Top World News

Trump is reportedly losing patience with his own war that he started in Iran and wants it to end as soon as possible, according to a new report. According to a Friday article by The Atlantic, an outside advisor to Trump said that the president is "bored" with the war. "Others believe he is frustrated at Iran's intransigence," the Atlantic reported. "Trump is reluctant to resume hostilities," aides and advisors told The Atlantic. One advisor told The Atlantic that Trump would like "to tamp down any military action ahead of his trip to Beijing next week." According to The Atlantic, Trump is going to have to wait longer than that to get out of his mess in Iran because "a number of experts have forecast that Iran can withstand pressure from the blockade for months, not weeks." The Atlantic article mentioned a U.S. intelligence assessment for policymakers that suggested "Iran could make it at least three of four more months" with the Strait of Hormuz closed. Trump has already tried to declare a win in Iran, but he's also struggled to uphold ceasefires or the short-lived attempt to escort ships through the backed-up Strait of Hormuz. Advisors and aides told The Atlantic that Trump "is convinced that he can sell any sort of agreement as a win," but as of Friday, "Washington is still waiting for Iran to respond to the latest offering." Part of the problem for Trump is "the U.S. has largely exhausted its list of significant military targets," advisors said to The Atlantic, which added that "to continue to escalate, which is Trump's signature move, he'd have to threaten civilian targets." On top of that, "American officials privately admit that, with Iran's leadership fractured, they're not sure with whom they are negotiating," according to The Atlantic. A pair of outside advisors told The Atlantic that Trump sold the Iran war as "another Venezuela" that would wrap up quickly.

Donald Trump was accused by both MS NOW host and a former high-ranking Pentagon official of a cover-up after a skirmish between US forces and Iran on Thursday.On “Morning Joe,” co-host Joe Scarborough excoriated the president, who dismissed the firefight as a “love tap” — leading retired Rear Admiral John. Kirby to make his bold accusation.“How would the right-wing press, how would the media in general, respond if Iran were attacking U.S. ships and Joe Biden was calling it, quote, ‘love taps’ because he was so desperate to cave to the Iranians?” Scarborough prompted his guest.“I think I would have been flayed,” Kirby, who served as the Pentagon spokesperson under Biden, replied. “I just would have been flayed up there at that podium if that had been President Biden's response to what we're seeing in the ceasefire violations. If he just shrugged it off, there's no way that I would have had any kind of leverage with the press or any kind of credibility up there to continue to defend that kind of approach.”Scarborough asked, “Can you talk a little bit about that? The extent of those damages as far as you know, and again, what would have happened if the Biden administration had tried to cover up those Iranian attacks on Americans?”“I'd say a couple of things on this, Joe, I'm really glad you brought that up, because it also goes to casualties as well,” Kirby replied. “But let me start with where you started: the questions. One, it's a political discussion. It's a political decision. I have no doubt that the folks in uniform and central command, Admiral Cooper, would want to be as transparent as he could, obviously, with protecting operational security and base security and safety. I get that. But I think these are political decisions not to admit that the damage has been more severe than they reported, not to admit that we have suffered more casualties, certainly in terms of wounded, than they're putting out publicly.”“So this is a political decision,” he maintained. “And that happens in war. But it does compound the level of distrust that I think the American people are having about this war right now, and they weren't consulted; they weren't communicated with. They obviously, the polls will tell you they don't support this war. And so to try to minimize that lack of support, they are holding back information, only doing briefings once every 10 or 12 days and with very, very little information and no real questions from real reporters being asked in that briefing room. It's all an effort to, I think, confound the American people with respect to how this war is being fought.” - YouTube youtu.be

Always one looking to make a splashy deal, Donald Trump is giving serious consideration to allowing China to make a massive investment in the U.S. — against the advice of some of his closest advisors, an expert warned Friday.In a column for the New York Times, conservative economist Oren Cass reported the president, “May be on the verge of tying the United States to China irrevocably: Mr. Trump and Xi Jinping are reportedly considering a deal to allow China to invest $1 trillion in the United States, largely to build factories on American soil.”Cass described that scenario as “an unforced error of world-historic proportions.”The reported negotiations come as Trump prepares for a trip to China and seeks to cement his legacy as a dealmaker — even if that deal undermines the very trade agenda he championed.While Trump's approach to China has frequently put him at odds with his own administration, his willingness to consider the investment stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship. Trump sees China as simply offering a bad deal — and believes the remedy is negotiating a better one, Cass wrote.And he's proceeding despite concern from advisers in the administration."I don't blame China," Trump notably told business leaders in Beijing in 2017. "After all, who can blame a country for being able to take advantage of another country for the benefit of its citizens? I give China great credit."According to the economist, this transactional worldview fails to account for the strategic reality that Chinese investment operates under fundamentally different rules than American capital flows.A trillion-dollar infusion of Chinese capital would exceed the total direct investment in the United States made by any other country since the Declaration of Independence, he wrote before adding that even a fraction of that amount would devastate what remains of American economic defenses, weakening national security and supply-chain resilience while handing the Chinese Communist Party a powerful tool to subvert U.S. markets.Unlike American companies that pursue their own goals with relatively little political interference, Chinese companies operate at the pleasure of the Communist Party. When the party decides to dominate an industry, it can offer virtually unlimited financial support and access to a virtually unlimited labor pool."Welcoming that model to our shores would be a catastrophe for the United States," Cass wrote.In recent weeks, key administration figures including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik have cast doubt on accepting Chinese investment. However, with Trump, it remains unclear whether resistance represents a firm position or simply a negotiating posture.If Trump proceeds with the deal, he risks becoming the president who did more than anyone to warn about the dangers of the China relationship — only to embed that relationship, and its dangers, into the foundation of the nation's economy, Cass warned.

Trump is leaving business executives and CEOs confused and uncertain about whether they're invited to cooperate with China, according to a new report. “The president is ‘wheels up’ in about a week," Sean Stein, the president at the US-China Business Council, told Politico in a Thursday piece, referring to an upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. "There are still CEOs waiting to find out if they will be part of the president's trip." According to Politico, the White House spent "weeks" deciding how many business executives and CEOs to bring to the summit, and started sending out invitations. The Trump administration is divided over "how much to encourage private sector engagement with its biggest economic rival." It doesn't help that CEOs are saying that the White House is sending "mixed signals," Politico wrote, citing two people briefed by the White House. "Administration officials in recent weeks circulated a draft list of executives from roughly two dozen companies to potentially participate," according to Politico. "However, some officials, including U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, pushed for a group closer to half that size." Amid the indecision, "we have multiple CEOs who've been told, 'well maybe you're going to be invited,'" Stein told Politico. "The indecision has left executives interested in participating in the summit in limbo days ahead of the trip," according to Politico reporting. "One prominent American CEO, who does business in China and the U.S., had an aide recently follow up with an administration official to try to join the delegation after getting no response from the White House." "It's hard to get in this time," the official told the CEO.

A bombshell CIA memo distributed to administration policymakers the week revealed that Iran is in a far stronger military and economic position than President Trump has publicly claimed — directly contradicting the president's rosy assessments about the state of the war.According to a Washington Post report, the leaked classified intelligence assessment found that Iran can survive the U.S. naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing severe economic hardship — significantly longer than the White House has suggested.More critically, the Post is reporting, the CIA determined that Tehran retains substantial ballistic missile capabilities despite weeks of intense U.S. and Israeli bombardment. Iran has maintained approximately 75 percent of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70 percent of its prewar stockpiles of missiles, according to a U.S. official familiar with the assessment.The intelligence community found evidence that the Iranian regime has been able to recover and reopen almost all of its underground storage facilities, repair some damaged missiles, and even assemble new missiles that were nearly complete when the war began, the report notes.The CIA's more sobering assessment stands in sharp contrast to Trump's public statements. On Wednesday, Trump claimed Iran's missile capabilities had been devastated, telling reporters: "Their missiles are mostly decimated, they have probably 18, 19 percent, but not a lot by comparison to what they had."The president's claim that Iran retains only 18-19 percent of its original missile inventory directly contradicts the intelligence community's findings that Tehran maintains around 70-75 percent.One U.S. official who spoke to the Post suggested the CIA estimate may even be optimistic about Iran's vulnerability. "The leadership has gotten more radical, determined and increasingly confident they can outlast U.S. political will and sustain domestic repression to check any resistance" inside Iran."Comparatively, you see similar regimes lasting years under sustained embargoes and airpower-only wars," the official told the Post and suggested that Iran could endure prolonged economic hardship far longer than the administration has publicly indicated.Three current and one former U.S. official confirmed the intelligence assessment's outlines to the Post, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Major energy companies are reaping enormous profits from the ongoing Strait of Hormuz stalemate triggered by Donald Trump's war on Iran, with European oil giants reporting dramatic earnings surges while American producers sit on the sidelines, the New York Times is reporting.British energy giant Shell reported robust first-quarter profits Thursday, with adjusted earnings soaring 24 percent to $6.92 billion — more than twice what the company earned in the previous quarter and significantly higher than analyst expectations.In a statement, Shell's chief executive, Wael Sawan, attributed the windfall to an "unprecedented disruption in global energy markets," with oil prices briefly trading above $126 a barrel last week.Shell is not alone in profiting from the conflict. Britain's BP more than doubled its first-quarter profit to $3.2 billion from the previous quarter, driven by superior oil trading and elevated prices. French oil company TotalEnergies reported quarterly net income of $5.4 billion and announced it would raise its dividend and double its share buybacks, the Times is reporting.According to the Times' Gregory Schmidt, that stands in sharp contrast to American oil producers who are reporting declining profits despite elevated prices. Exxon Mobil reported $4.2 billion in first-quarter earnings — down 46 percent from a year earlier — while Chevron's quarterly profit slid to $2.2 billion, a 37 percent drop year-over-year. The Times report adds the caveat that the companies attributed the declines to accounting adjustments and paper losses they said would be unwound in coming months as gas prices stay high.Exxon Mobil and Chevron — the two largest American oil producers — announced Friday they have no plans to increase oil drilling to capitalize on higher gas prices, a decision that suggests the companies are skeptical about the longevity of the price spike or wary of backlash over profiteering during wartime, the Times is reporting.

Turmoil and violence rocks state after prime minister Narendra Modi’s party claimed victory in legislative electionTensions have been high in the Indian state of West Bengal after a top political aide from Narendra Modi’s party was shot dead in the street and hundreds were arrested as violence broke out following elections this week.The prime minister’s Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) claimed victory in the West Bengal elections on Monday, defeating Trinamool Congress (TMC), which had ruled over the state legislature for 15 years. Continue reading...

According to MS NOW national security analyst David Rohde, what is known about the rumored one-page memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran to halt the war is less than being advertised and the advantages still lie with the war-torn country.Appearing on “Morning Joe,” Rohde praised the work of the negotiators but also claimed that the increasingly desperate American president is backing off many of his earlier demands which plays into the hands of Iran’s leadership.Addressing questions from co-host Jonathan Lemire, Rohde explained, “I just think flat out this: I just want to call it a 30-day, one page agreement is a win for Iran. It's a huge win. They have stood up to the United States. And we can talk about that in more detail.”“I keep getting told that the Iranian and Israeli officials are saying there's deep divides inside the Iranian government, but American officials are telling me that that's not true, that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is in firm control, firmer control than they were before the war. And one congressional official just called it a military dictatorship. And I fear that this pursuit of somehow moderates or other people is not really there, that they're being told these things [and] the administration, they believe it.”“And lastly, this one-page agreement is not a peace deal,” he asserted and then repeated, “This is not a peace deal. This is an extension of a ceasefire that several weeks ago, the president said there was no end of the ceasefire. The president keeps capitulating. He said before, you know, this is like several weeks ago, he's like, ‘You know, we're going to have a ceasefire for two weeks.’ And when that ends, he's like, ‘Actually, the ceasefire will continue with no end date.’ And then the pinnacle, pivotal thing was this: this Project Freedom to open the Strait of Hormuz by force. That was the most aggressive, I think, and the most effective move by the U.S. military; it worked. And then he calls it off after 24 hours. And so that's again, a huge win for Iran.” - YouTube youtu.be