President Donald Trump's frustration boiled over on Tuesday morning as he used explicit language to criticize both Israel and Iran for violating the ceasefire agreement he had brokered just hours earlier.
According to the Daily Mail, the president's outburst came before boarding Marine One en route to the NATO Summit.
The president did not mince words when expressing his disappointment, stating that the two nations "don't know what the f*** they're doing" after both sides continued military operations despite agreeing to halt hostilities. Trump had announced the ceasefire deal Monday evening following a weekend of heightened tensions that included U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The road to the failed ceasefire began when Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Iran retaliated by targeting America's largest Middle East military base near Doha, Qatar, though Trump initially chose not to respond militarily to that action. Instead, he worked to broker what he hoped would be a 24-hour ceasefire agreement between the two nations.
Trump used his Truth Social platform to announce the deal Monday evening, congratulating both sides and urging them to remain "peaceful and respectful." The ceasefire was meant to take effect in stages, with Iran initiating the pause followed by Israel, ultimately leading to what Trump dubbed "THE 12 DAY WAR."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement confirming that Israel had conducted "powerful strikes in the heart of Tehran" just before the ceasefire was to begin. This action resulted in significant Iranian casualties among security forces and militia members.
Israeli forces launched additional attacks targeting radar installations near Tehran, even after the ceasefire was supposed to take effect. Iran responded by firing multiple missiles at Israel, resulting in four Israeli civilian casualties. The back-and-forth continued despite Trump's efforts to maintain the peace agreement.
Trump reportedly called Netanyahu from Air Force One, successfully convincing him to recall Israeli aircraft and cease further military action. The Israeli Prime Minister's statement acknowledged Trump's role in helping achieve Israel's military objectives while also expressing confidence in the ceasefire's stability.
The situation highlighted the complex dynamics between Trump and Netanyahu, with the president openly expressing his disappointment in Israel's actions. Trump emphasized the need for Israel to "calm down," particularly regarding their response to what he characterized as a possibly mistaken rocket launch.
Trump's unusually frank language on the South Lawn reflected his growing frustration with both nations' inability to maintain the negotiated peace. He specifically criticized Israel's decision to launch massive strikes just as the ceasefire agreement was being finalized.
The president's efforts to maintain diplomatic channels remained evident as he continued working to stabilize the situation from Air Force One. His conversation with Netanyahu appeared to have some success in preventing further escalation, though tensions remained high.
Trump expressed cautious optimism that the ceasefire would hold, suggesting both sides were "tired of it." He also emphasized his belief that Iran's nuclear ambitions had been curtailed, stating it was "the last thing on their mind right now."
The dramatic breakdown of the ceasefire agreement has left both regional and international stakeholders concerned about potential further escalation. Trump's explicit criticism of both nations marked a significant shift in diplomatic tone, reflecting the gravity of the situation.
Despite the initial failure of the ceasefire, Trump's intervention appears to have prevented immediate further escalation. His direct communication with Netanyahu proved crucial in halting additional Israeli strikes, though the long-term stability of the region remains uncertain.
The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, as the potential for renewed conflict remains high. Trump's unusually candid remarks about both allies and adversaries highlight the complex diplomatic challenges facing his administration in maintaining peace in the Middle East.
A revolutionary medical breakthrough has transformed the lives of type 1 diabetes patients as researchers announce successful results from an experimental stem cell treatment that effectively cured the condition in most trial participants.
According to the Daily Mail, ten out of twelve patients who received the groundbreaking drug Zimislecel no longer needed insulin injections one year after treatment, while the remaining two required significantly reduced doses.
The treatment uses laboratory-grown stem cells that researchers engineered to become pancreatic islet cells - specialized clusters that produce insulin and other blood sugar-regulating hormones. Once injected, these cells travel to and implant in the liver, where they begin producing insulin naturally.
The clinical trial focused specifically on type 1 diabetes patients suffering from hypoglycemic unawareness, a dangerous complication affecting 30% of cases where individuals cannot detect when their blood sugar drops dangerously low. This condition puts patients at risk of seizures, unconsciousness, and even death.
After receiving the Zimislecel infusion, patients showed dramatic improvements in blood sugar control. Their time spent in healthy glucose ranges increased from approximately 50% at the start to over 93% after one year of treatment.
The stem cells used in this therapy were cultivated in laboratories rather than harvested from deceased organ donors, providing a sustainable and scalable source of treatment cells. This advancement addresses previous limitations of relying on a finite donor supply.
Amanda Smith, a 36-year-old London resident who participated in the trial, reported transformative results just six months after receiving the treatment. She described no longer needing insulin as "like a whole new life."
The therapy requires patients to take immunosuppressing medications to prevent rejection of the transplanted cells. Researchers are working to minimize or eliminate this requirement in future versions of the treatment.
Scientists believe this breakthrough could lead to a broader cure for type 1 diabetes, which affects approximately 1.6 million Americans. The condition typically develops from a combination of genetic factors and environmental triggers like childhood viral infections.
The development of Zimislecel, created by Boston-based Vertex Pharmaceuticals, represents 25 years of dedicated research initially inspired by a father whose children were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.
Researchers plan to apply for FDA approval within the next five years. The therapy's success was documented in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.
Trevor Reichman, study co-author and surgeon at University Health Network in Toronto, highlighted the significance of their findings, noting that this was the first time a biological replacement therapy could be safely administered in a single procedure with minimal patient risk.
The successful trial marks a significant milestone in diabetes treatment, particularly for those with severe complications like hypoglycemic unawareness. However, researchers emphasize that more extensive studies are needed before the therapy becomes widely available.
Dr. Reichman expressed optimism about future developments, suggesting that within five to ten years, the treatment might be administered with minimal or no immunosuppression, further reducing long-term risks for patients.
This breakthrough extends beyond diabetes treatment, representing a broader advancement in stem cell therapy that could potentially address various other medical conditions. The success of this trial opens new possibilities for regenerative medicine approaches.
A firestorm of controversy has erupted around The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg after she made inflammatory comments comparing the experiences of Black Americans to life under Iran's authoritarian regime.
According to the Daily Mail, Goldberg sparked outrage during last Wednesday's show when she interrupted co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin's praise of American freedoms by declaring that life for Black Americans was "the same" as living under Iran's oppressive government.
The heated exchange began when Griffin stated, "The U.S. in 2025 is not as bad as Iran in 2025," prompting Goldberg to interject, "Not if you're black." The Oscar-winning actress, worth an estimated $60 million, went on to reference America's history of racial violence, telling Griffin "they used to just keep hanging black people" and insisting "there's no way I can make you understand it."
Dr. Sheila Nazarian, who fled Iran with her family in 1985 at age six, strongly criticized Goldberg's statements as dismissive of the brutal realities faced by millions under Iran's current regime. The plastic surgeon shared her perspective on Fox News, highlighting the stark differences between the two nations.
Social media erupted with similar condemnation, with many pointing out the irony of Goldberg's position. One TikTok user noted that Goldberg being "a multi-millionaire black woman on national television" itself demonstrated the fundamental differences between America and Iran's treatment of minorities and women.
The controversy has attracted criticism from across the political spectrum, with comedian Bill Maher calling on the Democratic party to "do something" about The View after playing the widely ridiculed clip on his show Friday.
Joy Behar addressed Goldberg's conspicuous absence on Monday's show, explaining that her co-host was in Italy accepting an award for her book "Bits and Pieces." However, the timing of her overseas trip has raised eyebrows given the intense backlash.
According to sources, Goldberg will not return to The View before its annual weeklong summer break next week. She is expected to resume her co-hosting duties on July 7th alongside her fellow panelists.
This extended absence comes amid reports that ABC News and parent company Disney have asked The View's hosts to tone down their political commentary, particularly regarding Donald Trump.
This is not Goldberg's first brush with controversy since taking over as moderator from Rosie O'Donnell in 2007. The actress faced a two-week suspension in 2022 after claiming the Holocaust was "not about race," comments that drew widespread condemnation from Jewish organizations.
During Wednesday's contentious segment, Goldberg also pushed back when Griffin referenced Iran's persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, claiming, "Let's not do that because if we start with that, we have been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car."
The show's producers have declined to comment on whether any disciplinary action is being considered regarding Goldberg's latest inflammatory remarks.
The controversy emerges as top executives at ABC News and Disney have reportedly asked The View's hosts to moderate their political commentary. This follows several high-profile incidents, including a $15 million libel settlement with Trump and the firing of correspondent Terry Moran over social media posts.
While Goldberg maintains she was drawing valid historical parallels, critics argue her comments trivialize the systematic oppression faced by Iranian citizens. Her temporary absence from the show, though officially unrelated, has done little to quell the intense debate her statements have ignited.
The View will continue with its regular programming schedule, though viewers will have to wait until after the show's summer break to hear if Goldberg addresses the controversy directly upon her return.
A high-stakes political drama unfolded as Republican Representative Thomas Massie found himself in President Donald Trump's crosshairs over Iran policy. The Kentucky congressman's sudden reversal on challenging Trump's war powers came after a barrage of criticism from the president himself.
According to the Daily Mail, Massie withdrew his House resolution aimed at checking Trump's military authority following the announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. The resolution had gained support from 57 cosponsors, including Democratic allies looking to score political points against the administration.
The congressman's decision marks a dramatic shift from his earlier vocal opposition to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Earlier Monday, Massie had confidently declared on social media that Congress would be voting on U.S. military engagement in Iran, positioning himself as a key figure challenging what he termed Trump's "unconstitutional" actions.
President Trump unleashed a blistering attack on Massie, branding him a "BUM" who needed to be removed from office immediately. The president's social media posts questioned Massie's loyalty to the MAGA movement and dismissed him as someone neither known nor respected by Trump supporters.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt joined the fray, suggesting on Fox News that Massie's political alignment was more in tune with Democrats than Republicans. She defended Trump's military actions as fully within his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief.
The administration's unified front against Massie highlighted the growing tension between traditional conservative principles regarding war powers and Trump's more assertive approach to military intervention. The dispute exposed deeper rifts within the Republican Party over foreign policy and executive authority.
Massie's original resolution, co-sponsored with Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, aimed to reassert Congressional oversight of military actions. The Kentucky representative had repeatedly expressed concerns about potential regime change efforts in Iran, stating firmly that such actions did not align with an "America First" policy.
Trump's team maintained that Congressional approval was unnecessary for the Iranian strikes, citing Article 2 of the Constitution. This interpretation of presidential war powers sparked debate among constitutional scholars and lawmakers about the proper balance between executive and legislative authority in military matters.
The administration's position reflected a broader view of presidential authority in military affairs, contrasting with more restrictive interpretations favored by some conservatives and liberals alike. This fundamental disagreement about constitutional powers continues to shape American foreign policy debates.
The public clash between Trump and Massie revealed the complex dynamics within the Republican Party regarding foreign policy and presidential authority. Massie's eventual retreat highlighted the significant influence Trump maintains over GOP lawmakers, even those initially willing to challenge his decisions.
Trump's social media attacks on Massie included accusations that the congressman was enabling Iran's nuclear ambitions while they chanted "Death to America." This messaging strategy effectively painted Massie's constitutional concerns as weakness in the face of national security threats.
The episode demonstrated how quickly internal party disputes can escalate when they intersect with critical foreign policy decisions and presidential authority. It also showed the continuing power of Trump's personal interventions in shaping Republican policy positions.
The resolution's withdrawal following the ceasefire announcement represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate over war powers and congressional oversight. Massie's decision to pull back his challenge reflects the complex political calculations lawmakers must make when questioning presidential authority on military matters.
The incident highlights the delicate balance between constitutional principles and political reality in today's Washington. Despite initial strong statements about congressional authority, Massie ultimately chose a pragmatic retreat in the face of intense pressure from Trump and his allies.
This episode may have lasting implications for future debates about war powers and congressional oversight, potentially discouraging other lawmakers from challenging presidential military decisions. The outcome reinforces Trump's influence over Republican policy positions, particularly in matters of national security and foreign policy.
Zohran Mamdani and former Governor Andrew Cuomo are locked in a tight contest as the Democratic primary nears, with supporters on both sides hoping for an upset. The showdown pits a three-term state assemblyman against a political dynasty in one of the nation’s most-watched races.
As reported by Daily Mail, Mamdani has vaulted ahead in the Democratic primary race on Polymarket, pulling even with or overtaking Cuomo just one day before voters head to the polls.
Market indicators show Mamdani with a 61 percent chance of winning, marking a dramatic reversal from late May, when Cuomo held a 91 percent probability. That shift in backing comes amid growing enthusiasm for progressive policies and frustration with Albany’s status quo. Observers point to Mamdani’s rapid rise as evidence of changing priorities among Democratic voters in the city.
Predictions from Polymarket gave Cuomo a near-certain victory only weeks ago, reflecting his name recognition and three-term governorship. Those odds plummeted as Mamdani gained endorsements and media attention across diverse boroughs.
On Monday, betting markets showed Mamdani as the favorite, demonstrating how quickly sentiment can swing in a ranked-choice system. Analysts attribute the shift to voter concerns over housing affordability and police reform.
The sudden turnaround highlights the volatility of political betting markets and suggests that grassroots energy can outweigh establishment ties when an electorate feels underserved.
Before entering politics, Mamdani pursued a rap career under the moniker Mr. Cardamom, releasing music videos that have resurfaced online. In one clip, he performs shirtless, showcasing his early ambitions and artistic flair.
In 2019, he announced on social media, “I’ll be forever spicy, but I’m taking a break from being a spice to answer the question of what happens when a B-list rapper runs for office.” That candid statement captured attention and set the stage for his shift to public service.
His transition from music to politics underscores a personal journey rooted in community organizing and advocacy, reflecting a broader trend of nontraditional candidates reshaping local and national contests.
Mamdani’s platform calls for rent freezes, a free city bus service, universal childcare and city-subsidized grocery stores, funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Those sweeping proposals have drawn both praise from progressives and skepticism from centrist Democrats.
He has secured endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, bolstering his progressive credentials. Their backing signals a cohesive effort among the party’s left wing to advance transformative policies at the municipal level.
Critics, however, accuse him of alienating Jewish voters with pro-Palestinian rhetoric. “When someone spends years relentlessly targeting the world’s only Jewish state through legislation, boycotts and protests — while remaining silent on the abuses of regimes like Iran, China or Russia — it’s not principled criticism, it’s antisemitism, plain and simple,” Sam Berger, a Jewish Democrat, said.
Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old assemblyman born in Uganda and raised in Cape Town, South Africa, would become New York City’s first Muslim and first Indian-American mayor if elected. His rapid ascent poses a threat to Cuomo’s bid for political redemption after the former governor resigned amid a sexual harassment scandal.
Despite his surge, Mamdani must navigate a voter base still wary of drastic change and win over the roughly 24 percent of residents spending half their income on rent. He needs support from state lawmakers and Governor Kathy Hochul to implement his plans, yet many have already dismissed his tax proposals as unrealistic.
The Democratic primary takes place tomorrow, and the winner will face independent incumbent Eric Adams, who is not on the Democratic ballot, and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. The contest’s outcome will shape whether New York City embraces Mamdani’s bold vision or opts for more traditional leadership next fall.
Stephanie Hockridge and her husband, fintech founder Nathan Reis, have watched a once-bright reputation shatter amid dramatic trial proceedings. Once celebrated for her Emmy-nominated journalism, Hockridge now faces federal prison time.
As reported by the Daily Mail, Stephanie Hockridge was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with Paycheck Protection Program loans. The verdict, delivered Friday in federal court, could carry a sentence of up to 20 years.
The 42-year-old former KNXV-TV anchor pleaded not guilty to all charges, yet jurors found her guilty of orchestrating a sweeping Covid relief fraud. Hockridge was acquitted on four wire fraud counts related to the same scheme. Her sentencing is slated for October 10 in Phoenix.
A federal jury reached its verdict after a two-week trial that laid bare the couple’s alleged scheme. Prosecutors said Hockridge and Reis launched Blueacorn in April 2020, promising to help small businesses navigate federal relief funds. While she faced acquittal on most counts, the single conspiracy conviction now defines her legal fate.
In court filings, prosecutors described how Blueacorn rapidly processed thousands of PPP applications with minimal oversight. “This was not about helping small businesses,” a federal official told jurors, characterizing the operation as a calculated effort to siphon emergency aid. The government said Hockridge leveraged her media fame to attract high-dollar clients.
Throughout the trial, Hockridge and her legal team maintained that she acted in good faith. Reis, who also pleaded not guilty, echoed that they believed they were guiding legitimate borrowers through an unprecedented crisis. Their attorneys argued that any missteps reflected the chaotic rollout of the PPP program, not intentional fraud.
Photographic evidence played a key role in swaying jurors, including an image of Hockridge in a marble bathtub clutching bundles of $100 bills. The prosecution also played a video shot at a luxury beachfront apartment in Puerto Rico, underscoring the couple’s lavish spending. Those scenes contrasted starkly with the financial struggles faced by genuine small businesses.
The couple’s relocation to Puerto Rico became a focal point, highlighting their efforts to minimize tax liabilities on overseas investment. Prosecutors asserted that the beachfront high-rise served as both a getaway and a symbol of ill-gotten gains. Defense attorneys countered that the move was a legal tax strategy unrelated to the PPP loans.
A congressional subcommittee report revealed Blueacorn processed over $12.5 billion in loans while disbursing $300 million in processing fees to owners, including Hockridge. The firm allocated less than 1 percent of revenue—just $8.6 million—to detect and prevent fraud. Lawmakers have cited those figures as evidence of systemic weaknesses in emergency aid oversight.
Jurors reviewed internal Blueacorn communications that referred to a clandestine “VIPPP” list, fast-tracking lucrative applications past standard verification steps. Staff messages urged employees to “push through” questionable loan requests, dismissing warnings with blunt language. Those directives illustrated a corporate culture prioritizing profit over honesty.
Court documents exposed fabricated claims in dozens of applications, including one stating Reis served in the military and another of minority-business status—both government checks later disproved. Prosecutors said the couple submitted false payroll records, tax returns and bank statements to satisfy SBA requirements. The evidence painted a picture of intentional deception at every turn.
Further testimony detailed how Hockridge and Reis charged illegal “success fees” in violation of Small Business Administration rules. They allegedly struck kickback agreements with certain banks in exchange for processing guarantees. The indictment described a web of interstate wire transfers used to obfuscate the origin of funds.
Stephanie Hockridge, 42, and her husband, Nathan Reis, 46, stand convicted in a federal fraud scheme that exploited the Paycheck Protection Program during Covid-19. Their Scottsdale-based fintech firm, Blueacorn, allegedly processed billions in PPP loans under false pretenses. Prosecutors say the couple capitalized on an emergency fund meant to save jobs.
Hockridge faces up to 20 years behind bars when she is sentenced on October 10 in Phoenix, while Reis will answer similar charges at his August trial. B
oth have indicated plans to appeal the verdicts, arguing the chaotic nature of pandemic relief created honest misunderstandings. Outside court, supporters have rallied, framing the case as a cautionary tale of bureaucratic mismanagement.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has ignited a fierce debate within the Supreme Court, launching a scathing criticism against her conservative colleagues over a controversial deportation policy that has Washington's attention focused squarely on the nation's highest court.
According to Newsweek, the Supreme Court's conservative majority handed the Trump administration a significant victory on Monday by allowing the deportation of individuals to third countries, prompting a forceful 19-page dissent from the liberal justices.
The 6-3 ruling has exposed deep divisions within the court, with Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, condemning what they view as an unprecedented overreach of judicial authority that could put thousands of lives at risk.
The ruling comes in the wake of a May incident where eight migrants from various countries, including Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cuba, were nearly deported to South Sudan despite existing legal protections. The attempted deportation violated a standing order from U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy.
The migrants were ultimately diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where they were housed in challenging conditions while their legal status remained in limbo. This incident highlighted the growing tension between the administration's aggressive deportation policies and judicial oversight.
Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the Supreme Court's decision, characterizing it as a victory for national security. She emphasized the administration's commitment to removing what she termed "criminal illegal aliens" from American soil.
The conservative majority's decision came without detailed explanation, a move that has drawn criticism from legal experts and immigration advocates. The ruling effectively suspends a lower court order that had required migrants to have an opportunity to challenge their removal to third countries.
In her powerful dissent, Justice Sotomayor accused the government of acting "unconstrained by law," warning that the decision could expose vulnerable individuals to severe risks. She emphasized the potential consequences of allowing deportations without proper legal safeguards.
The Trump administration has increasingly relied on agreements with countries like Panama and Costa Rica to facilitate deportations, particularly when migrants' home countries refuse to accept them. This strategy has raised concerns about the safety and human rights implications of third-country deportations.
DHS officials maintain that the policy is necessary for maintaining border security and public safety. McLaughlin issued a strongly worded statement defending the administration's position, emphasizing the criminal backgrounds of some deportees.
Judge Murphy's original ruling had sought to establish important protections for migrants, requiring them to have a meaningful opportunity to present their cases. The judge specifically cited the risks of sending people to countries experiencing civil unrest and violence.
The case has drawn parallels to other recent immigration disputes, including a notable instance involving a gay Guatemalan man who was wrongly deported to Mexico and subsequently faced severe persecution.
This Supreme Court ruling represents a significant shift in immigration enforcement capabilities, giving the administration broader authority to implement its deportation policies. The decision adds to a growing list of cases where the conservative majority has supported the administration's immigration agenda.
The ruling's immediate impact will affect thousands of migrants currently in deportation proceedings, potentially expediting their removal to third countries. Legal advocates are scrambling to understand the full implications of this decision and develop new strategies to protect vulnerable immigrants.
These developments signal an increasingly complex battle over immigration policy, with the Supreme Court's conservative majority showing strong support for expanded executive authority in deportation matters.
Steve Bannon has launched an unprecedented assault on Fox News following a private lunch with President Donald Trump, suggesting the network may be secretly working as an agent of foreign interests in their coverage of the Israel-Iran conflict.
According to the Daily Mail, Bannon called for a thorough investigation into Fox News under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) while dismissing the network's influence, claiming their audience consists mainly of "geriatrics" over 70 years old.
The escalation comes after Bannon, Trump's former chief White House strategist, met with the president for lunch on Thursday ahead of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. During this meeting, Bannon reportedly argued against American involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran.
Bannon took direct aim at the Murdoch family, suggesting they prioritize foreign interests over American ones. His comments reflect growing tensions between Trump-aligned conservatives and mainstream media outlets over coverage of Middle East policy. The former presidential advisor called for an investigation into whether Fox News should register as a foreign agent under FARA regulations.
On his War Room show Monday, Bannon intensified his criticism, stating, "I think we need to see if they represent a foreign government as an agent." He questioned the network's motives, asking "What are they pushing on the American people? Where'd this information come from?"
While acknowledging Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons, Bannon insisted there were alternatives to military action, declaring "there are many paths to do that" that don't involve "kinetic warfare." His statements came as he attempted to distance himself from the network's hawkish stance on Middle East intervention.
Despite Bannon's vocal opposition, Trump proceeded with significant military strikes against Iran, deploying six 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs and 30 Tomahawk missiles to destroy nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. The president characterized the operation as a "spectacular military success."
In an address to the nation, Trump claimed Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities had been "completely and totally obliterated." He also issued stern warnings about potential future strikes if peace was not achieved, showing his resolve to take military action despite counsel from close allies like Bannon.
Bannon had earlier predicted on his podcast that such military action could trigger "World War III," stating "anyone that's telling you that the Third World War is not here absolutely does not understand the development and evolution of kinetic energy."
Following the U.S. attack, Iran launched retaliatory strikes targeting the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, America's largest military installation in the Middle East. However, Trump claimed no Americans were harmed due to advance warning allowing for evacuation.
The president took to Truth Social to taunt Iran's "very weak response" while simultaneously calling for peace in the region. He urged both Iran and Israel to work toward "Peace and Harmony in the Region," suggesting a potential diplomatic resolution.
World leaders quickly condemned Iran's retaliatory strikes and expressed support for Qatar, which has not ruled out its own response to Iranian aggression. The international community remains watchful as regional tensions continue to simmer.
In a surprising turn of events, Steve Bannon's warnings about escalating conflict have been overshadowed by diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East. His unprecedented attack on Fox News has highlighted growing divisions within conservative media over foreign policy approaches.
The ceasefire agreement announced by President Trump marks a potential end to what he called "the 12-day war," though neither Iran nor Israel has officially confirmed the deal. This development comes after two weeks of intense military exchanges between the nations.
As attention turns to implementing the ceasefire, Bannon's accusations against Fox News underscore broader debates about media independence and foreign influence in American foreign policy. The impact of these discussions on future U.S. military decisions remains to be seen.