Day 89. A ceasefire nobody is honoring. Strikes on the same city twice in one week. And a president who says negotiations are going “nicely.”

At 1:30 in the morning local time on Thursday, three explosions shook the outskirts of Bandar Abbas, a port city on Iran’s southern coast, right at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz. Air defense sirens briefly activated. The US military had just struck an Iranian ground control station that was about to launch a fifth drone, according to a US official, who described the action as “measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire.”

Iran did not see it that way. The IRGC issued a statement saying its response was “a serious warning” and that American aggression “will not go unanswered.”  Within hours, Kuwait’s army reported its air defenses were responding to hostile missiles and drone threats.

This is the ceasefire. This is what maintaining it looks like on Day 89.

Earlier that same Wednesday, Trump was sitting at a Cabinet meeting at the White House telling reporters the Iranians “want very much to make a deal.” “We’re not satisfied with it, but we will be,” he said. “Either that or we’ll have to just finish the job.” The White House said negotiations were proceeding “nicely.”

That evening, the bombs fell on Bandar Abbas.

The city that keeps getting hit

This was the second US strike on Bandar Abbas in less than a week. That is not a coincidence. It is a geography lesson.

Bandar Abbas is Iran’s most strategically important city. It sits directly on the Strait of Hormuz. It houses Iran’s main commercial port, its naval headquarters, and critical oil infrastructure. US forces shot down four Iranian drones and struck a drone ground control station there. The message being sent with every strike on that city is the same: the US will not allow Iran to militarize the chokepoint through which a fifth of the world’s oil flows.

Iran’s message back, sent with drones launched toward Kuwait in the middle of the night, is equally clear. It will not surrender control of its own coastline without a fight.

Both messages are being sent simultaneously with a ceasefire technically in place. That is the central absurdity of where this war stands today.

What “largely negotiated” actually means

Last week Trump said a deal with Iran was “largely negotiated.” This week he said the Iranians want to make a deal but he is not satisfied yet. Those two statements, delivered days apart, describe a negotiation that is either almost finished or nowhere near finished, depending on which day you ask.

The gap between them is the nuclear question, the same one that blew up the Islamabad talks in April, the same one that has been the wall in every conversation since February 28th. “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I’m doing that for the world. I’m not doing it just for us,” Trump said at the Cabinet meeting Wednesday.

Iran’s position has not changed. Its atomic energy chief has stated the country will not accept limits on its enrichment program. The US wants zero enrichment permanently. Nobody has moved on this in 89 days.

What has changed is the pressure. The oil inventories that cushioned the first two months of this war are running low. Analysts say there are four to six weeks before gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices shoot higher as the buffers run out. Gas is already at $4.55 a gallon nationally, with some states above $5. The economic window for a prolonged stalemate is closing, and both governments know it.

The Oman threat that changed the conversation

Yesterday Trump did something that rattled the entire Gulf region. Asked about a reported plan that would see Iran and Oman jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz and charge transit fees to passing ships, he did not just reject it. He threatened Oman directly. “Oman will behave just like everybody else or we’ll have to blow ’em up,” Trump told reporters.

Oman is a neutral country that has served as a back channel between Washington and Tehran for decades. It brokered the original nuclear deal under Obama. It was the country that announced a diplomatic breakthrough the night before the bombs fell on February 28th. It has been, throughout this war, one of the only parties both sides trusted enough to talk through.

Trump just threatened to bomb it.

The practical consequences are significant. If Oman feels it can no longer serve as a neutral mediator without becoming a military target, the diplomatic off-ramp that everyone has been quietly counting on gets narrower. The Gulf states that have been hosting American forces while absorbing Iranian missiles are already deeply uncomfortable. Threatening one of the most stable and cooperative among them does not make that situation easier to manage.

What to actually watch

The next few days matter more than most. A second round of talks has been discussed. The ceasefire, such as it is, is being tested every night over the Strait. Oil inventories are running out. And Trump’s own timeline, “either that or we’ll have to just finish the job,” is being compressed by economics whether he likes it or not.

“Finish the job” means a resumption of full-scale strikes. Nobody in the Gulf wants that. Nobody in the global economy wants that. Whether the fear of it is enough to close the gap on the nuclear question before the pressure becomes unbearable is the only question that matters right now.

The bombs fell on Bandar Abbas at 1:30 in the morning. The ceasefire is still technically in place. The deal is still “largely negotiated.”

Day 89.

That is what this letter is for.

— US Daily Letter | May 28, 2026

This morning, Air Force One touched down at Beijing Capital International Airport. Three hundred Chinese children in blue and white uniforms lined the tarmac waving American and Chinese flags. A brass band played. Chinese Vice President Han Zheng, Xi Jinping’s chosen envoy for diplomatic ceremonies, walked out to greet the president. Elon Musk, standing nearby, shook the vice president’s hand.

It was the first time an American president had set foot on Chinese soil in nearly nine years. The last time was November 2017, also Trump, also Xi, also with pomp and pageantry and a tour of the Forbidden City. A lot has changed since then. The two countries have fought a trade war. American companies have been pushed out of Chinese markets. China has built military infrastructure across the South China Sea. The United States has spent the last 73 days bombing China’s closest energy partner in the Middle East while simultaneously asking Beijing to help clean up the mess.

Kurt Campbell, a top Biden-era China adviser, put it plainly: “It is remarkable that President Trump is prepared to go to China under these circumstances. But may I also say that it is also deeply unusual that China is prepared to host him.”

That sentence contains the whole story of this visit. Both sides need something. Neither side wants to appear to need it. And the outcome of the next 48 hours will affect the price of your gas, the future of Taiwan, the technology in your next phone, and the shape of a global order that is being renegotiated in real time behind closed doors in Beijing.

Here is what every American should actually know.

Why this visit happened at all

The Beijing summit was originally planned for April but was postponed when the Iran war started on February 28th. The delay was telling. Washington was bombing China’s closest ally in the Middle East and simultaneously trying to arrange a state visit with the country that buys more Iranian oil than anyone else on earth. The diplomatic gymnastics required to hold both positions at once were extraordinary.

And yet here we are. China’s goal, according to analysts at Trivium China, is to put the relationship on a stabler, longer-lasting footing after the constant turbulence of 2025. Anything beyond that will be a bonus.  That is a modest ambition for a summit this large, but modesty is the only realistic option when the agenda includes trade, Taiwan, artificial intelligence, a shooting war in the Middle East, and the world’s most critical energy chokepoint.

Trump told reporters before departure he expected “great things” from the summit. Experts expected something considerably more measured.

The Iran question that dominates everything

Trump said publicly that trade would be the main focus of the trip. Then he said he would have “a long talk” with Xi about Iran. Both things are true, but only one of them is urgent.

Analysts have been blunt about what Washington actually needs from Beijing: China purchases more than 80 percent of Iran’s shipped crude exports. It is, by a wide margin, the largest buyer of Iranian oil on earth. If Xi were to apply meaningful pressure on Tehran, to tell Iran privately that China’s support has limits and that reopening the Strait is a condition of continued partnership, the entire dynamic of the Iran negotiation could shift.

Lyle Goldstein, director of the China Initiative at Brown University, said he could imagine Trump asking Xi directly to pressure Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and return to the negotiating table. “Let’s face it,” Goldstein said, “this war will dominate the summit. It will push a lot of other things off the agenda.”

The complication is that China has every reason to stay neutral and several reasons to prefer the war continues at its current low simmer. In the lead-up to the summit, China ordered its companies not to comply with US sanctions on Iranian oil and hosted Iran’s foreign minister for a visit in Beijing. Those are not the gestures of a country preparing to break with Tehran. They are the gestures of a country that understands its own leverage and is not in a hurry to spend it.

The ordinary residents of Beijing that CNN spoke to along the streets near the Second Ring Road voiced little appetite for China becoming more involved to end the Iran war. Their views reflected a broader instinct: frustration with Washington, exhaustion with geopolitical confrontation, and a strong preference for neutrality.

Xi does not govern by public opinion the way Trump does. But those streets matter as context. Beijing is not arriving at this summit in a mood to do America any favors.

The Taiwan card nobody wants to talk about

Here is the conversation that could blow up everything else in the room.

On May 11th, Trump announced he would raise with Xi the matter of arms sales to Taiwan, breaking with the Six Assurances, the longstanding US framework that had governed American arms sales to the island since 1982. That is a significant departure. The Six Assurances were designed precisely to prevent American presidents from using Taiwan as a bargaining chip with Beijing. Trump is apparently prepared to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip with Beijing.

Some US officials have expressed concern that Trump is walking into a meeting where Xi holds the cards, and that the Chinese leader may use that leverage to get what he wants on Taiwan. Trump himself told reporters Monday: “He’ll bring up Taiwan, I think, more than I will.”

That casual remark conceals an enormous amount. Experts noted that the ongoing Iran war has given China greater leverage generally, because the US has diverted significant military resources away from South Korea and Japan to the Middle East, reducing American capacity to respond to a potential conflict over Taiwan. Xi knows this. Trump knows Xi knows this. And the question of what gets traded across that table in exchange for Chinese cooperation on Iran is one that the 23 million people of Taiwan are watching with considerable anxiety.

The business delegation and what it signals

Trump brought with him to Beijing a delegation of executives representing some of America’s most valuable companies, including Elon Musk of Tesla and Jensen Huang of Nvidia. Also present were the CEOs of Boeing and Mastercard.

This is not incidental. It is the message. Trump is telling Xi, and the world, that this visit is as much about commerce as it is about conflict. Analysts anticipate that Trump and Xi may announce large Chinese orders of American planes and soybeans when the meetings conclude. Boeing desperately needs orders. American agriculture desperately needs export markets. And Trump needs a win he can point to before he boards Air Force One on Friday and flies home to a country where gas is still above $4 a gallon and the Iran ceasefire is still on life support.

The presence of Eric Trump and Lara Trump on the trip, accompanying the president “in a personal capacity” as representatives of the Trump Organization’s business interests, has already drawn conflict-of-interest questions from ethics watchdogs. The Trump Organization is a private business. Its principals are meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing while the president of the United States is negotiating trade and security terms in the next room. That is worth noting, even if nobody in the administration thinks it warrants a second look.

What Xi actually wants

This is the question that American coverage tends to underweight, and it is the most important one.

Xi arrives at this summit having achieved something he has wanted for years: being received as an equal by the United States. The last year of tit-for-tat tariffs, China’s willingness to leverage its hold over rare earth supply chains, and now Trump flying to Beijing to ask for help with Iran have all reinforced a single message that Xi has been sending since 2013: China is not a junior partner. It is a co-equal power that expects to be treated as one.

As one analyst at Leiden University put it: “Trade remains politically powerful, especially for Trump, because it gives rivalry a language that voters can easily understand. Yet the deeper conflict concerns hierarchy, legitimacy, and the future architecture of global order.”

That is what is actually being negotiated in Beijing this week. Not just soybeans and planes and whether Iran reopens the Strait. The shape of who runs the world for the next generation.

What to watch before Friday

The formal meetings between Trump and Xi begin Thursday morning Beijing time, which is Wednesday evening for most Americans. After the bilateral session, the two leaders are scheduled to tour the historic Temple of Heaven together and attend a state banquet. On Friday, they will share tea and a working lunch before Trump departs.

Watch for four things when the readouts start coming.

First, whether China commits to anything specific on Iran, or offers only vague language about de-escalation and dialogue. Specific commitments would be a genuine win for Trump. Vague language would mean Xi gave up nothing.

Second, whether Taiwan appears in any joint statement and in what terms. Any language that softens America’s longstanding position on Taiwanese sovereignty would be alarming and consequential.

Third, what deals get announced and who benefits. Boeing orders are good for American workers. But if rare earth supply restrictions get quietly eased in exchange for American concessions elsewhere, the headline deal may obscure the real cost.

Fourth, whether Trump boards Air Force One on Friday claiming a “12 out of 10” the way he described his last meeting with Xi in South Korea. After that Busan summit last fall, Trump said on Air Force One: “From zero to 10 with 10 being the best, I would say the meeting was a 12.” If he uses that language again, it likely means the deliverables were thin and the atmospherics were all anyone has to show for it.

The bottom line

The most powerful man in the world is sitting in Beijing right now, in a city that is watching him with wariness, asking the leader of the country that is simultaneously his largest trading partner, his primary strategic rival, and his closest ally’s largest oil customer to help him end a war he started.

That sentence should give every American pause, regardless of politics.

The Iran ceasefire is on life support. The Strait of Hormuz is still contested. Gas is still expensive. Taiwan is still on the table. And somewhere in Beijing tonight, in a room full of interpreters and aides and the weight of history, two men are deciding how much of all of that changes before Friday.

We will be watching every word that comes out of those rooms. And we will write you the moment the smoke clears.

That is what this letter is for.

— US Daily Letter | May 13, 2026

THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ: THE CHOKEPOINT THAT COULD DEFINE 2026

The two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran expires tomorrow — and right now, nobody knows what comes next.

Here’s the quick version of how we got here: On February 28, Israel and the United States launched airstrikes against Iran, killing its supreme leader and many other officials and destroying a large number of military and government targets. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel and U.S. bases, and by closing the Strait of Hormuz.  That closure sent shockwaves through global energy markets and triggered a 40-day escalation that brought the region to the edge of a wider war.

Trump announced a two-week suspension of attacks on Iran, contingent on Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz — calling it a “big day for world peace.”  Pakistan brokered the truce. The world exhaled. For about 48 hours.

Then things got complicated again. Iran said Saturday it had reinstated control of the Strait and reversed course on its decision to reopen the critical waterway, citing Trump’s refusal to end the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports.  On Sunday, Trump said the U.S. Navy’s USS Spruance intercepted and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship, the Touska, in the Gulf of Oman after firing on its engine room. 

As of this morning, oil prices surged, with West Texas Intermediate jumping more than 6% to $89 per barrel and Brent climbing to $95.50, while U.S. stock futures fell as the two sides teetered on the brink of renewed conflict. 

The economic damage is already severe. The Strait of Hormuz — which normally carries roughly one-fifth of global oil supply — has been effectively closed for nearly two months, with experts estimating supply disruptions of around 13 million barrels of crude per day and a cumulative shortfall already exceeding half a billion barrels.  Experts warn that even if a deal is signed today, it could take months to unwind the damage.

The ceasefire deadline is Tuesday. Watch this space closely.

THE POPE TAKES ON AFRICA — AND TRUMP

While diplomats scramble in Islamabad, Pope Leo XIV is wrapping up an 11-day, four-nation apostolic journey across Africa — visiting Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea through April 23. 

This trip has been anything but quiet. The first American-born pope has delivered remarks seen as critical of the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and U.S. policy, including calling Trump’s threat to end Iran’s civilization “unacceptable.” Trump responded by calling the Catholic leader “weak” and “terrible for foreign policy.” 

Standing next to Cameroon’s 93-year-old President Paul Biya — himself accused of presiding over decades of authoritarian rule — Leo didn’t hold back: “In order for peace and justice to prevail, the chains of corruption — which disfigure authority and strip it of its credibility — must be broken.” 

In Angola, addressing tens of thousands at an open-air Mass, Leo urged the country to move beyond the “enmity and division, squandered resources and poverty” left by its civil war-scarred past, telling the faithful: “Today, there is a need to look to the future with hope and to build that hope.” 

Today, Leo heads to Equatorial Guinea for the final stop — a diplomatically delicate challenge, as the former Spanish colony is run by Africa’s longest-serving president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who has been in power since 1979 and is accused of widespread corruption and authoritarianism.  Don’t expect the Pope to go easy on him.

THE GLOBAL ECONOMY: “IN THE SHADOW OF WAR”

The International Monetary Fund dropped its annual World Economic Outlook last week, and the title says it all: Global Economy in the Shadow of War.

The pre-conflict global growth forecast for 2026 had been set at 3.4%. War in the Middle East has halted that momentum.  Under the assumption that the conflict remains limited, global growth is now projected at 3.1% in 2026 — with risks decisively on the downside.

The IMF’s warning is pointed. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz and serious damage to critical facilities in a region central to global hydrocarbon supply raise the prospect of a major energy crisis should hostilities continue.  In a severe scenario where energy disruptions extend further into the year, global growth could fall to 2% and inflation could exceed 6%.

The countries most exposed: emerging market and developing economies — especially commodity importers with preexisting vulnerabilities — where the downside is most pronounced. That means much of Africa, Latin America, and South Asia is staring down a compounding crisis not of their making.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Three stories. One through-line: the world’s stability is being tested from multiple directions at once — a war with no clean ending, a Pope challenging both tyrants and the American president, and an IMF warning that the economic bill is already being tallied.

For Americans, the stakes are real. Oil prices hit your gas pump. A wider war hits your 401(k). And what happens in the Strait of Hormuz this week may be the most consequential 72 hours of the year.

Stay informed.

— US Daily Letter

Yesterday, President Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran. Within the hour, missiles were already flying again.

That tells you almost everything you need to know about where we stand.

Let’s back up and give you the full picture — because this war moved fast, the stakes are enormous, and most of what you’ve seen in your feed has been noise.

How we got here

On February 28, 2026, U.S. and Israeli forces launched nearly 900 strikes in 12 hours targeting Iranian missiles, air defenses, military infrastructure, and leadership.  The opening salvo was historic in its brutality. The attacks killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other Iranian officials. 

Here’s the part that will be debated for years: just before the strikes began, Omani foreign minister Badr Al-Busaidi said a “breakthrough” had been reached and Iran had agreed both to never stockpile enriched uranium and to full verification by the IAEA — adding that peace was “within reach.”  Talks were scheduled to resume on March 2nd. They never happened.

Trump administration officials have offered multiple explanations for launching the war anyway — to pre-empt Iranian retaliation against US assets, to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, to prevent a nuclear weapon, to secure Iran’s oil resources, and to achieve regime change.  The explanations kept shifting. The bombs did not.

What Iran did next

Tehran hit back hard. Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at targets in Israel and at US military bases in Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. A drone struck Britain’s Akrotiri military base on Cyprus, and missiles were shot down over Turkey. 

The war spread quickly across the entire region. The conflict disrupted global travel and trade, halted flights in and out of the Middle East, and led to shipping reroutes to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.  Oil markets shook. Fuel shortages rippled across Asia. The world’s most critical energy chokepoint — through which roughly 20% of global oil flows — was effectively shut down.

The Strait of Hormuz: the real center of gravity

You’ve heard the name. Here’s why it matters so much.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow passage between Iran and Oman — just 21 miles wide at its tightest point. Every day in normal times, roughly 17 to 21 million barrels of oil pass through it. Saudi oil. Emirati oil. Kuwaiti oil. Qatari LNG. If it closes, Asia runs short within weeks. Europe scrambles. Prices spike globally.

Iran used the strait as its most powerful non-military weapon. By threatening — and partially restricting — shipping through the Hormuz, Tehran forced the entire world to pay attention to the war in a way that no missile barrage could. Trump issued a deadline threatening the “complete demolition” of Iran’s power plants and bridges if Tehran did not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz.  Iran called the threats “delusional.”

Then, at the last hour, a phone call from Pakistan changed everything.

The ceasefire — and what it actually says

Iran says it has accepted a two-week ceasefire, with talks set to begin on Friday in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, after President Trump agreed to suspend attacks on the condition that Tehran fully reopens the Strait of Hormuz. 

The truce was brokered by Pakistan, following fierce exchanges of airstrikes, missile attacks and threats that saw unprecedented strikes on Gulf nations, disrupted global shipping routes and heightened fears of a prolonged confrontation. 

The terms, as we know them: Iran’s military will coordinate passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz during the ceasefire. Iran and Oman plan to charge transit fees on passing ships, with Tehran planning to use the revenue for post-war reconstruction. 

Iran came with its own framework. Tehran’s 10-point peace proposal includes lifting sanctions, creating a war-loss fund, a potential US troop withdrawal from the Gulf, and recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium in exchange for a pledge not to build nuclear weapons.  It is unclear whether the US has agreed to any of it.

But the guns didn’t stop

Here’s the uncomfortable truth about this ceasefire: it started with explosions.

Missile attacks were reported across the Gulf region and Israel shortly after Trump announced the two-week ceasefire. Kuwait and the UAE said they were working to intercept incoming drone and missile threats. Qatar’s Ministry of Defense said it had successfully intercepted a missile attack. Bahrain’s Interior Ministry said sirens were sounding. 

And Israel made its position crystal clear within hours: Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed support for the US decision to suspend strikes on Iran, but stressed the ceasefire does not extend to Lebanon.  Israel then bombed locations across Lebanon including the capital Beirut in devastating attacks that killed at least 89 people and wounded over 700. 

A ceasefire with an asterisk the size of a country.

So who’s winning?

The honest answer: nobody cleanly, and the next two weeks will determine a great deal.

Iran took devastating losses — its supreme leader killed, military infrastructure hammered, universities and cultural sites destroyed. But it survived 40 days as a functioning state, kept its weapons, and forced the world’s superpower to the table. Iran expert Trita Parsi said the potential talks in Islamabad could fail, “but the terrain has shifted.”  Iranian leaders are declaring the conflict is ending “on Iran’s terms.”  That’s partly propaganda — but only partly.

The US entered with overwhelming force and achieved the killing of Khamenei. But it did not achieve regime change, did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, and did not keep the Hormuz open. Analyst Trita Parsi described the ceasefire as a strategic retreat by Trump, arguing the conflict had “become an absolute disaster” and forced the White House to seek a way out. “Trump needed an exit, and he took it.” 

The Gulf states — Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait — absorbed Iranian missiles on their own soil while hosting American forces. They want the strait open, Iran neutered, and to never be in this position again. They are not satisfied.

The world economy got a 40-day warning about what a closed Strait of Hormuz actually looks like. It will not forget.

What to watch next

Talks begin Friday in Islamabad. The questions that will define everything:

Will the US accept Iran’s right to enrich uranium — the point that blew up negotiations in February, before the war even started? Will Iran accept any verification regime that actually has teeth? And will Netanyahu — who is “widely suspected of having derailed the last round of talks” brokered by Oman  — allow a diplomatic solution to hold?

Two weeks is a very short runway.

The bottom line

Forty days of war. Thousands dead. The global oil supply held hostage. A ceasefire announced while missiles were still in the air.

This is not resolved. This is a pause — fragile, contested, already fraying at the edges in Lebanon. The Strait of Hormuz is open for now, and oil prices dropped on the news. But the fundamental questions that started this war — Iran’s nuclear program, American power in the Gulf, Israel’s security — remain completely unanswered.

What happens in Islamabad on Friday matters more than almost anything else happening on the planet right now.

We’ll be watching. And we’ll write you again the moment it breaks.

That’s what this letter is for.

— US Daily Letter | April 9, 2026

In the early hours of Friday morning, Iranian state media confirmed what Western intelligence agencies had feared since the first bombs fell on Tehran: the Islamic Republic’s Assembly of Experts has selected Mojtaba Khamenei — the 56-year-old son of the Ayatollah killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes — as the next Supreme Leader of Iran.

The vote was swift. Within 72 hours of his father’s death, the 88-member clerical body convened in emergency session and chose the younger Khamenei by what Iranian sources described only as a “decisive” margin. No tally was released. No dissenting voices have spoken publicly. By dawn, IRGC units across Iran were holding televised loyalty ceremonies.

Who is he?

To most of the world, Mojtaba Khamenei has been a ghost — deliberately so. He operated for decades in the background of Iranian power: present everywhere, visible almost nowhere. Western intelligence agencies regard him as one of the most powerful unelected figures Iran has ever produced. He is believed to have held effective command over the IRGC’s intelligence division for more than ten years. The EU sanctioned him in 2019 for his role in ordering crackdowns on protesters. He opposed Iran’s nuclear diplomacy at every turn. He is harder-line than his father.

His first address as Supreme Leader lasted eleven minutes. His tone was controlled. His message was not.

“The blood of our martyrs does not cool the fire of our will,” he said from the podium. “It pours fuel upon it.”

What it means for the war

It almost certainly ends any near-term prospect of a ceasefire. Back-channel communications through Omani intermediaries — in which the elder Khamenei had reportedly signaled some openness to talks — died with him. Mojtaba built his career on rejecting exactly that kind of diplomacy.

The White House responded within two hours. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration’s objectives in Iran remain “unchanged.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio was more direct: Mojtaba’s appointment, he said, “changes nothing.”

Six American service members have been killed. The USS Abraham Lincoln remains in the Arabian Sea. Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz — through which 20% of the world’s oil passes — are now being backed by a man with fewer restraints and more to prove than his father ever had.

The bottom line

The son of the man killed by American bombs is now the most powerful figure in Iran. He is largely unknown to the world, deeply hostile to the West, and in possession of a state that is wounded, furious, and still very much at war.

The next few days will tell us who Mojtaba Khamenei truly is.

History is not patient.

US Daily Letter — Correspondence from where it matters most. usdailyletter.com

By US Daily Letter

February 28-March 1, 2026

In the pre-dawn darkness over Tehran, the world’s most powerful militaries launched what may become the defining military operation of the decade. By nightfall, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the man who ruled the Islamic Republic for 37 years—was dead. The Middle East had crossed a threshold from which there may be no return.

“Operation Epic Fury” and “Operation Roaring Lion”—the American and Israeli code names for Saturday’s joint assault—represent the largest coordinated military action against Iran in modern history and the biggest U.S. military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As of early Sunday morning, the toll is staggering, the conflict spreading, and the endgame entirely unclear.

THE STRIKE: “Target of Opportunity”

The operation began at approximately 7:00 AM Tehran time (10:30 PM EST Friday) with massive explosions rocking the Iranian capital and multiple cities across the country.

President Donald Trump announced the assault in an unconventional 2:00 AM EST video posted to Truth Social—no Oval Office address, no prime-time announcement, just an eight-minute pre-recorded message declaring war on the Iranian regime.

“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people,” Trump said, ending with a direct appeal to Iranians: “The hour of your freedom is at hand.”

The primary target: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, Iran’s Supreme Leader since 1989 and the most powerful figure in the Islamic Republic.

How they found him: Multiple U.S. defense officials told Fox News that intelligence indicated Khamenei was meeting with 5-10 senior Iranian leaders at his compound in central Tehran Saturday morning. The strike was accelerated based on this “target of opportunity.”

“There was a deliberate decision to accelerate the timeline,” a senior defense official said.

Israeli officials later confirmed that Khamenei was in his office within his residential compound—not a bunker or hiding place—when precision-guided munitions struck. Iranian state media Fars News Agency confirmed he was “carrying out his duties” at the time.

The strike that killed Khamenei reportedly cost tens of millions of dollars, involving sophisticated MQ-series or Global Hawk drones coordinated with manned aircraft in what experts described as an extraordinarily complex operation planned for months but executed with days of notice.

Satellite imagery from Airbus showed black smoke rising from Khamenei’s compound, with several buildings severely damaged or destroyed.

THE CASUALTIES: A Devastating Toll

Iranian Leadership Decimated:

Beyond Khamenei, the strikes killed Iran’s entire top security and military leadership, according to Israeli Defense Forces spokesman Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin:

∙ Mohammad Pakpour - IRGC Commander

∙ Aziz Nasirzadeh - Iranian Defense Minister

∙ Ali Shamkhani - Adviser to Supreme Leader/Defense Council Secretary

∙ Mohammad Bagheri - Chief of Staff, Iranian Armed Forces

∙ Mohammad Shirazi - Khamenei’s military bureau chief

∙ Salah Asadi - Senior intelligence official

∙ Hussein Jabel Amalean - Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research chairman

∙ Reza Mozafari-Nia - Former SPND chairman

Four senior intelligence commanders were also killed, including Javad Pourhossein (head of foreign intelligence) and Mohammad-Reza Bajestani (head of security).

Khamenei’s family: Iranian state media confirmed that Khamenei’s daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and grandchild were also killed in the strikes.

Civilian casualties: The numbers remain fluid and contested, but the human cost is already horrific:

∙ Iranian Red Crescent Society: More than 200 killed across 24 provinces, 747 injured (as of Saturday evening)

∙ Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA): At least 133 civilians killed, 200 injured; 8 military personnel killed (calling this a “minimum and conservative figure”)

∙ Minab Elementary School: Iranian state media reports 100+ girls killed when strikes hit a primary school in southern Iran. By Sunday, the death toll at the Minab school had risen to 148, making it one of the deadliest single incidents​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Letter from US Daily Letter HQ

February 13, 2026

From Munich’s corridors of power to the tense diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program, this weekend marks a critical inflection point in global security. Here’s what you need to understand as the world’s leaders gather, negotiate, and prepare for what comes next.

MUNICH: The World’s Security Elite Convene as Order Crumbles

The 62nd Munich Security Conference opens today under perhaps the most ominous theme in its 63-year history: “Under Destruction.”

Over 1,000 participants from 115+ countries—including 60 heads of state, 50+ foreign ministers, the NATO Secretary General, and leaders from across the geopolitical spectrum—are descending on the Hotel Bayerischer Hof through Sunday for what has become the single most important annual forum for international security discussions.

The stakes: This year’s conference arrives at what organizers call “a fundamental inflection point”—longstanding alliances questioned, the rules-based order eroding, conflicts escalating from Ukraine to Gaza to the Pacific.

The Munich Security Report 2026, released ahead of the conference, warns of the rise of “wrecking-ball politics”—political forces focused on destruction rather than reform. European security officials are openly discussing “detachment issues” as uncertainty swirls around U.S. commitment to NATO under President Trump’s second term.

Key figures attending:

∙ Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

∙ U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio

∙ NATO Secretary General

∙ European Space Agency Director General Josef Aschbacher

∙ German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul (the host)

∙ Plus 270 side events hosted by think tanks and policy organizations

Topics on the table:

∙ The future of transatlantic relations under Trump 2.0

∙ European defense independence

∙ Russia’s war in Ukraine entering its fourth year

∙ China’s challenge to the Western-led order

∙ Iran nuclear diplomacy and Middle East stability

∙ Security implications of emerging technologies (AI, space, cyber)

Why Munich matters: Unlike the UN or formal summit diplomacy, Munich operates as an informal crossroads where adversaries can talk, allies can argue openly, and new ideas get floated before they become official policy. It’s where Putin delivered his famous 2007 speech challenging U.S. hegemony, where Zelenskyy warned of impending Russian invasion weeks before it happened in 2022.

This weekend, watch for signals about:

∙ Whether European NATO members are seriously preparing for reduced U.S. security guarantees

∙ How Middle Eastern allies are hedging between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow

∙ Whether there’s any path forward on Ukraine that both Kyiv and its backers can accept

The conference runs through Sunday, with livestreams available for major sessions.

IRAN-U.S.: Fragile Diplomacy on a Knife’s Edge

After last week’s indirect talks in Oman—the first since the U.S. and Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities last June—the diplomatic path forward remains treacherous.

Where things stand:

Both sides called the February 6 talks in Muscat “a good start” and agreed to continue negotiations after consultations with capitals. But the fundamental gaps remain vast, and the threat of war looms large.

Iran’s red lines (articulated this week by security chief Ali Larijani):

∙ Talks limited exclusively to nuclear program

∙ Ballistic missile program off the table (“domestic matter…not subject to negotiation”)

∙ Regional proxy support non-negotiable

∙ Zero uranium enrichment “irrelevant” - Iran insists on maintaining enrichment capabilities

∙ Won’t move uranium stockpile offshore

U.S. position:

∙ Seeking “zero nuclear capability”

∙ Wants comprehensive talks covering missiles and regional proxies

∙ Demanding elimination of Iran’s 400kg stockpile of 60% enriched uranium (enough for 9+ nuclear weapons if further enriched)

∙ Trump threatening “very steep consequences” and “something very tough” if no deal

The military backdrop:

∙ USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group positioned off Iran’s coast in the Arabian Sea

∙ Admiral Brad Cooper (CENTCOM commander) attended Oman talks in full dress uniform

∙ Trump suggested second carrier group might deploy: “We have an armada that is heading there and another one might be going”

∙ Iran shooting down U.S. drones, attempting to stop U.S.-flagged ships in Strait of Hormuz

∙ Iran threatening “unprecedented retaliation” including strikes “at the heart of Tel Aviv” if attacked

The Israel factor:

Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Trump on Wednesday, urging that any deal must address Iran’s missile program. Israel views Iran’s ballistic arsenal as an existential threat and has warned it’s prepared to launch unilateral strikes if Iran crosses unnamed “red lines.”

Iran’s Larijani accused Israel of “fabricating pretexts” to derail negotiations and provoke war.

Expert assessment:

Analysts remain deeply skeptical a breakthrough is possible. As one told the Times of Israel: “It’s very difficult to see them conceding enough in talks for the US credibly to be able to claim that it’s made a breakthrough. And this is where I think military conflict is more likely than not.”

The Soufan Center’s analysis: Trump hoped Iran’s weakness after recent uprisings would force concessions, but Tehran is showing no willingness to compromise on core issues it rejected in 2025 talks.

Timeline: A second round of talks is confirmed but not yet scheduled. Gulf Arab states, fearing they’d be dragged into any U.S.-Iran war, are watching nervously.

OLYMPICS: Milan-Cortina Games Enter Second Week

The 2026 Winter Olympics, which opened last Friday with twin cauldrons lit in Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo, continue through February 22.

Weekend highlights:

∙ Men’s skeleton finals (Britain’s Matt Weston led at halfway mark)

∙ Women’s skeleton begins Saturday finals

∙ Figure skating men’s free program

∙ Snowboard cross knockout rounds

∙ Ice hockey continues (Finland-Canada women’s match postponed to Feb 12 after norovirus outbreak)

∙ Cross-country skiing, biathlon, curling round-robin play

Political undertones: Israel’s delegation was met with scattered boos during the opening ceremony, reflecting ongoing tensions over the Gaza conflict. Italy is using the games to showcase its capacity for major international events with significant Alpine infrastructure investments.

ALSO THIS WEEKEND:

LUNAR NEW YEAR APPROACHES: The Year of the Snake begins February 17 with celebrations across Asia and diaspora communities worldwide. Preparations underway for what’s known as Spring Festival in China, Tết in Vietnam, and Seollal in South Korea.

VALENTINE’S DAY TOMORROW: Beyond romance, many are using February 14 as an occasion to celebrate friendships and family connections.

GAZA/UKRAINE: Violence continues despite ceasefire frameworks. At least 23 Palestinians killed in airstrikes Friday. Russian cluster munitions struck a Druzhkivka market, killing 7 civilians.

WORLD RADIO DAY (TODAY): UNESCO marks February 13 as a celebration of radio’s enduring power to inform and connect communities globally.

WHAT TO WATCH NEXT WEEK:

The combination of Munich discussions, Iran diplomacy, and ongoing conflicts creates a volatile mix. Key questions:

1. Will Munich produce any consensus on European defense independence? Or will it showcase deepening transatlantic divisions?

2. Can U.S.-Iran talks advance, or are we watching diplomatic theater before military action? The presence of CENTCOM’s commander at negotiations and Trump’s carrier threats suggest time is short.

3. How will Israel’s pressure campaign affect the Iran talks? Netanyahu’s Washington visit and threats of unilateral action could either force U.S. toughness or derail talks entirely.

4. What signals emerge from European capitals about accommodating or resisting Trump’s foreign policy? Munich provides the venue for Europeans to coordinate—or reveal their divisions.

The weekend marks a pause before decisions that could reshape global security for years. Diplomacy continues, but so do the military buildups, the threats, and the fundamental disagreements about how the world should be ordered.

For now, watch Munich. The conversations happening in those conference rooms and hotel corridors this weekend may determine whether 2026 is remembered for diplomatic breakthroughs or catastrophic escalations.

Stay informed. The world doesn’t pause on weekends—neither do we.

— US Daily Letter

By US Daily Letter World Desk

February 7, 2026

From coordinated insurgent attacks in Pakistan to high-stakes nuclear diplomacy and the opening of the Winter Olympics, here’s what’s happening around the globe today.

PAKISTAN: Deadly Week in Balochistan Ends with 250+ Dead

Pakistan concluded one of its bloodiest counterterrorism operations in recent history this week, with authorities claiming to have killed 216 insurgents following coordinated attacks across Balochistan province that left nearly 60 civilians and security personnel dead.

The crisis began early Saturday morning, January 31, when the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA)—a separatist group designated as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, and Pakistan—launched “Operation Herof 2.0,” simultaneous attacks across at least nine districts targeting banks, schools, markets, and security installations.

By the time Pakistani forces regained control Thursday, the death toll had reached over 250, including 22 security personnel, 36 civilians, and 216 militants according to Pakistan’s military. The BLA claimed responsibility for what analysts describe as one of the largest and most coordinated insurgent operations in Balochistan’s history.

The desert town of Nushki remained under insurgent control for three days before Pakistani forces deployed helicopters and drones to retake it. Seven police officers were killed in that operation alone.

Why It Matters: Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest province by area but also its poorest and most restive. The region sits atop massive mineral deposits—coal, gold, copper, and gas—and hosts critical infrastructure for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, including the strategic Gwadar deep-water port. The BLA accuses Pakistan’s government of exploiting the province’s resources while marginalizing local Baloch populations, fueling a separatist insurgency that dates back decades.

The violence couldn’t come at a worse time for Pakistan economically. Foreign direct investment plummeted 43% in the first half of fiscal year 2026 compared to the previous year, falling to just $808 million. Pakistan had been pitching both the US and China on investment opportunities in Balochistan’s mineral wealth—Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir even brought samples to show President Trump in September. These attacks underscore the security risks that keep investors away.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister blamed India for backing the militants—an allegation India categorically denied, calling it “baseless.” The US condemned the attacks, with its charge d’affaires calling them “acts of terrorist violence.”

The UN Security Council also condemned what it called “heinous and cowardly” attacks, though the broader question of how Pakistan addresses underlying grievances in Balochistan—economic marginalization, lack of political representation, and perceptions of resource exploitation—remains unanswered.

US-IRAN: Cautious Diplomacy in Oman Amid War Fears

In a sign that diplomacy hasn’t completely collapsed despite weeks of threats, the United States and Iran concluded indirect talks in Muscat, Oman on Friday—the first negotiations since the US and Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities last June.

Both sides described the talks as “a good start” and agreed to reconvene after consultations with their capitals, likely early next week. But the path forward remains deeply uncertain.

The talks were mediated by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who shuttled between the US delegation—led by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner—and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Notably, US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper attended in full dress uniform, a reminder that the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and other American warships are currently positioned off Iran’s coast in the Arabian Sea.

President Trump called the talks “very good” but maintained pressure, warning that if Iran doesn’t make a deal on its nuclear program, “the consequences are very steep.” He has repeatedly threatened military action if Iran uses lethal force against protesters or refuses to denuclearize.

Iran’s position: Tehran insists talks must focus exclusively on its nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions. Iranian officials flatly refuse to discuss their ballistic missile program, support for regional proxy groups, or the government’s brutal crackdown on nationwide protests that killed thousands of Iranians in recent months.

The US position: The White House says Trump is seeking “zero nuclear capability” from Iran and wants comprehensive negotiations covering missiles and Tehran’s support for groups across the Middle East. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reminded Iran that Trump has “many options at his disposal, aside from diplomacy, as the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world.”

The stakes: Before the June 2025 war, Iran had been enriching uranium up to 60% purity—a short technical step from weapons-grade levels. Gulf Arab nations fear a US military strike could spark a regional war that drags them in, especially since Iran has warned that countries hosting US military bases could be targeted in retaliation.

Analysts are skeptical. As one expert told the Times of Israel: “It’s very difficult to see them conceding enough in talks for the US credibly to be able to claim that it’s made a breakthrough. And this is where I think military conflict is more likely than not.”

Still, the fact that both sides are talking—and agreed to talk again—suggests neither wants an immediate military confrontation, even if the gap between their positions remains vast.

WINTER OLYMPICS 2026: Milan and Cortina Welcome the World

The 2026 Winter Olympics officially opened Friday night with a glitzy ceremony in Milan, Italy, marking the first time since 1956 that Italy has hosted the Winter Games. The event is being co-hosted by Milan and the mountain resort town of Cortina d’Ampezzo.

Pop star Mariah Carey kicked off the ceremony, followed by performances celebrating Italian history, art, and fashion. In an Olympic first, twin cauldrons were lit simultaneously in both host cities.

The games feature athletes from around the world competing in skiing, snowboarding, ice hockey, figure skating, and other winter sports. Israel’s small delegation marched to a smattering of boos during the opening ceremony, reflecting ongoing tensions over the Gaza conflict.

One notable disruption: The match between Finland and Canada in women’s ice hockey has been postponed to February 12 after a norovirus outbreak affected 13 members of the Finnish team.

The games come as Italy showcases not just athletic prowess but also its capacity to host major international events, with significant infrastructure investments in the Alps and northern cities.

ALSO HAPPENING TODAY:

GAZA: At least 23 Palestinians, including seven women and five children, were killed by Israeli military airstrikes and drone strikes in Gaza on Friday after a Palestinian militant attack injured an Israeli soldier. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Northern Gaza Brigade commander Ali al-Razayneh was killed in an airstrike. The violence continues despite a ceasefire deal that took effect in October 2025, which has been repeatedly violated.

UKRAINE-RUSSIA: Russian forces struck a market in Druzhkivka, Donetsk Oblast, with cluster munitions, killing at least seven civilians and injuring 15 others. Ukraine continues to face brutal winter conditions with ongoing power grid attacks. Meanwhile, in Moscow, the deputy head of Russian military intelligence, Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseyev, was shot and critically injured in what appears to be an assassination attempt.

COSTA RICA: Laura Fernández Delgado was elected as Costa Rica’s new president, making her the country’s first female leader.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO: More than 400 people were killed in a mine collapse, one of the deadliest mining disasters in recent African history.

SPORTS WORLD:

TENNIS: Carlos Alcaraz defeated Novak Djokovic 2-6, 6-2, 6-3, 7-5 in the Australian Open men’s singles final, winning his first Australian Open title and becoming the youngest man ever to complete the career Grand Slam.

HANDBALL: Denmark defeated Germany 34-27 to become European Champions, adding to their World and Olympic titles in what’s being called handball’s “triple crown.”

CRICKET: The ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 kicked off today with opening matches in India and Sri Lanka, bringing fast-paced cricket action to millions of fans across the subcontinent.

LOOKING AHEAD

The world faces a particularly volatile moment: nuclear diplomacy that could either prevent or precipitate conflict with Iran, ongoing insurgencies threatening stability in South Asia, persistent violence in Gaza and Ukraine despite ceasefire agreements, and economic uncertainty as nations grapple with security costs and investment risks.

For now, diplomacy continues—but so do the threats, the violence, and the uncertainty about what comes next.

TEL AVIV — On Monday morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu removed the yellow ribbon pin he had worn for 843 days. So did every member of his cabinet. The pins represented the hostages held in Gaza since the October 7, 2023 attacks.

There are no more hostages to represent.

“We have brought back Rani Gvili, of blessed memory, a hero of Israel,” Netanyahu told parliament. “There are no more hostages in Gaza.”

Ran Gvili was 24 years old when Hamas militants stormed the border on October 7, 2023. A special forces policeman, he died fighting that day. Palestinian Islamic Jihad took his body to Gaza. For 843 days—more than two years and three months—his family demanded his return. They held vigils. They lobbied government officials. They appeared on television. They refused to let Israel forget.

Over the weekend, Israeli forces launched what they called a “large-scale operation” in a cemetery in northern Gaza. They exhumed bodies of deceased Palestinians, one after another, until dental experts identified Gvili’s remains among the dead.

He will finally be buried on Israeli soil.

He was the last.

Hamas-led fighters captured 251 hostages on October 7, 2023, according to Israeli authorities. Some were released in prisoner exchanges. Some died in captivity. Some were killed in Israeli airstrikes. Some remain unaccounted for, their fates still unknown. The return of all remaining hostages—alive or dead—was the cornerstone of the ceasefire’s first phase, which took effect in October 2025.

Gvili’s recovery closes that chapter. What comes next will determine whether the ceasefire holds or whether Gaza descends back into war.

President Trump celebrated the news from Washington. So did his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who credited himself, Trump, and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff with brokering the arrangement alongside the CIA, Israeli intelligence, and Palestinian intermediaries. “For the first time since 2014, there are no Israeli hostages held in Gaza,” Kushner wrote on social media.

The recovery was presented as a triumph of diplomacy. But it also exposes the chasm that remains.

The ceasefire agreement calls for Hamas to disarm and for Israel to withdraw from Gaza. An “international stabilization force”—undefined, unformed, and not yet agreed upon—would deploy to fill the vacuum. Retrained Palestinian police would take over security, though no one has explained how officers who fled or were killed during the October 7 attacks will be reconstituted. A technocratic committee would govern Gaza, replacing Hamas, though Hamas has given no indication it will cede control.

Netanyahu made his position explicit: “The next stage is not reconstruction—the next stage is disarming Hamas and demilitarizing Gaza.”

Hamas has signaled it will lay down heavy weapons only in tandem with Israeli withdrawal. Neither side trusts the other to go first. Negotiations on these contentious points have not yet begun. Both sides are waiting to see who blinks.

Meanwhile, Gaza itself continues to suffer. Most of the 2.3 million residents are enduring another rainy winter without adequate shelter. Several infants have died from exposure to cold in recent weeks. The Civil Defense rescue services say thousands of bodies remain buried under rubble, impossible to retrieve without heavy equipment that Israel has not allowed into the Strip. They have called for construction machinery and reconstruction materials to enter through the Rafah crossing.

Israel announced it would partially reopen the Rafah border with Egypt for the first time since May 2024, allowing vetted Palestinians to enter and exit. But the crossing will not facilitate direct aid shipments from Egypt. International journalists remain barred from freely entering Gaza, making independent verification of conditions on the ground nearly impossible.

Palestinian activists accuse Israel of holding the bodies of hundreds of dead Palestinians, including children, in military morgues. Hamas provided the information that helped Israeli forces locate Gvili’s body in the cemetery. Each side now claims it has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement. Each side accuses the other of stalling.

The hostage crisis—the most visible and politically charged element of the conflict—is over. The underlying questions remain unresolved.

Who governs Gaza when this ends? Who provides security? Who rebuilds? Who pays? And most critically: who disarms first?

There are no yellow ribbons for those questions. Only the slow, grinding work of negotiation between parties who have spent 843 days—and decades before that—learning not to trust each other.

After 843 days, the final hostage is home. The hardest part is just beginning.

BEIJING — General Zhang Youxia spent his life proving loyalty.

A combat veteran of China’s 1979 war with Vietnam. A childhood friend of Xi Jinping since their fathers fought together in the revolution. A “sworn brother” to the Xi family across generations—the kind of bond that in Chinese culture means more than blood. The vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission and the operational commander of the People’s Liberation Army. The man who controlled the world’s largest military while Xi controlled the politics.

On Saturday, state media announced he was under investigation for “serious violations of discipline and law.” By Monday, he was gone.

This is not routine. This is not just another corruption probe. Zhang’s removal—alongside General Liu Zhenli, chief of staff of the Joint Staff Department—marks the complete annihilation of China’s military high command.

Consider the numbers: Of the six generals Xi appointed to the Central Military Commission in 2022, all are now gone. Purged, arrested, or vanished. Only one uniformed officer remains beside Xi on the body that controls China’s nuclear arsenal and 2 million active-duty troops: General Zhang Shengmin, the man who presided over the others’ removal.

The question is not whether this is unprecedented. It is.

The question is what it means when a leader eliminates the man he trusted most. When a 75-year-old general with five decades of family ties to the president is accused of betraying everything he fought for. When the operational command of a nuclear-armed superpower is reduced to a chairman, an executioner, and silence.

It means trust—the currency that holds institutions together—is breaking.

And if it can break in Beijing, between men whose families bled together for the revolution, it can break anywhere.

DAVOS, Switzerland — The 56th World Economic Forum wrapped up this morning in the Swiss Alps, and the contrast between what this gathering is supposed to be and what it actually became couldn’t be sharper.

Davos has always styled itself as the temple of global cooperation—a place where billionaires, heads of state, and thought leaders convene under the pretense of solving the world’s problems together. The theme this year was “A Spirit of Dialogue.” The promise was constructive, forward-looking conversation.

What we got instead was a funeral for the old world order, delivered by two men standing on the same stage 24 hours apart.

On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the room—politely but firmly—that the rules-based international system is dead. On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed it, demanding Greenland while threatening NATO allies and calling climate policy “the greatest hoax in history.”

If you want to understand where the world is headed, those two speeches tell you everything you need to know.

Carney: The Autopsy

Mark Carney didn’t come to Davos to make friends. He came to name reality.

The former Bank of England governor and newly minted Canadian Prime Minister stood before an audience of global elites and delivered what may be the most significant speech of his career—a clear-eyed assessment that the U.S.-led, rules-based international order is over, and middle powers like Canada must stop pretending otherwise.

“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” Carney said. “The old order is not coming back.”

He didn’t mince words. For decades, countries like Canada participated in what he called a “useful fiction”—the idea that American hegemony provided global public goods like open sea lanes, stable financial systems, and collective security in exchange for deference to U.S. leadership. But that bargain, Carney argued, no longer works.

“You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.”

The line drew applause. It also drew blood.

Carney described how great powers have weaponized economic integration—using tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, and supply chains as vulnerabilities to exploit. The multilateral institutions middle powers relied on—the WTO, the UN, the COP climate talks—have been “greatly diminished.” The architecture of collective problem-solving is crumbling.

His solution? Middle powers must band together.

“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” Carney warned. “When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.”

Instead, Carney called for middle powers—Canada, Australia, South Korea, European nations, and others—to form flexible coalitions around shared interests. Not naive multilateralism. Not reliance on dying institutions. But practical, issue-by-issue partnerships that pool resources and create leverage against larger powers.

“The power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong—if we choose to wield them together.”

It was a speech that acknowledged hypocrisy in the old system while mourning its loss. It was a call to arms disguised as diplomacy. And it left the room buzzing.

Canada’s former UN ambassador Bob Rae said he’d never seen a global reaction to a speech like this. International media called it a “stark contrast” to Trump’s address. Analysts described it as a “major departure” from Canada’s usual deference to Washington.

And Trump? He noticed.

Trump: The Confirmation

Twenty-four hours later, Donald Trump took the same stage and proved every word Carney had said.

The President of the United States—delayed after a minor electrical issue forced Air Force One to turn back and switch planes—arrived in Davos to a packed Congress Hall. Billionaires jockeyed for seats. Michael Dell weaved through the crowd. Marc Benioff, Salesforce CEO and WEF board member, pushed his way to the front. Even Blackstone’s Steve Schwarzman had to wait in line like everyone else.

They came to hear what Trump would say. And he did not disappoint.

Trump opened by declaring it was good to see “so many friends and some enemies,” drawing nervous laughter. He then spent the next hour delivering a speech that oscillated between self-congratulation, threats, confusion, and mob-like ultimatums.

He called himself “the most successful president” and claimed people were “doing very well and are happy with me”—prompting a mix of laughter and awkward silence.

He demanded NATO allow the U.S. to take Greenland from Denmark, calling it “a piece of ice” that America needs for national security. He insisted Greenland is “actually part of North America” and therefore “our territory.”

Then came the line that will define the speech: “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”

It was a threat delivered with a smile. A Goodfellas-style ultimatum wrapped in the language of dealmaking. The room went quiet.

Trump did say—for the first time—that he wouldn’t use force to take Greenland, which prompted a collective sigh of relief. But the damage was done. The message was clear: America will take what it wants, and allies can either comply or face consequences.

He criticized Europe, saying parts of the continent had become “unrecognizable.” He called former Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter “difficult,” saying she “rubbed me the wrong way.” He appeared to confuse Greenland with Iceland at one point. He touted energy deals with Venezuela and boasted about U.S. oil and gas production.

And he dismissed climate policy as “the Green New Scam,” saying windmills “destroy your land” and claiming Europe’s pursuit of renewable energy led to catastrophic collapse.

By the time the fireside chat with WEF President Børge Brende began, some audience members had already started drifting out.

The Collision

Here’s what makes these two speeches so significant: They weren’t just different in tone. They were fundamentally opposed visions of how the world works.

Carney described a world where middle powers must band together to resist coercion and preserve sovereignty through collective action. Trump described a world where might makes right, where alliances are transactional, and where America will do what it wants regardless of what allies think.

Carney argued for “the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules” wielded collectively. Trump argued that NATO should step aside while the U.S. annexes territory from a NATO ally.

Carney called for strategic autonomy grounded in shared values. Trump demanded Greenland while threatening retaliation against anyone who objects.

One speech diagnosed the death of the rules-based order. The other drove the final nail into its coffin.

What Europe Heard

European leaders in the room heard Trump’s speech as confirmation of their worst fears.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who spoke earlier in the week, had already warned that “we are living through a profound global shift” and called for Europe to defend “effective multilateralism” against “the brutalization of the world.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reminded Trump that “a deal is a deal,” referencing the July 2025 trade agreement between the U.S. and EU. “When friends shake hands, it must mean something.”

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, speaking at Davos, emphasized the alliance’s importance while carefully avoiding direct conflict with Trump.

But the subtext was unmistakable: Europe is terrified that American reliability—already shaky—is evaporating entirely.

A “No Kings” sign appeared in Davos ahead of Trump’s visit, a symbolic protest against what many see as imperial overreach. The reaction from European officials ranged from diplomatic silence to barely concealed anger.

Denmark, which controls Greenland as a semi-autonomous territory, responded with near-unanimous rejection. Greenland’s 57,000 residents have made clear they have no interest in becoming American. And Trump’s threat to “remember” those who say no felt less like diplomacy and more like extortion.

What the Rest of the World Saw

Over 60 heads of state attended Davos this year—one of the highest-level gatherings in the forum’s history. Leaders from G7, G20, and BRICS countries all watched these speeches.

And they drew their own conclusions.

Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang emphasized that China has put domestic demand at the top of its economic agenda in 2026, focusing on consumption while maintaining production strength. The message: China will look inward and prioritize resilience over integration.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani spoke about reshaping the Middle East’s security architecture, saying “the moment has come for the region to come together” rather than rely on external powers.

Morocco’s Head of Government Aziz Akhannouch touted Morocco’s position as a “crossroads between Europe, Atlantic, and African countries”—emphasizing independence and economic self-reliance.

The pattern is clear: Countries are hedging. They’re diversifying. They’re building strategic autonomy. They’re doing exactly what Carney said they must.

Because if Trump’s speech taught them anything, it’s that the old guarantees are gone.

The Davos Paradox

Here’s the irony: Davos 2026 was supposed to be about cooperation. The theme was “A Spirit of Dialogue.” The stated goals were addressing global challenges through collaboration, deploying innovation responsibly, and building prosperity within planetary boundaries.

Instead, it became a showcase for fragmentation.

Trump’s speech dominated headlines, but it was Carney’s that will shape policy. Leaders left Davos with a clear understanding: The world is reorganizing. Global cooperation is shifting toward selective alliances. The rules that governed the post-1945 order are dead, and no one—least of all the United States—is pretending otherwise.

The Global Cooperation Barometer 2026, released during the forum, confirmed what everyone already knew: Trust in multilateral institutions is eroding. Geopolitical fragmentation is accelerating. Countries are prioritizing national security over global integration.

And the man leading that charge is the President of the United States.

What Comes Next

This isn’t the beginning of a new world order. It’s the messy middle of a transition no one fully understands yet.

Carney’s vision—middle powers banding together in flexible coalitions—is compelling in theory. Whether it works in practice depends on whether countries like Canada, Australia, South Korea, and European nations can actually coordinate when their interests diverge.

Trump’s vision—American unilateralism backed by economic and military might—is simpler but more fragile. It assumes allies will accept subordination indefinitely. History suggests they won’t.

What’s clear is that the old system is gone. The fiction of rules-based order has been replaced by the reality of power-based order. And the question now isn’t whether countries will adapt—it’s how.

Some will align with the United States and accept whatever terms Washington offers. Some will build strategic autonomy and resist coercion. Some will hedge, playing both sides and hoping to avoid getting crushed.

But no one—not the billionaires in Davos, not the heads of state, not the think tank experts—believes the world is going back to what it was.

The Bottom Line

Two speeches. Two visions. One collapsing order.

Mark Carney told the global elite that the rules-based system is dead and middle powers must act together to survive. Donald Trump confirmed it by threatening NATO allies, demanding Greenland, and making clear that American power will not be constrained by alliances, norms, or institutions.

If you’re a middle power, you heard Carney and started making calls to allies.

If you’re a great power, you heard Trump and started recalculating your leverage.

If you’re a global citizen, you heard both and realized the world just got a lot more dangerous.

Davos 2026 wasn’t about dialogue. It was about declaring whose power matters—and whose doesn’t.

The snow is melting in the Swiss Alps. The private jets are flying home. The champagne glasses are being cleared.

And the world that emerges from this week looks nothing like the one that arrived.

—US Daily Letter Global Desk, reporting from Davos

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on Tuesday that her country will not negotiate over its sovereignty, responding to US threats of tariffs in a dispute over Greenland.

Frederiksen noted that Denmark has never sought any conflicts. However, Denmark is now being threatened by its closest ally, both in terms of Danish territory and Greenlandic self-determination, she told parliament, according to Xinhua News Agency.

Regarding the tariffs the United States has threatened to impose, Frederiksen said a trade war would cost jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. “As much as we must warn against it, we must also prepare for it,” she said.

Trump’s Tariff Ultimatum

In a social media post over the weekend, President Trump announced the United States would impose a 10 percent tariff beginning February 1 on goods from eight European countries opposing his ambition to control Greenland. He warned the tariff rate would rise to 25 percent on June 1 and remain in place until a deal is reached for the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland.

The remarks have intensified a backlash building across Europe. EU leaders will hold an emergency summit in Brussels on Thursday to address the tensions, European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill said Monday. EU economy commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis indicated the bloc could renew a pending tariff package or deploy anti-coercion measures.

European Unity Against US Pressure

On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the sovereignty of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark must be “unequivocally” respected, stressing that the issue is of “utmost importance” to the transatlantic relationship as US tariff threats add fresh strain to ties.

Von der Leyen made the remarks in a post on social media platform X after meeting a bipartisan delegation from the US Congress on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.

“I also addressed the need to unequivocally respect the sovereignty of Greenland and of the Kingdom of Denmark,” she wrote.

On trade, von der Leyen pushed back against the tariff approach, calling transatlantic trade and investment a major asset for both the European Union and US economies and saying tariffs run counter to shared interests.

Earlier, von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa said the EU stood in full solidarity with Denmark and Greenland and warned that tariffs would undermine transatlantic relations and risk a “dangerous downward spiral.”

The dispute marks an unprecedented challenge to traditional US-European alliances, with Trump’s territorial ambitions toward Greenland—an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark—raising fundamental questions about sovereignty and the future of transatlantic cooperation.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Prime Minister Mark Carney isn’t ruling out the possibility of Canada participating in U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Peace Council.”

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, Carney said many questions remain about the structure of the council, which was created to oversee the next phase of the Gaza peace plan.

The creation of this council quickly sparked controversy when it was confirmed that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been invited, despite Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

International leaders also indicated that the council’s mandate extends beyond the Gaza crisis and that permanent membership requires a contribution of $1 billion.

Asked about the cost of this contribution, Carney said Canada would be willing to provide funds that would be channeled directly to improve the well-being of Palestinians.

Mixed Signals from Canadian Officials

Earlier in the day, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne told reporters in Davos that while many details remain to be worked out, Canada would not pay for its participation in Trump’s “Peace Council.”

The apparent discrepancy between Carney’s and Champagne’s comments highlights the ongoing deliberations within the Canadian government about how to respond to Trump’s initiative. The Prime Minister’s more cautious approach suggests Canada is keeping its options open while assessing the council’s structure and objectives.

The controversy surrounding Putin’s invitation has raised concerns among Western allies about the council’s credibility and whether participation would legitimize Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Canadian officials will likely face pressure from both domestic and international partners as they weigh their decision.

The $1 billion membership fee represents a significant financial commitment, particularly as countries balance humanitarian assistance with other budgetary pressures.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

French President Emmanuel Macron used his appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 20 to deliver an unusually direct message about Europe’s place in a shifting global order. Responding to President Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on European partners as part of a bid to pressure Denmark over Greenland, Macron said France and the broader European Union would not “accept a world governed by raw power,” warning that doing so would reduce nations to “vassals.”

Macron argued that even as global politics drifts toward what he described as a “rule‑free environment,” Europe must remain committed to territorial sovereignty, international law, and the principles of the UN Charter. He accused Washington of pushing Europe into one‑sided concessions and attempting to dilute European autonomy—criticisms that reflect growing transatlantic tensions but also long‑standing debates about burden‑sharing and strategic independence.

According to Macron, the United States’ approach—particularly the repeated use of tariffs as leverage—has become incompatible with the norms that underpin alliances. He stressed that Europe’s goal is not confrontation with the United States but the preservation of its own sovereignty and the strengthening of multilateral institutions.

The French leader also linked the Greenland episode to broader concerns about NATO’s cohesion, calling the alliance a “weakened institution” in need of honest reassessment. With France holding the rotating presidency of the G7 this year, Macron said he hopes to turn the summit into a venue for “open dialogue” and practical cooperation among major democracies.

Macron delivered his remarks wearing sunglasses, a detail the Élysée Palace later attributed to a minor burst blood vessel in his eye—an explanation that quickly put to rest speculation about his appearance.

A Global View from USDailyLetter HQ

Read more

THE MONDAY BRIEFING: Truth & Tradition in Motion

Monday, January 12, 2026

Good morning. The weekend’s theoretical debates have met Monday’s reality. From the halls of Westminster to the rubble of Los Angeles, the week’s trajectory is already coming into focus. Here is your essential intelligence to start the work week.

1. THE RECOVERY CRISIS: A New Week of Stagnation in L.A.

As of this morning, over 15,000 families in Southern California are entering another work week in temporary housing. One year after the Palisades and Eaton fires, the “LA Recovery” has become a cautionary tale of American bureaucracy.

• Today’s Focus: Watch for local protests at the CA Department of Insurance. Residents are demanding an end to the “litigation limbo” preventing the disbursement of billions in claims.

• The Big Picture: If the private sector isn’t allowed to rebuild quickly, the economic vacuum in Southern California will become permanent.

2. THE HOUSE DIVIDED: Whipping the Rebels

Following last week’s GOP rebellion over healthcare subsidies, House leadership enters this morning in “damage control” mode.

• The Strategy: Expect a closed-door caucus meeting today. Minority Leader Jeffries has proven he can peel off the GOP moderate flank; the question for Monday is whether Republican leadership can offer enough concessions to prevent a total legislative stall-out this week.

3. GLOBAL CHESS: The “Greenland Doctrine” Escalates

The White House begins the week by doubling down on the “Trump Corollary.”

• The Move: State Department officials are expected to brief NATO allies today on the “security necessity” of an American-led Greenland.

• The Pushback: Denmark has summoned the U.S. Ambassador for a 10:00 AM meeting in Copenhagen. The era of the “polite” Arctic is over.

4. TEHRAN: The Monday Crackdown

Reports filtered out overnight of a massive IRGC mobilization in central Tehran. Following a weekend of renewed anti-regime protests, the Monday morning commute in Iran has been met with a total internet blackout in key provinces.

• The Risk: Historically, blackouts precede the most violent phases of repression. By noon today, we will likely see whether the Iranian public has reached a breaking point.

5. TECH WAR: Musk vs. The Crown

The tension between X and the UK Government hits the legal system today.

• The Collision: British regulators have set a deadline for today for “compliance guarantees” regarding Grok’s AI outputs.

• The Response: Elon Musk has indicated he will not comply, setting up a potential Monday afternoon “kill-switch” scenario where X could be geoblocked in the United Kingdom.

6. HYPERSONIC FALLOUT: The Oreshnik Aftermath

Following Russia’s hypersonic strike on Ukraine, the UN Security Council is expected to meet this afternoon. The “Oreshnik” missile has fundamentally changed the risk assessment for European air defense.

MONDAY’S WATCHLIST

• MARKETS: Futures are bracing for a volatile opening as investors weigh the Greenland tensions against tomorrow’s JPMorgan earnings.

• DIPLOMACY: Watch for a formal statement from the Kremlin regarding “asymmetric responses” to any further Western intervention.

• ENERGY: Oil prices are creeping up this morning on the news of the Iranian internet blackout and potential regional escalation.

Stay sharp. The week has begun.

US Daily Letter

Truth & Tradition

Subscribe now

By Rene Lamah, Chief Editor, January 4, 2026

January 4, 2026 — Caracas, shaken. The world, stunned.

The dust hasn’t even settled in Venezuela’s capital, yet the aftershocks of “Absolute Resolve” are rippling across continents—from the corridors of Washington to the Kremlin’s cold silence. In a move that defies precedent and expectation, U.S. forces executed a swift and surgical operation, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Now detained in New York on narco-terrorism charges, Maduro’s fall marks the abrupt end of the Bolivarian Revolution.

For those of us who’ve witnessed Venezuela’s long descent—from promise to paralysis—this moment is charged with contradiction. Relief, yes: the removal of a leader accused of brutal repression and economic ruin. But also unease. The sheer boldness of the operation forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about American reach, sovereignty, and the fragile scaffolding of international law.

The hemisphere holds its breath. Venezuela stands at a crossroads. And the global order, once again, feels rewritten overnight.

The Justification: A Necessary Evil?

Washington is framing this as a matter of long-overdue justice. Maduro wasn’t just a political opponent; he was a man with a U.S. indictment for narco-terrorism hanging over his head. The Trump administration is making it clear: this wasn’t about “regime change” for its own sake, but a high-stakes law enforcement action to dismantle what they’ve called a massive cocaine cartel.

Beyond the legal case, there’s the undeniable reality of the humanitarian crisis. Nearly eight million people have fled Venezuela since 2013, a staggering exodus that has destabilized the entire hemisphere. By taking out the “Cartel of the Suns,” the U.S. hopes to cut the ties between Latin American drug traffickers and hostile powers like Iran and Russia, who had found a willing partner in Maduro.

And then there’s the oil. President Trump, never one to mince words, has already talked about “getting the oil flowing again.” The promise is that American know-how can resurrect Venezuela’s shattered oil industry, a move that would, in theory, benefit both the global energy market and the long-suffering Venezuelan people.

The Fallout: A Pandora’s Box?

But as with any bold move on the world stage, the risks are immense. The operation was carried out without a formal declaration of war or a clear green light from Congress, pushing the War Powers Resolution to its absolute limit. Predictably, countries like China and North Korea are crying foul, calling it a “barbaric” breach of international law. Even at home, many in Congress are worried that “running the country” could easily morph into a costly and open-ended military occupation.

The power vacuum in Caracas is another immediate danger. While the Venezuelan Supreme Court has named Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as the acting president, the U.S. has been noncommittal about recognizing her authority. This sets the stage for a dangerous showdown, a “two-government” nightmare that could easily ignite a civil war or a protracted guerrilla insurgency.

And the President’s candid comments about oil have poured fuel on the fire. Critics are already screaming “imperialism,” arguing that this was never about democracy, but about securing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves for American interests.

The Human Stakes: What Comes Next?

Behind the headlines of “Operation Absolute Resolve” and the legal debates in New York, there are millions of Venezuelan families waking up to a world they no longer recognize. For them, this isn’t just a masterstroke of foreign policy or a case of geopolitical hubris—it’s a question of whether they can finally buy groceries without fear, or if they should prepare for a new kind of chaos.

If the U.S. can successfully walk the fine line of midwifing a transition to leaders like Edmundo González or María Corina Machado without overstaying its welcome, it could mean the end of a decade-long nightmare. It could mean a “new dawn” where children grow up in a democracy rather than a narco-state.

The echoes of past “mission accomplished” moments still hang heavy in the air. History has taught us how quickly triumph can sour when a nation overextends itself. If the United States ends up stuck in a drawn‑out occupation, or tries to reshape Venezuela from the inside out, what began as a bold act of liberation could just as easily become a painful, self‑inflicted mistake.

In the coming days and weeks, the real measure of success won’t be found in dramatic photos of Maduro in handcuffs. It will be measured in something far more intimate—the rhythm of daily life returning to Caracas. Can a mother walk her children to school without fear? Do neighbors gather in the plaza again to talk and laugh? When families sit down for dinner, do they speak with cautious hope, or do they still whisper, afraid of what tomorrow might bring?

The path forward remains treacherous and uncertain. While cable news focuses on courtroom theatrics in New York and politicians debate the geopolitics in Washington, the real story is unfolding far from the cameras. It’s happening in cramped apartments where families huddle around flickering televisions, trying to make sense of it all. In street markets where vendors wonder if things will finally get better—or worse. In the eyes of young people who’ve known nothing but crisis, now daring to imagine a different future.

This operation will ultimately be judged not by what happens in the halls of power, but by whether ordinary Venezuelans can finally live without fear, put food on their tables, and believe their country has a future worth staying for.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Note: This analysis reflects the situation as understood on January 4, 2026. DC Daily Letter will continue to monitor developments as this story unfolds.

In the past week, as bombs rain down in the Middle East, President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell of his own: he’s got two weeks to decide whether America jumps into the Iran-Israel air war. It all kicked off on June 13, when Israel hammered Iran’s nuclear sites, claiming they were a heartbeat away from building a bomb. Iran hit back hard, lobbing missiles and drones, including a gut-punch strike on a hospital in Beersheba that left civilians dead. Now, with both sides digging in, Trump’s got a decision that could shake the world. Here’s the lowdown on what’s happening, what Trump might do, and why America’s stuck in a real pickle.

What happens there?

In the Middle East, Israel strikes Iranian nuclear sites - it hits the Arak reactor and centrifuge factories in Karaj in addition to Tehran. Israel states it set back Iran's nuclear program by some years. Iran’s not sitting quietly, though. They’ve fired off missiles and drones, killing folks in Israel and racking up over 430 deaths at home, per their state media. Israel’s counting at least 24 dead, and both sides are losing civilians left and right. It’s a mess, and it’s getting worse.

Europe’s trying to play peacemaker. Last week, bigwigs from the UK, France, and Germany sat down with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, hoping to cool things off. No dice. Araghchi warned that if America gets involved, it’s gonna be “bad news for everybody.” Meanwhile, Israel’s UN guy is out there saying they won’t stop ‘til Iran’s nuclear threat is toast. Sounds like a long haul unless someone blinks.

Trump’s Big Call: Go Big or Stay Home?

Trump’s got the world on edge with his two-week deadline to figure out America’s next move. The White House is talking up a “decent shot” at cutting a deal with Iran, but Trump’s also got his buddy Israel’s back, brushing off Europe’s peace talks and even his own spies. U.S. intelligence, led by Tulsi Gabbard, says Iran isn’t actively building a nuke, but Trump’s out there claiming they could have one in “weeks to months.” That’s got folks like Senator Jack Reed crying foul, saying Trump’s twisting the facts to justify a fight.

Behind the scenes, the Pentagon’s flexing some muscle. B-2 stealth bombers—nasty enough to bust Iran’s deep-buried Fordow nuclear site—are headed toward Guam. No green light yet, but the gears are turning. Word is, Trump’s okayed attack plans but hasn’t pulled the trigger. Some say he’s itching to help Israel take out Fordow, which their bombs can’t touch. Others think he’s dragging his feet, not wanting to get sucked into another Middle East mess. His team’s split, too—VP JD Vance and Gabbard want to talk it out, but the hawks are circling.

What’s It Mean for America?

If Trump goes all-in, it could light a match under the whole region. Iran’s got 2,000 missiles ready to roll, and they could aim at U.S. bases in Iraq or Kuwait. The Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil flows, could get choked off, spiking gas prices. The U.S. is already pulling non-essential folks out of the region, and Australia’s shuttered its Tehran embassy. A bigger war would hit hard.

Back home, it’s a political slugfest. Republicans are all-in for Israel, seeing Iran as a boogeyman with a nuke. Democrats are pointing fingers at Trump’s 2018 move to ditch the Iran nuclear deal, saying it’s why we’re here. Regular folks? They’re nervous. Polls show 24% think jumping in is reckless, and 18% worry Netanyahu’s playing us. With swing voters watching, Trump’s gotta tread carefully.

What moves the man in charge?

Trump plays a risky game. He’s got his “America First” hat on but also wants to look tough. By siding with Israel and shrugging off U.S. intelligence, he’s betting on a strongman vibe. But that two-week delay? Could be a head-fake to squeeze Iran into a deal. His guy Steve Witkoff’s been burning up the phone lines with Araghchi, so there’s some backroom chatter. Problem is, Iran’s saying “no talks ‘til Israel stops bombing,” and Israel’s not stopping.

Here’s the kicker: Trump’s going against his own intel. The IAEA and Gabbard say Iran’s not chasing a bomb, but he’s echoing Israel’s line. That’s got some folks worried he’s cherry-picking facts, which could make enemies like Russia perk up. If he’s not careful, he’s handing them a playbook to mess with us.

Where’s This Headed?

Trump’s huddling with his National Security Council today, June 21, and the clock’s ticking. If he orders a strike on Fordow, it might cripple Iran’s nuke dreams but could spark a war we can’t walk back. A deal would be great, but Iran and Israel are like two bulls in a pen—neither’s backing down. With hundreds dead and millions displaced, the human cost is already brutal.

For America, this ain’t just about bombs and oil. Over 400,000 Iranian-Americans are watching their homeland get torn up, some begging for peace, others hoping Iran’s regime falls. Whatever Trump picks—war, talks, or something in between—will ripple through the world and right back to our shores. Will he swing hard or play it cool? We’ll know soon enough.