Top World News

President Donald Trump proclaimed the Strait of Hormuz has been re-opened, but that's not exactly how he put it.The 79-year-old president notified Americans that Iran would begin to allow "full passage" in what he inaccurately identified as "the Strait of Iran," the narrow waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that has been closed to most commercial shipping traffic since Trump authorized a joint U.S.-Israel military operation."Now, I don't know if it was a typo or maybe a Freudian slip," said CNN's John Berman. "But if you step back, the reason I'm asking it this way, because if you step back, you know, a mile here and look at this last seven weeks, there are those who suggest one of the impacts your long term might be that Iran does have now full control of that strait, that it has become the Strait of Iran. What do you think of that?"Retired admiral James Stavridis agreed the president's announcement was confusing, and he tried to make sense of that statement and subsequent posts Trump made explaining the current situation. "Well, at least he didn't say it's the 'Strait of Trump,'" Stavridis said, echoing an idea the president has publicly discussed. "But, let's face it, you're exactly right that the concern is, hey, if we allow Iran to kind of open and close the switch and decide whether it's open or not, are we willing sovereignty over to them? That's why I am encouraged by the second posting he made, which is that the blockade remains in effect. That's sort of your stopper in a hand of bridge, if you will. So I think probably your point, not the most elegant language in the first post, second post, we're still on top of this. We're watching it, but before we get off this conversation and I know we're just on the hour, it is good news. It is a step by Iran that could help close the big deal, the negotiation, perhaps as soon as this weekend.""There's a humanitarian side to this, but there's also a big strategic play here," he added. "Let's hope both sides are indicating they've come a little bit closer as a result of this statement." - YouTube youtu.be

President Donald Trump lashed out at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on Friday after reports suggested his administration and Tehran have reached a deal to fully re-open the Strait of Hormuz, claiming that NATO allies had offered help, which he immediately rejected.“Now that the Hormuz Strait situation is over, I received a call from NATO asking if we would need some help,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “I TOLD THEM TO STAY AWAY, UNLESS THEY JUST WANT TO LOAD UP THEIR SHIPS WITH OIL. They were useless when needed, a Paper Tiger!”The Strait of Hormuz – a critical shipping waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil trade flows – was opened Friday to all commercial ships for the remainder of the ongoing two-week ceasefire tentatively agreed to by Washington and Tehran. The Trump administration is reportedly considering unfreezing $20 billion in Iranian funds, a consideration that drew sharp criticism from critics.

President Donald Trump's administration has attempted to shift the consequences of the Iran war to an ally, a report has found. Trump's team caused a fallout in Bahrain, which has undermined support for the United States. But internal documents shared by Politico show the admin has tried to pin the blame for the fallout on the United Kingdom. Nahal Toosi wrote, "Bahrain’s government is facing questions about whether the U.S. abandoned it to fend for itself against Iranian drones and missiles."Bahrain and the U.S. are stalwart allies, and the Middle Eastern country hosts an American military base that serves as headquarters for the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet."But the Iran war has led to public perceptions that the U.S. abandoned Bahrain to focus on protecting Israel instead, according to the cable from the Bahraini capital, Manama."Internal documents added to this pressure on the United States's relationship with Bahrain. Toosi added, "Still, the cable also notes that such Bahraini neglect to mention the U.S. may have partly stemmed from a 'desire to protect and maintain the operational security of U.S. personnel and materiel.'"While the cable never directly says the embassy itself failed on messaging, it points out that the British Embassy’s highly active social media presence 'created a distorted perception of the scale of British assistance and an impression that the U.K. was stepping up where the United States was retreating.'"Trump has been outspoken about the lack of support received by NATO countries, including the UK, over the war in Iran. British officials cited concerns about the legality of the unilateral military action and the lack of clear congressional approval for the conflict. The UK's position reflects growing international skepticism about the war's justification and strategic objectives. Trump's response included threats to reconsider U.S. security commitments to the UK and NATO, warning that countries failing to support American military actions would face consequences. The dispute has exposed deep rifts between Trump and traditional Western allies over military intervention and international law.The UK's refusal signals that Trump's Iran war has further alienated America from longstanding partners, leaving the administration with diminished international coalition-building capacity for future military operations.

Donald Trump's Iran negotiations are collapsing under the weight of incompetence with Middle East experts openly dismissing the negotiating team of Manhattan real estate developers Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, saying they're completely out of their depth on one of the world's most complex geopolitical stages.According to interviews with Time, diplomats are unanimous in their assessment: the team lacks the fundamental understanding necessary to navigate Middle East complexities."Iran and the U.S. under [Trump son-in-law] Kushner and Witkoff? Failure. They get an F in diplomacy," observed former U.S. State Department Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller.Their track record speaks for itself, Miller explained as he pointed to Kushner and Witkoff's failed Russia-Ukraine negotiations and their stalled efforts between Israel and Hamas as evidence of unrelenting incompetence. "While even the most experienced negotiators would face steep challenges in such conflicts, Kushner and Witkoff failed to convey to either side the sense of urgency that a desirable deal was within reach—an essential condition for pushing negotiations forward.""You accept the notion that a successful negotiation, if you have urgency, is based on finding some balance of interest between the parties. If you want out of this, I think they're going to have to come up with something that allows the Iranians to say they won something," he elaborated. Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey David Satterfield outlined what actual competent negotiations require, telling Time, "Not only does the U.S. need to make clear what its goals were, and to know internally where it was prepared to concede, and where it was not prepared to concede, where the line would be held, the red lines, but to have a realistic sense of what the other side was bringing with it."A grasp of nuclear diplomacy also brings a whole new level of complexity.Former senior State Department official Robert Einhorn warned that "the negotiator at the table has to think about how the domestic audiences will affect the outcome. And I think the negotiator on a nuclear issue is more constrained by his or her government bureaucracy and by public opinion."The deepest problem is systemic: Trump surrounds himself with yes-men incapable of honest counsel, which Miller identified as Trump's fatal flaw in personnel selection:"There is a discussion in which the president's advisors talk truth to power and basically say to him…'You've got the ultimate control. But if you're going to do this, this is exactly what is likely to happen. And in my judgment…if you do this, you might fail.'"But such candor requires advisers willing to risk consequences. "Trump had four secretaries of defense in his first term. He had six national security advisors [during his two terms]. They know what happens if they embarrass the president or they become a problem."

The United States UN ambassador was facing a tough line of questioning from lawmakers on Wednesday over the ongoing Iran war and President Donald Trump's dire threat to destroy "a whole civilization." Mike Waltz was testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on American foreign policy amid the ongoing military conflict, as the ceasefire between the United States and Iran was just days away from ending. His responses around the president's threats last week reportedly caught the lawmakers off guard. Kyle Griffin, executive producer of The Weeknight on MS NOW, described on X how Waltz reacted when he "was asked by senators about Trump's threat to obliterate Iran — when he posted 'a whole civilization will die tonight.'"Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) posed a question for Waltz, describing how the United Nations and the United States have historically been involved in developing laws of war to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths in military conflicts. "But President Trump has said that if Iran does not comply with his demands that he will 'end Iran's civilization' with specific threats to target civilian infrastructure," Murphy said. "This looks to a lot of us, and to the world, like a promise by the president of the United States to commit war crimes. I'm sure you don't agree with that assessment, but we've never had a president before threaten to 'end an entire civilization,' and double down on that claim, if that country does not accede to the demands of the United States." "So what does the president mean when he says that if these negotiations don't work out, he will 'end Iran's civilization'?" Murphy asked.Waltz defended Trump's comments, citing Iran's previous actions. "Senator, it was some tough talk," Waltz said, claiming that Trump's comments had led to a ceasefire and prompted ongoing negotiations. Murphy pushed back on Waltz. "I guess it's an open question whether we should pursue our aims by threatening another nation with mass civilian casualty," Murphy said. "I don't know if that's something we should celebrate that we are able to cow nations to our demands by threatening to kill civilians." Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) pressed Waltz to explain why the U.S. should continue fighting in a "deeply unpopular war.""It might be some mean tweets, it might be some tough love, but they got the message," Waltz said, defending Trump's decision to post the threat on his Truth Social platform. Users on social media commented on Waltz's response about "mean tweets." "We are all in Middle School," former Republican and political commentator Nancy Ruth Gorelo wrote on X."Mike Waltz's response is totally unacceptable for a UN ambassador," Artist and commentator Art Candee wrote on X."Well, mean tweets are typical from Trump and JD Vance, the meanest p---- a-- b------ hanging with the other mean girls in the cafeteria," political commentator Robert Johnson wrote on X, sharing two photos of "Mean Girls" with Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

Early Wednesday morning, Donald Trump took to his Truth Social account to boast that he will be able to open the Strait of Hormuz for the benefit of China and he expects the country's leadership to appreciate his efforts.With shipping at almost a complete standstill due to Trump’s war on Iran, the president claimed that China, normally a US adversary, will benefit from his latest attempt at a diplomatic maneuver as ceasefire talks drag on.On Truth Social, he wrote: “China is very happy that I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz. I am doing it for them, also - And the World. This situation will never happen again. They have agreed not to send weapons to Iran. President Xi will give me a big, fat, hug when I get there in a few weeks.”"We are working together smartly, and very well! Doesn’t that beat fighting??? BUT REMEMBER, we are very good at fighting, if we have to - far better than anyone else!!! President DJT,” he added.

Vice President JD Vance’s continuing lecturing of Pope Leo XIV at a Turning Point USA function in Georgia on Tuesday earned him a tongue-lashing on MS NOW early Wednesday morning.Speaking to a sparse crowd, Vance, a recent convert to Catholicism, continued to harangue the pontiff over his comments that run counter to the Donald Trump administration’s policies on war and immigrants.In a clip shared on “Morning Joe,” the Ohio Republican boldly asserted, “I think it's very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology. I think one of the issues here is that if you're going to opine on matters of theology, you've got to be careful. You've got to make sure it's anchored in the truth. And that's one of the things that I try to do. And it's certainly something I would expect from the clergy, whether they're Catholic or Protestant.”That led MS NOW host Joe Scarborough to launch into an extensive lecture aimed at Trump’s running mate.“What, what, what are you? A king in medieval Europe?” the former GOP lawmaker exclaimed. “Warning the pope not to talk about the Bible? That's what you just said! You know how stupid you sound, right? You know how stupid you sound when you, new to the Catholic church, are lecturing, Mr. Vice President, the pontiff on theology and telling him he should not quote the red letters?”“How utterly bizarre,” he continued. “People will look back one day and laugh when they have the safety of distance and laugh that you actually have a vice president sitting on stage warning the pope, god's representative here on earth for the Catholic church, warning the pope and what he can and cannot say about theology, that he needs to be careful.”He added, “And so to hear a sitting vice president of the United States, first of all, becoming a Catholic last week and then writing a book about being a Catholic and then lecturing the pope, I've got to say, that's like an all-timer, and people are going to look back and they're going to have a big chuckle that anybody was ever that arrogant.” - YouTube youtu.be

With Donald Trump becoming more erratic and lashing out at the traditional allies of the US, plans are afoot by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to create a separate version of the organization beyond the American president's reach.According to the Wall Street Journal's Bojan Pancevski and Daniel Michaels, European officials are advancing informal plans for what some are calling "European NATO," a parallel structure that would give Europeans greater command-and-control authority and supplement U.S. military assets with their own capabilities.The plans represent a massive shift in European strategic thinking now that Germany has ceased resisting French calls for greater European defense sovereignty, preferring American military guarantees. That calculus has fundamentally changed under German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who is now actively participating in the initiative over concerns about U.S. dependability as an ally during the Trump presidency and beyond.European officials are explicit about their purpose: preserve deterrence against Russia, operational continuity and nuclear credibility even if the Trump administration withdraws forces from Europe or refuses to come to its defense, as the president has repeatedly threatened.Trump's recent rhetoric has only accelerated the timeline. He branded European allies as "cowards," called NATO "a paper tiger," and added menacingly, in reference to Putin: "Putin knows that too." He has also threatened to leave NATO entirely over Europe's refusal to support his Iran war, describing the move as already "beyond reconsideration," the Journal is reporting.The momentum is undeniable. Finland's President Alexander Stubb, one of the leaders involved in the initiative, signaled the permanent nature of the shift: "A burden shifting from the U.S. toward Europe is ongoing and it will continue…as part of U.S. defense and national security strategy."The report notes Europe is not waiting for Trump to make good on his threats. The plans, first conceived last year, have accelerated dramatically after Trump threatened to seize Greenland from NATO member Denmark and intensified amid the standoff over Europe's refusal to back the highly criticized Iran war.Though congressional approval would be required for a formal NATO withdrawal, Trump retains broad authority as commander-in-chief to move troops or assets out of Europe or withhold support — a threat that has transformed European defense planning from theoretical to urgent.