Top World News

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Saturday issued a sharp warning about President Donald Trump's emerging Iran peace framework, saying it could "pour gasoline" on regional conflicts and supercharge Iranian-backed militant groups.The South Carolina Republican, who is normally one of Trump's most reliable allies on foreign policy issues, took to X to warn that the reported terms of the deal could be read as a strategic win for Tehran by other players in the region."If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," Graham wrote.He warned specifically about the impact on two Iranian-aligned forces."A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the Strait in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids," Graham wrote.The senator's remarks land at a politically delicate moment for Trump, who announced earlier in the day from the Oval Office that an agreement involving the United States, Iran, and a coalition of Arab and Muslim nations had been "largely negotiated."Graham's pushback adds to a growing chorus of conservative voices, including former Trump Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and conservative commentator David Hookstead, raising alarms about what the reported framework would actually deliver.If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq. A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the…— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 23, 2026

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday publicly attacked the Iran agreement that President Donald Trump is reportedly close to finalizing, comparing it unfavorably to the Obama-era nuclear deal and demanding more aggressive action against Tehran.In a post on X, the former Trump official from term one took direct aim at the framework that Trump announced from the Oval Office earlier in the day, which would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and bring in a coalition of Arab and Muslim nations."The deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world," Pompeo wrote, naming three Obama administration officials closely associated with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action."Not remotely America First," Pompeo added.The former secretary of state, who hasn't been a part of the administration for the president's second term, called for a far more aggressive posture toward Tehran."It's straightforward: Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies in the region," Pompeo wrote."Overdue. Let's go," he concluded.Trump himself confirmed earlier Saturday that a peace framework involving Iran had been "largely negotiated."The deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world.Not remotely America First. It’s straightforward: Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out…— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) May 23, 2026

President Donald Trump confirmed Friday afternoon what set off hours of online speculation, posting to Truth Social with an Oval Office statement about a major foreign policy development.In the post, Trump said he had spoken with a long list of Arab and Muslim world leaders about a possible peace agreement involving Iran."I am in the Oval Office at the White House where we just had a very good call with President Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, of Saudi Arabia," Trump wrote, going on to name the leaders of the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain. The call concerned "the Islamic Republic of Iran, and all things related to a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to PEACE."The president said the framework is close to done."An Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the various other Countries, as listed," Trump wrote.He added that he had spoken separately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that "final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly."Trump closed with one specific detail."In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened," he wrote.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) turned heads on Saturday after openly questioning why the U.S. war against Iran "started to begin with,” despite having personally lobbied for the United States to launch it.Graham’s remarks come amid reports that President Donald Trump – who Graham notably didn’t name in his comments – is “close to a deal to end the war” with Iranian officials, according to a claim from Axios’ Barak Ravid on Saturday. The prospect of a deal appeared to trouble Graham, however, at least without first crippling Iran's military capacity beyond the point of recovery.“This combination of Iran being perceived as having the ability to terrorize the Strait in perpetuity and the ability [to] inflict massive damage to Gulf oil infrastructure is a major shift of the balance of power in the region and over time will be a nightmare for Israel,” Graham wrote in a social media post on X.“Also, it makes one wonder why the war started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate. I personally am a skeptic of the idea that Iran cannot be denied the ability to terrorize the Strait and the region cannot protect itself against Iranian military capability.”Graham was widely mocked back in January after appearing “legitimately depressed” in the wake of Trump’s decision back in January to hold off on striking Iran. In March, it was revealed that Graham had “coached” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on how to convince Trump to bomb Iran.For Graham to now question why the war he lobbied to start was launched “to begin with” caused concern among some onlookers.“Reading Senator Graham's tweets is always really exciting because you really have no idea if you're getting utterly sycophantic sane washing of POTUS, or, entirely accurate and cogent geopolitical analysis,” wrote journalist Matt Gurney in a social media post on X to his more than 52,000 followers.Journalist Chuck Todd noted how Graham was “trying so hard not to use the word ‘Trump’” in his remarks, writing in a social media post on X to his nearly 2 million followers, and political commentator Tommy Vietor offered Graham some advice.“File this one under: things you should’ve thought through before starting the war,” Vietor wrote to his nearly 540,000 followers on X.Graham has long been among the most vocal advocates for a U.S. strike on Iran, consistent with his long record of backing military action against other nations throughout his career, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mexico, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela, among other nations.Reading Senator Graham's tweets is always really exciting because you really have no idea if you're getting utterly sycophantic sane washing of POTUS, or, entirely accurate and cogent geopolitical analysis. https://t.co/3w29R1Gtoq— Matt Gurney (@mattgurney) May 23, 2026

Alberta premier calls for referendum on secession after judge ruled initiative to force binding vote invalid The Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, has said that Alberta is “essential” to the country’s future, hours after the province’s leader moved the oil-rich region closer toward a referendum on independence.Separatists in the western province spent months collecting signatures seeking to trigger a binding October vote on seceding from the nation. Continue reading...

Days after the U.S. Senate took a pivotal step that could end the war in Iran, Arizona veterans gathered at the state Capitol to urge Congressional Republicans to coalesce behind that effort.On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted 50-47 to advance a War Powers Resolution that could block President Donald Trump from engaging in further military conflict against Iran without congressional approval. Several Republicans broke from their party to back the resolution, but it has yet to undergo a final vote, and it’s likely to be defeated in the GOP-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.Almost every Democrat in the upper chamber, including Arizona’s Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, who are both veterans and have been vocally opposed to the war, voted in favor of moving the resolution forward. Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman voted against doing so.More than a dozen former and current military members in Arizona called on GOP lawmakers to support the bid to end the war, and lamented the deaths that have already occurred. Since the war’s beginning in February, 13 American service members have died. Ricardo Reyes, a Marine Corps veteran and the executive director of Vets Forward, a progressive veterans advocacy group, denounced any effort to dismiss those deaths as inevitable and said elected officials should think twice about the potential human toll before agreeing to continue the war.“Today, we say to every elected leader in this country: Do not dare treat these lives like the price of doing business,” Reyes said. “Don’t dare ask more families to pay that cost without any answers. Don’t you dare send more sons and daughters into harm’s way because it’s easier to escalate rather than to lead with courage.”Derek Duba, an Army veteran and top staffer for Gallego, added that wars also affect the families and communities of military members and often harm their lives for years.“The truth is, in war, there are no unwounded soldiers,” he said. “And the friends, families, and communities we return to, dead or alive, continue carrying the cost of it for generations to come. There is no ‘four to six week’ victory.”Over the past three months, Trump has offered conflicting and vague estimates on how long the war would last, claiming multiple times in March that it would end after just a few weeks.On Wednesday, Trump said that he was “in no hurry” to make a deal that could end the conflict. Last week, the president said he wasn’t concerned about the economic toll the war he launched was having on Americans.“I don’t think about Americans’ financial situations. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters.State Rep. Aaron Marquez, D-Phoenix, a veteran who was deployed twice to Afghanistan and still serves in the Army Reserve, said that he’s hopeful more Republicans will buck their party to advance the resolution. He added that military conflict should be the last resort, but Trump jumped prematurely into the war at Israel’s prompting without seeking alternative solutions.“Going to war must be exhausting all diplomatic options,” he said. “We clearly did not exhaust all diplomatic options.”Marquez added that a failure to rein in the Trump administration will be noticed by voters.The war has been widely unpopular. In a recent New York Times poll, 64% of people said they believed Trump made the wrong decision when he launched a military campaign against Iran. But that same survey found that respondents who identified as Republican overwhelmingly supported that decision.And that’s been reflected in at least one primary race. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who vocally criticized the Iran War, lost his party’s nomination to a Trump-endorsed opponent. Massie also led the charge to force the release of the Epstein files, over Trump’s objection. Trump and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein were close in the 1990s, and he is mentioned more than 38,000 times in the files that have been released so far.To memorialize the 13 Americans who have been killed so far in the Iran War, the group paused to observe a moment of silence, and then each member took turns reading their names, their military rank, and a short biography.Thomas Solnit, a Marine Corps veteran, read the name of 42-year-old Noah L. Tietjens, who served as a vehicle mechanic. Tietjens was killed along with five others in a strike in Kuwait and left behind a wife and a teenage son.“Today we honor his life and his years of commitment,” Solnit said. “We hold his family in our hearts, and we say his name because he deserves to be remembered with dignity, not lost in the noise of war: Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens.”Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: [email protected].

President Donald Trump has signaled plans for an "endgame in the Iran war," infuriating a key ally, according to a report from The Atlantic published Thursday.Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and contributor to The Atlantic, described how a Trump administration insider revealed that during a phone call on Wednesday with Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump determined the next steps with Iran. The president reportedly told Netanyahu his plan to negotiate a "letter of intent" and that Iran would "formally end the war and launch a 30-day period of negotiations" focusing on Iran's nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz."The purpose and effect of such an agreement should be clear: The United States is walking away from the crisis," Kagan wrote. "Trump may launch another limited strike to look tough and satisfy the demands of the war’s supporters, but it would be a performative gesture. Endgame in this case is a euphemism for 'surrender.'"Netanyahu, the source said, was not pleased."According to one U.S. official, Netanyahu’s 'hair was on fire' after the call with Trump—for good reason," Kagan wrote. "The Iran war may end up as the single most devastating blow to Israel’s security in its brief history. On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war. It will exercise leverage with dozens of the richest nations in the world, all of which will have an acute interest in keeping Iran happy. They will be unlikely to take Israel’s side in any conflict that it has with Tehran or with its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, because Iran will have the means to punish them if they do. Israel will emerge more isolated than it has been at any time in its history—and not least from its only reliable protector, the United States."

A GOP congressman had a hard time during an appearance on Newsmax selling the Trump administration's newest moves against a foreign country.Rep. James Comer (R-KY) was trying to convince Newsmax anchor Rob Finnerty that the United States needed to take action against Cuba and its former president, Raúl Castro. The Trump administration declared on Wednesday that it indicted Castro."I get it, the Ayatollah is gone, Nicolas Maduro is in jail, but now Cuba?" Finnerty said, shaking his head. "Look, I think people struggle with how this is America first, when gas is $4.55 a gallon right now."Comer responded, "It is, and you're absolutely right," but then toed the Trump line by insisting that going after another foreign leader is necessary."Cuba has always been a national security threat," Comer said. "It's just minutes away from Miami.""But do you really think they're a threat?" Finnerty asked."If some country went in and loaded Cuba with the same drones Iran had when we first started bombing Iran, then yes, I think it could be a threat," Comer answered. "We've got to be on guard because of the new types of warfare that's out there."Finnerty didn't buy it, though."To me, this just sounds like we're just trying to make the case to attack Cuba," Finnerty said. "I don't buy it. It sounds like a false flag operation."