Top World News

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."

The Department of Defense has suspended a joint military advisory board with Canada that dates to World War II, escalating tensions between President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby announced the suspension of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, claiming Canada has failed to adequately invest in military modernization, and he pointed specifically to remarks Carney had made at the World Economic Forum in January calling on "middle powers" to unite as a bulwark against superpowers, reported The Hill.Carney downplayed the move Tuesday, noting that Canada was spending 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, including a $40 billion investment in the North American Aerospace Defense Command. "I wouldn't overplay the importance of this," he said of the suspended board.But Canadian defense experts warned the decision signals a dangerous deterioration in one of the world's most important bilateral relationships."None of this political rhetoric serves anyone's purposes but China and Russia," said Andrea Charron, director of the Center for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba.The board, composed of military and civilian advisers, typically meets once a year to consult on matters of mutual importance. Experts said its suspension is unlikely to disrupt day-to-day military cooperation between the two countries, given that other communication channels remain intact — but said the symbolism carries real weight.Trump's frustrations with Carney have been building for months. Canada is renegotiating a trade agreement with the U.S., recently awarded Australia a contract to build its Arctic radar system, and is weighing the purchase of Swedish fighter jets over American-made F-35s.Defense analyst David Perry said Canada has itself to blame, in part, for not using forums like the joint board more proactively. "I can imagine a scenario where somebody in the Pentagon said, 'What's on the agenda for this next meeting?' and thought the answer was underwhelming," he said.Carney has committed to raising defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2035, though experts say achieving that target will require difficult trade-offs with domestic social programs.

Renowned international security expert Robert Pape issued a dire warning on Sunday that an irreversible “critical point” had been reached in the U.S. war against Iran, one that risks sparking global shortages and economic disruptions on a scale not seen in decades.“Two months ago, I warned that the Iran war was not simply creating an oil price spike. It was creating the conditions for shortages, supply disruptions, and eventually economic contraction,” Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, warned in an analysis published Sunday on his Substack. “That transition is now beginning.”Among Iran’s first responses to the “unprovoked” attack from the United States and Israel was to close the Strait of Hormuz – a critical shipping waterway through which 20% of the world’s oil trade historically flowed – to U.S.-aligned vessels. Predictably, the strait’s partial closure sent oil prices skyrocketing.With the war now stretching into its 78th day as of Sunday, the strait’s closure has finally exhausted worldwide “buffers” that have helped to slow the economic impact from disrupting trade through what is among the busiest shipping channels on earth, Pape warned.“The critical point is no longer oil prices alone,” Pape wrote. “The world’s emergency buffers – inventories, reserves, subsidies, and logistical workarounds – are beginning to fail simultaneously.”Signs of existing stockpiles or resources still in transit being exhausted have already reached the United States. The final shipment of oil from the Strait of Hormuz before its partial closure arrived in California earlier this month, and reporting suggests a major shortage of motor oil may be imminent.

Hundreds of diplomats are being forced out of their jobs by the Trump administration despite ongoing crises around the world, according to a new report. According to CNN, the State Department finalized the firing of nearly 250 foreign service officers via email on Friday. "Your reduction in force separation will be effective today," the email read. "Thank you again for your service to the Department."The reduction in forces also impacted staff that would have been able to "provide guidance on the war in Iran," former officials told CNN. On top of that, "unprecedented numbers of people are choosing to leave" U.S. foreign services, David Kostelancik, a retired diplomat, told CNN. "Roughly 2,000 foreign service officers left the State Department last year," CNN reported based on numbers from the American Foreign Service Association. Another 100 diplomatic posts around the world in tense areas like the Middle East, Ukraine and Russia still lack a Senate-confirmed ambassador, CNN added. "The most sensitive diplomatic negotiations, on fraught topics like ending the war in Iran and securing an end to the Ukraine conflict, are being led by business associates and family members of President Donald Trump," CNN reported. "Often without teams of experienced diplomats with regional expertise."

Donald Trump’s return from Beijing without any provable examples of successful negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping was yet another sign that, whatever lofty plans he had in store for the second year of his second term, they are easier to boast about than achieve.According to analysis by the Washington Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Isaac Arnsdorf, the China summit didn’t include any measurable wins for a president who has had a rough year so far.“President Donald Trump was riding the early high of his return to power last year when he took his first major foreign trip and declared that he would make a sharp break from years of U.S. nation-building around the world,” they wrote.Exactly one year after his first major foreign trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates — complete with golden swords and honor guards on Arabian steeds — Trump arrived in China at a vastly different moment, the Post is reporting. Inflation is spiraling, the Iran conflict has ensnared U.S. military forces, energy prices are soaring, and his approval ratings are cratering.This time, there were no sweeping declarations about how Trump's America would manage the world, the Post is reporting. Instead, there was Chinese President Xi Jinping, described as being "respectful but businesslike, welcoming but unbending" on issues that are U.S. priorities.Trump came to Beijing hoping to secure trade deals. Xi had other priorities, the report noted. The Chinese president made clear that Taiwan's fate, not investment opportunities, was China's top concern — yanking the spotlight from Trump's preferred focus to warn of "clashes and even conflicts" with the United States should disagreements over the disputed island be mismanaged.Trump left Friday with a promise of Xi visiting the White House in September and trade deals that proved largely disappointing. Boeing's stock dropped 8 percent between Trump's arrival and departure — a stark measure of investor skepticism about the agreements reached.The president has since claimed triumph that the trip enabled top U.S. business executives to meet the Chinese leader, but offered little evidence of actual transactions resulting from the meetings.Most of Trump's signature foreign policy initiatives "have fallen by the wayside," according to the Post. The Ukraine war still rages despite his promises to end it swiftly. Many of his tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court. Iran diplomacy has been abandoned entirely in favor of military conflict.The collapse reflects a far cry from Trump's more "expansive ambitions" for reshaping U.S.-China relations last year, when the two leaders agreed to meet four times in 2026. With Iran now preoccupying Trump and weighing down the global economy, there is little room for retrenchment.With slumping approval ratings and a faltering economy, Trump now travels the world stage "significantly weakened" compared to a year ago, Birnbaum and Arnsdorf predicted.

Donald Trump's reported desperation to end the Iran war is allowing Tehran's leaders to take a harder negotiating line — and a candid admission the president made on Fox News this week handed Iranian negotiators a significant strategic gift.According to MS NOW's Zeeshan Aleem, during an interview with Fox News anchor Sean Hannity on Thursday, Trump revealed his evolving priorities regarding Iran's estimated 970-pound stockpile of highly enriched uranium.When asked whether the U.S. was considering seizing Iran's uranium, Trump first claimed it would take "a week and a half" to extract using a ground operation. But then he made a stunning admission that undercut his entire negotiating position."I don't think it's necessary [to get the uranium], except from a public relations standpoint," Trump said. "I think it's important for the fake news that we get it."He added: "I'm the one that said we're going to get it, and we're going to get it. We have our eye on it."In those few words — "I don't think it's necessary" — Trump appeared to abandon a position that has been central to his entire premise for the war. He instantly undermined his insistence on uranium removal as a key term of any peace deal with Iran, Aleem wrote.Trump's characterization of uranium seizure as merely a "public relations" maneuver suggests he is repackaging a key plank of his negotiation position as window dressing — essentially admitting it's not actually necessary to end the conflict.According to the report, Iranian negotiators will almost certainly exploit this revelation. If Tehran believes Trump is ambivalent about — or could eventually become indifferent to — removal of Iran's uranium stockpile, Iran has far more incentive to refuse to budge on that element or demand compromises more favorable to Tehran.Aleem observed that Trump has a documented tendency to grow bored with or abandon protracted international conflicts, and the Iran war appears to be no exception and that each public statement weakens his negotiating leverage.