“We’re not starting at zero,” retired Army Lt. Col. Seth Krummrich, a former Joint Staff planner and current global risk analyst, told Fox News Digital. “We’re both starting at minus 1,000 because neither side trusts each other at all. This is going to be a pretty hard process going forward.” 

That tension was on display Thursday, when a senior U.S. official confirmed American forces struck Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas — key locations near the Strait of Hormuz — while insisting the operation did not mark a restart of the war or the end of the ceasefire.

The strike on one of Iran’s oil ports came two days after Iran launched 15 ballistic and cruise missiles at the UAE’s Fujairah Port, drawing anger from Gulf allies. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine said earlier this week the attack did not rise to the level of breaking the ceasefire, describing it as a low-level strike.

President Donald Trump repeatedly has warned that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran — even signaling before the recent ceasefire was implemented that Washington could target the country’s energy infrastructure and key economic assets. But any escalation would likely unfold in phases, beginning with efforts to dismantle Iran’s ability to project force across the region before expanding to more controversial targets.

If talks break down, any renewed conflict would likely become a “contest for escalation control,” where Iran seeks to impose costs without provoking regime-threatening retaliation while the U.S. works to strip away Tehran’s remaining leverage, according to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula.

“The capabilities that would come into focus are the ones Iran uses to generate coercive leverage: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense systems, maritime strike assets, command-and-control networks, IRGC infrastructure, proxy support channels, and nuclear-related facilities,” he said, referring to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

“The military objective would be less about punishment and more about denying Iran the tools it uses to escalate,” he said. 

“President Trump has all the cards, and he wisely keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital. The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment. 

One early focus could be Iran’s fleet of fast attack boats in the Strait of Hormuz — a central component of Tehran’s ability to threaten global shipping in one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.

RP Newman, a military and terrorism analyst and Marine Corp veteran, said leaving much of that fleet intact during earlier strikes was a mistake.

IRAN’S REMAINING WEAPONS: HOW TEHRAN CAN STILL DISRUPT THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

“We’ve blown up six of them,” he said. “They’ve got about 400 left.” 

The small, fast-moving boats are a key part of Iran’s asymmetric maritime strategy, capable of harassing commercial tankers and U.S. naval forces — and could quickly become a priority target in any renewed campaign.

Much of Iran’s core military structure also remains intact.

INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL

Newman said “we’ve only killed less than one percent of IRGC troops,” leaving a large portion of the force still capable of carrying out operations. He estimated the group “numbers between 150 and 190,000.”

But targeting the IRGC is far more complex than eliminating senior leadership.

“They’re not just a group of leaders at the top that you can kill away,” Krummrich said. “Over 47 years it’s percolated down to every level.”

Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies policy institute, said Washington may continue tightening economic pressure before broadening military action, arguing the U.S. should “squeeze them for at least another three to six weeks” before considering more aggressive escalation.

“You could have blown Kharg Island back to smithereens,” Krummrich said, referring to Iran’s primary oil export terminal in the Persian Gulf. “But what the planner said was, no — what we can do is a maritime blockade. It will have the same effect.”

Iran has continued moving crude through covert shipping networks and ship-to-ship transfers, with tanker trackers reporting millions of barrels still reaching markets in recent weeks.

A CIA analysis found Iran may be able to sustain those pressures for another three to four months before facing more severe economic strain, according to a report by The Washington Post.

The question is how far a U.S. campaign could expand if initial pressure fails to force concessions.

Trump has signaled a willingness to go further, warning before the ceasefire that the U.S. could “completely obliterate” Iran’s electric generating plants, oil infrastructure and key export hubs such as Kharg Island if a deal is not reached.

“You don’t do that at first,” Montgomery said, describing strikes on dual-use infrastructure as a conditional step dependent on Iran’s response.

Targeting dual-use infrastructure presents significant legal and operational challenges.

“I’ve got 500 people standing on my target. You can’t hit that,” Newman said.

Such decisions carry political and legal risks, particularly given the likelihood of international scrutiny.

Broader infrastructure strikes also could create long-term instability if they push Iran toward internal collapse.

“In the short term, it might help. But in the long term, we’re all going to have to deal with it,” Krummrich said. “Once you pull that lever, you’re basically pushing Iran closer to the edge of the abyss.”

A collapse of state authority could create a failed-state scenario across the Strait of Hormuz, with armed groups, drones and missiles operating unchecked in one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

Even some of the most discussed military options — such as seizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium — would be extremely difficult to execute.

“That’s much harder than it sounds,” said Montgomery.

Such a mission would likely take months, and require engineers, technicians and heavy excavation equipment, in addition to thousands of U.S. operators providing continuous air coverage.

“When you start to stack that up, that becomes resource intensive and high risk — not even high, extreme risk,” said Krummrich.

Continue Reading

Latest

Tucker Carlson Officially Makes Shock Announcement — He’s Out

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Latest

Top Fox News Host Suffers Deranged Meltdown On LIVE TV — Doesn’t End Well…

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Latest

It’s Over! The House Votes 396-13 — Trump Just Won!

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 Political Signal