Former vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., is facing criticism after claiming China could be the voice of ‘moral authority’ in the Israel-Iran conflict. 

During a ‘What’s Next: Conversations on the Path Forward’ event hosted by the Center for American Progress (CAP) last week, Walz responded to a question from former Biden White House advisor, Neera Tanden, about the ‘escalatory’ nature of the strikes between the two countries.

‘Now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement in this? Who holds the moral authority? Who holds the ability to do that? Because we are not seen as a neutral actor, and we maybe never were,’ Walz said of the United States’ role in deescalating tensions in the Middle East. 

As the United States weighs striking Iran and war in the Middle East rages on, Danielle Pletka, a distinguished senior fellow in Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), told Fox News Digital that Walz’s comments are ‘ignorance on display.’

According to Walz, the United States once attempted ‘to be somewhat of the arbitrator’ in the Middle East, but Americans must face the reality that the ‘neutral actor’ with the ‘moral authority’ to lead negotiations in the Middle East ‘might be the Chinese.’

Walz didn’t elaborate on why China would be that world leader. 

‘It’s so staggering to me that Tim Walz was within a heartbeat of the presidency,’ Pletka said, before adding, ‘We don’t need a neutral player here,’ and urging him to ‘stick to local politics.’

Andy Keiser, senior fellow at the conservative National Security Institute and former senior advisor on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News Digital that someone should ‘remind Governor Walz that China is far from a moral authority on much of anything,’ and said China is committing ‘cultural genocide.’ 

‘The Chinese government has reportedly arbitrarily detained more than a million Muslims in reeducation camps since 2017,’ according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). ‘Most of the people who have been detained are Uyghur, a predominantly Turkic-speaking ethnic group primarily in China’s northwestern region of Xinjiang.’

In addition to the detentions, ‘Uyghurs in the region have been subjected to intense surveillance, forced labor, and involuntary sterilizations, among other rights abuses,’ according to the CFR. 

According to Human Rights Watch, President Xi Jinping has ‘detained human rights defenders, tightened control over civil society, media, and the internet, and deployed invasive mass surveillance technology’ in Xinjiang and Tibet, which the human rights watchdog likened to ‘crimes against humanity.’

‘I would strongly beg to differ that China has a moral authority on much in the world,’ Keiser said, and added, ‘I would not see them as a neutral arbiter here.’

‘Obviously, we are not going to be a neutral broker between a terrorist and a democratic state,’ Pletka said. ‘That’s just not how it works. You threatened to kill the President of the United States, but we’re then meant to think of you in a balanced way with the state of Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East?’ 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News’ Bret Baier on Monday that President Donald Trump remains a target of the Iranians. ‘They want to kill him. He’s enemy No. 1.’

‘I don’t know how anybody could have said what [Walz] said about the role that China plays. The idea that there is some neutral interlocutor in this world, that anybody is an ‘honest burger’ is nothing other than grad school silliness,’ Pletka said. 

Pletka added that ‘Of course, China can’t play that role. China is an authoritarian communist [state] that is supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine, that is threatening Taiwan, that has broken its word over Hong Kong.’

And she said, ‘This is not a playground in which you need somebody who can talk to both Bobby and Billy about why it is you don’t smack your friends.’

‘The idea that it should be reduced to something where you have an arbiter who sees the arguments on both sides, no. This is a situation where there’s a right and a wrong, and there’s a winner and a loser. That’s how it should be, by the way, because Iran has fashioned itself as an enemy, not just to the state of Israel, but to the United States.’

Nikki Haley – former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and a 2024 GOP presidential candidate, who sounded off on China’s threat to the United States on the campaign trail – was quick to criticize Walz’s viral comments last week. 

‘This is absolute insanity. Democrats think that we need the Chinese to be the negotiators between Iran’s nuclear production and Israel…God bless Tim Walz. Totally tone deaf,’ Haley posted on X. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., issued a press release on Thursday in which he declared that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was ‘wrong’ in the past and is again now.

In the statement, Sanders pointed to comments Netanyahu made while speaking about Saddam Hussein at a U.S. congressional hearing in 2002. 

Netanyahu said at the time that ‘if you take out … Saddam’s regime,’ the move ‘will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.’ He said that there was ‘no question whatsoever’ that the Iraqi leader was pursuing the ‘development of nuclear weapons.’

‘Netanyahu was wrong. Very wrong. The war in Iraq resulted in 4,492 U.S. military deaths, over 32,000 wounded, and a cost of roughly three trillion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died as a result of that tragic war. Netanyahu was wrong regarding the war in Iraq. He is wrong now. We must not get involved in Netanyahu’s war against Iran,’ Sanders asserted in his statement.

President Donald Trump has not ruled out the prospect of U.S. military intervention as Israel targets Iran in a bid to stop the rogue regime from achieving its nuclear weapons ambitions.

‘Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,’ President Trump said, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who read out the president’s comment during a press briefing on Thursday.

Trump has been clear that he opposes the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

‘AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!’ he declared in a Truth Social post on Monday.

As President Donald Trump weighs joining Israel’s war to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the world’s chief nuclear official tells Fox News that he sees no evidence Iran’s leaders are racing to build a nuclear bomb.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi said, ‘We have confirmed that Iran does have, even now, enough material for several warheads.

‘But this should not be equated with a nuclear weapon,’ Grossi continued, adding, ‘We do not have at this point, if you ask me, at this time, any tangible proof that there is a program, or a plan, to fabricate, to manufacture a nuclear weapon.’

Inspectors from Grossi’s agency, which is the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, are tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities. The IAEA has not been able to carry out inspections since Israel began attacking sites earlier this month but has been making extensive use of satellite imagery.

When asked by Fox News whether Iran’s nuclear program had been set back dramatically by Israel’s attacks to date, Grossi said, ‘No, I wouldn’t say so.

‘I think there have been a number of important military attacks and impacts,’ he said. ‘But it is very clear, and everybody agrees on this, that not everything has been taken out.’

He also argued that military action alone would not be enough to undo what Iran has learned in several decades of nuclear research.

‘One thing is the physical damage,’ Grossi said. ‘But then there is the knowledge factor, and the fact that it is very difficult to roll back the knowledge that a country has acquired.’

Iran has blamed Israel for the killings of multiple Iranian nuclear scientists over many years, including several in recent days. The IAEA censured Iran on June 12, just hours before Israel launched its wave of attacks, for failing to comply with commitments meant to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.

However, despite the IAEA reprimand, and the current fighting, Grossi insists a diplomatic solution remains a viable option.

‘I believe that there is a way to take this danger — or this concern — out of the table in a negotiated way.

‘I’ve been in conversations, very good conversations, with [President Trump’s envoy] Steve Witkoff and with the Iranians as well,’ Grossi said.

‘I believe there are ways in which we can make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. I think this is ultimately what Israel wants and what the United States has declared.

‘We are the international corps of inspectors, and we know what you would need to check in order to prevent this from happening.

‘We believe that the opportunity should be seized, as President Trump said, but of course the space for that is narrowing.’

President Donald Trump came back into office promising no new wars. So far, he’s kept that promise. But he’s also left much of Washington — and many of America’s allies — confused by a series of rapid, unexpected moves across the Middle East. 

In just a few months, Trump has reopened backchannels with Iran, then turned around and threatened its regime with collapse. He’s kept Israel at arm’s length — skipping it on his regional tour — before signaling support once again. He lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria’s Islamist leader, a figure long treated as untouchable in Washington. And he made headlines by hosting Pakistan’s top general at the White House, even as India publicly objected. 

For those watching closely, it’s been hard to pin down a clear doctrine. Critics see improvisation — sometimes even contradiction. But step back, and a pattern begins to emerge. It’s not about ideology, democracy promotion, or traditional alliances. It’s about access. Geography. Trade. 

More specifically, it may be about restarting a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. 

The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. 

IMEC’s vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground. 

But before construction could begin, war broke out in Gaza. 

The October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel’s military response sent the region into crisis. Normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel fell apart. The Red Sea became a warzone for shipping. And Gulf capital flows paused. The corridor — and the broader idea of using infrastructure to tie the region together — was quietly shelved.

That’s the backdrop for Trump’s current moves. Taken individually, they seem scattered. Taken together, they align with the logic of clearing obstacles to infrastructure. Trump may not be drawing maps in the Situation Room. But his instincts — for leverage, dealmaking and unpredictability — are removing the very roadblocks that halted IMEC in the first place. 

His approach to Iran is a prime example. In April, backchannels were reopened on the nuclear front. In May, a Yemen truce was brokered — reducing attacks on Gulf shipping. In June, after Israeli strikes inside Iran, Trump escalated rhetorically, calling for Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender.’ That combination of engagement and pressure may sound erratic. But it mirrors the approach that cleared a diplomatic path with North Korea: soften the edges, then apply public pressure. 

Meanwhile, Trump’s temporary distancing from Israel is harder to miss. He skipped it on his regional tour and avoided aligning with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s continued hard-line approach to Gaza. Instead, he praised Qatar — a U.S. military partner and quiet mediator in the Gaza talks — and signaled support for Gulf-led reconstruction plans. The message: if Israel refuses to engage in regional stabilization, it won’t control the map. 

Trump also made the unexpected decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria’s new leader, President Ahmad al-Sharaa — a figure with a past in Islamist groups, now leading a transitional government backed by the UAE. Critics saw the move as legitimizing extremism. But in practice, it unlocked regional financing and access to transit corridors once blocked by U.S. policy. 

Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. Welcoming Pakistan’s military chief was less about loyalty, and more about leverage. In corridor politics, geography often trumps alliances. 

None of this means Trump has a master plan. There’s no confirmed strategy memo that links these moves to IMEC. And the region remains volatile. Iran’s internal stability is far from guaranteed. The Gaza conflict could reignite. Saudi and Qatari interests don’t always align. But there’s a growing logic underneath the diplomacy: de-escalate just enough conflict to make capital flow again — and make corridors investable. 

That logic may not be ideologically pure. It certainly isn’t about spreading democracy. But it reflects a real shift in U.S. foreign policy. Call it infrastructure-first geopolitics — where trade routes, ports and pipelines matter more than treaties and summits. 

To be clear, the United States isn’t the only player thinking this way. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has been advancing the same model for over a decade. Turkey, Iran and Russia are also exploring new logistics and energy corridors. But what sets IMEC apart — and what makes Trump’s recent moves notable — is that it offers an opening for the U.S. to compete without large-scale military deployments or decades-long aid packages. 

Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries.

For all his unpredictability, Trump has always had a sense for economic leverage. That may be what we’re seeing here: less a doctrine than a direction. Less about grand visions, and more about unlocking chokepoints. 

There’s no guarantee it will work. The region could turn on a dime. And the corridor could remain, as it is now, a partially built concept waiting on political will. But Trump’s moves suggest he’s trying to build the conditions for it to restart — not by talking about peace, but by making peace a condition for investment. 

In a region long shaped by wars over ideology and territory, that may be its own kind of strategy. 

Democrats in Washington, D.C., are misrepresenting major criticisms of President Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ with incorrect facts, according to an expert who spoke to Fox News Digital this week as Trump’s budget reconciliation package is debated in Congress. 

‘The bill doesn’t cut benefits for anyone who has income below the poverty line, anyone who is working at least 20 hours a week and not caring for a child, and people who are Americans,’ Jim Agresti, president and cofounder of Just Facts, told Fox News Digital in response to criticisms from Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including Sen. Josh Hawley, that Trump’s bill will cut Medicaid and disproportionately hurt the poor. 

‘In other words, it cuts out illegal immigrants who are not Americans and fraudsters. So that narrative has no basis in reality. See, what’s been going on since the Medicaid program was started? Is that it’s been expanded and expanded and extended. You know, it got its start in 1966. And since that time, the poverty rate has stayed roughly level around 11% to 15%. While the portion of people in the United States on Medicaid has skyrocketed from 3% to 29%. Right now, 2.5 times more people are on Medicaid than are in poverty.’

Medicaid cuts and reform have been a major sticking point with Democrats, who have merged data from two new reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to back up claims that nearly 14 million would lose coverage. The White House and Republicans have objected, as not all the policy proposals evaluated were actually included in Republicans’ legislation, and far fewer people would actually face insurance loss. 

Instead, Republicans argue that their proposed reforms to implement work requirements, strengthen eligibility checks and crack down on Medicaid for illegal immigrants preserve the program for those who really need it. 

‘I agree,’ Dem. Rep. Jasmine Crockett said in response to a claim on CNN that Republicans ‘want poor people to die’ with Medicaid cuts. 

Agresti told Fox News Digital that the Medicaid cuts are aimed at bringing people out of poverty and waste. 

‘It’s putting some criteria down to say, ‘Hey, if you want this, and you’re not in poverty, you need to work,” Agresti said. ‘You need to do something to better your situation, which is what these programs are supposed to be, lifting people out of poverty, not sticking them there for eternity. So the whole idea is to get people working, give them an incentive. Hey, if you want to do better in life, and you want this Medicaid coverage, then you have to earn it.’

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has claimed the bill is a ‘death sentence for the working class,’ because it raises health insurance ‘copayments for poor people.’

Agresti called that claim ‘outlandish.’

‘First of all, the Big Beautiful Bill does not raise copayments on anyone who’s below the poverty line,’ he explained. ‘Now, for people who are above the poverty line, it requires states to at least charge some sort of copayment, and it also reduces, actually, the max copayment from $100 per visit to $35 per visit.’

Agresti went on to explain that under the current system, ‘people have basically free rein to just go to a doctor or an emergency room or any other place without any co-payment, and they’re not in poverty.’

‘What ends up happening is they waste a ton of money,’ Agresti said. ‘This has been proven through randomized control trials, which are the gold standard for social science analysis, where you have people in a lottery system, some people get the benefit, and some people don’t, and what you end up seeing is that people who don’t have to have skin in the game, abuse emergency rooms, they go there for a stuffy nose, rack up all this money, and it does nothing to improve their health. It’s just wasteful.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sanders Communications Director Anna Bahr said, ‘Mr. Agresti’s facts here are simply incorrect.’

Sanders’ office added that ‘nearly half of all enrollees on the ACA exchanges are Republicans’ and pointed to the House-passed reconciliation bill that Sanders’ office argues ‘says that if a worker can’t navigate the maze of paperwork that the bill creates for Medicaid enrollees, they are barred from receiving ACA tax credits as well.’

‘But workers must earn at least $15,650 per year to qualify for tax credits on the ACA marketplaces – approximately equal to the annual income for a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage.’

Sanders’ office also pointed to ‘CBO estimates that 16 million people will lose insurance as a result of the House-passed bill and the Republicans ending the ACA’s enhanced premium tax credits.’

Sanders’ office also reiterated that the House-passed bill makes a ‘fundamental change’ to copay for Medicaid beneficiaries, shifting from optional to mandatory.

‘While claiming that I’m ‘incorrect,’ Sanders’ staff fails to provide a single fact that shows the BBB cuts health care for poor working Americans,’ Agresti responded. 

‘It’s especially laughable that they cite expanded Obamacare subsidies in this context, because people in poverty aren’t even eligible for them,’ Agresti continued. ‘After this ‘temporary’ Covid-era handout expires, people with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level — or $150,600 for a family of five — will still be eligible for this welfare program, although they will receive less.’

Agresti argued that the claim a ‘max $35 copay (for people who are not poor) ‘hurts working families’’ is not supported by research ‘which makes generalizations and merely cites ‘associations.”

‘As commonly taught in high school math, association doesn’t prove causation,’ Agresti said. 

Sanders’ office told Fox News Digital, ‘Mr. Agresti seems to believe that a working family of four earning only $32,150 per year doesn’t deserve help affording their health care. Health care in the United States is more expensive than anywhere in the world. Terminating health care coverage for 16 million Americans and increasing health care costs for millions will make it harder for working people to afford the health care they need, even if Mr. Agresti doesn’t agree.’

Agresti also took issue with the narrative that cuts cannot be made to Medicaid without cutting benefits to people who are entitled to them.

‘The Government Accountability Office has put out figures that are astonishing, hundreds of billions of dollars a year are going to waste,’ Agresti said. ‘So, yeah, some criteria to make sure that doesn’t happen is a wise idea. Unfortunately, there is a ton of white-collar crime in this country, and this kind of crime is a white-collar crime. It’s not committed with a gun, or by robbing or punching someone, it’s committed by fraud, and there’s an enormous amount of it. 

‘And the big, beautiful bill, again, seeks to rein that in by putting a criteria to make sure we’re checking people’s income, we’re checking their assets. A lot of these federal programs, government health care programs, they’ve stopped checking assets. So you could be a lottery winner sitting on $3 million in cash and have very little income. And still get children’s health insurance program benefits for your kids.’

Hawley said on Monday that he did not have a problem with some of the marquee changes to Medicaid that his House Republican counterparts wanted, including stricter work requirements, booting illegal immigrants from benefit rolls and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the program that serves tens of millions of Americans.

However, he noted that about 1.3 million Missourians rely on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and contended that most were working.

‘These are not people who are sitting around, these are people who are working,’ he said. ‘They’re on Medicaid because they cannot afford private health insurance, and they don’t get it on the job.’

‘And I just think it’s wrong to go to those people and say, ‘Well, you know, we know you’re doing the best, we know that you’re working hard, but we’re going to take away your health care access,’’ he continued. 

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy and Alex Miller contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump came back into office promising no new wars. So far, he’s kept that promise. But he’s also left much of Washington — and many of America’s allies — confused by a series of rapid, unexpected moves across the Middle East. 

In just a few months, Trump has reopened backchannels with Iran, then turned around and threatened its regime with collapse. He’s kept Israel at arm’s length — skipping it on his regional tour — before signaling support once again. He lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria’s Islamist leader, a figure long treated as untouchable in Washington. And he made headlines by hosting Pakistan’s top general at the White House, even as India publicly objected. 

For those watching closely, it’s been hard to pin down a clear doctrine. Critics see improvisation — sometimes even contradiction. But step back, and a pattern begins to emerge. It’s not about ideology, democracy promotion, or traditional alliances. It’s about access. Geography. Trade. 

More specifically, it may be about restarting a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. 

The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. 

IMEC’s vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground. 

But before construction could begin, war broke out in Gaza. 

The October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel’s military response sent the region into crisis. Normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel fell apart. The Red Sea became a warzone for shipping. And Gulf capital flows paused. The corridor — and the broader idea of using infrastructure to tie the region together — was quietly shelved.

That’s the backdrop for Trump’s current moves. Taken individually, they seem scattered. Taken together, they align with the logic of clearing obstacles to infrastructure. Trump may not be drawing maps in the Situation Room. But his instincts — for leverage, dealmaking and unpredictability — are removing the very roadblocks that halted IMEC in the first place. 

His approach to Iran is a prime example. In April, backchannels were reopened on the nuclear front. In May, a Yemen truce was brokered — reducing attacks on Gulf shipping. In June, after Israeli strikes inside Iran, Trump escalated rhetorically, calling for Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender.’ That combination of engagement and pressure may sound erratic. But it mirrors the approach that cleared a diplomatic path with North Korea: soften the edges, then apply public pressure. 

Meanwhile, Trump’s temporary distancing from Israel is harder to miss. He skipped it on his regional tour and avoided aligning with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s continued hard-line approach to Gaza. Instead, he praised Qatar — a U.S. military partner and quiet mediator in the Gaza talks — and signaled support for Gulf-led reconstruction plans. The message: if Israel refuses to engage in regional stabilization, it won’t control the map. 

Trump also made the unexpected decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria’s new leader, President Ahmad al-Sharaa — a figure with a past in Islamist groups, now leading a transitional government backed by the UAE. Critics saw the move as legitimizing extremism. But in practice, it unlocked regional financing and access to transit corridors once blocked by U.S. policy. 

Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. Welcoming Pakistan’s military chief was less about loyalty, and more about leverage. In corridor politics, geography often trumps alliances. 

None of this means Trump has a master plan. There’s no confirmed strategy memo that links these moves to IMEC. And the region remains volatile. Iran’s internal stability is far from guaranteed. The Gaza conflict could reignite. Saudi and Qatari interests don’t always align. But there’s a growing logic underneath the diplomacy: de-escalate just enough conflict to make capital flow again — and make corridors investable. 

That logic may not be ideologically pure. It certainly isn’t about spreading democracy. But it reflects a real shift in U.S. foreign policy. Call it infrastructure-first geopolitics — where trade routes, ports and pipelines matter more than treaties and summits. 

To be clear, the United States isn’t the only player thinking this way. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has been advancing the same model for over a decade. Turkey, Iran and Russia are also exploring new logistics and energy corridors. But what sets IMEC apart — and what makes Trump’s recent moves notable — is that it offers an opening for the U.S. to compete without large-scale military deployments or decades-long aid packages. 

Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries.

For all his unpredictability, Trump has always had a sense for economic leverage. That may be what we’re seeing here: less a doctrine than a direction. Less about grand visions, and more about unlocking chokepoints. 

There’s no guarantee it will work. The region could turn on a dime. And the corridor could remain, as it is now, a partially built concept waiting on political will. But Trump’s moves suggest he’s trying to build the conditions for it to restart — not by talking about peace, but by making peace a condition for investment. 

In a region long shaped by wars over ideology and territory, that may be its own kind of strategy. 

After a week of intense speculation about whether President Donald Trump will launch a strike on Iran in support of Israel’s efforts to eliminate the country’s nuclear weapons program, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced there is a ‘substantial chance’ for renewed negotiations.

This comes as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is reportedly scheduled to meet with European leaders in Geneva Friday.

Speaking with reporters in the White House press briefing room Thursday, Leavitt confirmed U.S. and Iranian officials have engaged in six rounds of direct and indirect negotiations during the conflict with Israel, which broke out June 13.

Leavitt, however, did not say whether U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who has been leading the president’s negotiations with Iran, would be present for the meetings in Geneva.

Asked by Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Jacqui Heinrich whether the fact that Iranian officials had found a way to get to Geneva meant they could also get to the White House to engage in negotiations, Leavitt responded: ‘I am not going to get into hypotheticals, but as you heard from the president yesterday, they have expressed interest in doing so.’

Addressing the possibility of the U.S. becoming directly involved in the conflict, Leavitt read a message from the president saying, ‘Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.’

While she said Trump is hoping to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, she said he has simultaneously been very ‘direct and clear’ that the terms of any deal with the country must include no enrichment of uranium, which would contribute to the Iranian nuclear program the president has long opposed.

She stressed the U.S. faces a serious threat due to Iran’s nuclear program, saying, ‘Iran has never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon.’ 

‘Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon. All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that,’ said Leavitt. ‘And it would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would, of course, pose an existential threat not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the entire world.’

Nonetheless, Leavitt said, ‘Iran is absolutely not able to achieve a nuclear weapon. The president has been very clear about that. And, by the way, the deal that Special Envoy Witkoff proposed to the Iranians was both realistic and acceptable within its terms, and that’s why the president sent that deal to them.’

Leavitt emphasized Trump’s stance that Iran ‘can and should make a deal’ to end the conflict or ‘they will face grave consequences.’

‘Iran is in a very weak and vulnerable position because of the strikes and the attacks from Israel,’ she said. ‘We sent a deal to them that was practical, that was realistic.’

According to French outlet RFI, the talks Friday with the Iranians will include French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul and European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas.

The outlet reported Barrot saying, ‘France, Britain and Germany stand ready to bring our competence and experience on this matter’ and ‘we are ready to take part in negotiations aimed at obtaining from Iran a lasting rollback of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.’

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Lammy Thursday. According to a statement by State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, the two discussed the Israeli-Iran conflict and ‘agreed Iran can never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.

In response to additional questions about potential U.S. negotiations with Iran, a representative for the White House directed Fox News Digital to Leavitt’s comments in the briefing room.

Army Gen. Michael ‘Erik’ Kurilla is no stranger to conflict, especially in the Middle East. 

Two decades ago as a lieutenant colonel, he was at the front lines of combat fighting off insurgents in Mosul, Iraq, while leading the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment. The battalion’s mission was to conduct security patrols and coordinate offensive attacks against anti-Iraqi insurgents targeting Iraqi security forces and Iraqi police stations. 

During Kurilla’s tenure leading the battalion, more than 150 soldiers earned the Purple Heart for injuries, and the battalion lost at least a dozen soldiers, The New York Times reported in August 2005. 

‘There will always be somebody willing (to) pick up an AK-47 and shoot Americans,’ Kurilla told The New York Times in August 2005. 

Kurilla did not complete that deployment unscathed. Later, in August 2005, Kurilla found himself caught in a Mosul, Iraq, firefight, where he sustained multiple gunshot wounds, earning him a Bronze Star with valor and one of his two Purple Heart awards. 

Now, Kurilla is facing another battle as the commander of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, serving as the top military officer overseeing U.S. military forces based in the Middle East.

That means Kurilla, who attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, is at the forefront of military operations as President Donald Trump contemplates whether to engage in military strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites. 

CENTCOM is one of the U.S. military’s 11 combatant commands and encompasses 21 nations in the Middle East in its area of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Those familiar with Kurilla claim he’s the perfect person for the job, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described Kurilla as an uplifting leader. 

‘General Kurilla is a bold, dynamic, and inspiring leader who strikes fear into the hearts of America’s enemies,’ Hegseth said in a statement Thursday to Fox News Digital. ‘He’s a warrior through and through who always puts his country, mission, and troops first. It has been an honor to serve alongside him in defense of our great nation.’

Retired Army Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 2022 when Biden nominated Kurilla for the role that Kurilla is the ideal CENTCOM leader. 

‘If there ever was some way to feed into a machine the requirements for the perfect leader of CENTCOM — the character traits, the attributes, the experiences, the knowledge and the personality that would be ideal — that machine would spit out Erik Kurilla,’ Milley said in 2022, according to the Defense Department. ‘Erik’s got vast experience in combat (and) on staffs.

‘He’s a visionary, he’s a thinker and he’s a doer,’ Milley said. ‘He understands both the physical and human terrain and is able to identify root causes of problems and develop systems. He’s not at all a linear thinker. He’s actually a very gifted problem-solver.’

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie, Kurilla’s CENTCOM predecessor, voiced similar sentiments. 

‘I can’t think of anybody better qualified to lead CENTCOM’s next chapter than Erik Kurilla,’ McKenzie said in 2022, according to the Pentagon. ‘He’s no stranger to the CENTCOM (area of operations). He’s no stranger to the headquarters.’

Notable figures who’ve previously filled the job leading CENTCOM include former defense secretaries, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, who served during Trump’s first term, and retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, who served during former President Joe Biden’s administration.

Fox News Digital reached out to CENTCOM, McKenzie and Milley for comment and did not get a response by the time of publication. 

The region is familiar territory for Kurilla. The general spent a decade between 2004 and 2014 overseeing conventional and special operations forces during consecutive tours in the Middle East that fell under the CENTCOM purview. 

Additionally, Kurilla has served in key CENTCOM staff and leadership positions, including serving as the command’s chief of staff from August 2018 to September 2019. Prior to leading CENTCOM, the general also commanded the 2nd Ranger Battalion, the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 82nd Airborne Division and the XVIII Airborne Corps, according to his official bio. 

In addition to deploying to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Inherent Resolve, he deployed to Afghanistan with Operation Enduring Freedom. Other awards he’s earned include the Combat Infantryman Badge, awarded to Army infantry or special forces officers who’ve encountered active ground combat. 

Kurilla, who the Senate confirmed to lead CENTCOM in February 2022 and will exit the role later in 2025, told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee June 10 that, since October 2023, when Hamas first attacked Israel, American service members have faced increased threats in the region. 

Specifically, he said, U.S. troops have come under direct fire by nearly 400 unmanned aerial systems, 350 rockets, 50 ballistic missiles and 30 cruise missiles launched by Iranian-backed groups. 

He said CENTCOM has encountered the ‘most highly kinetic period than at any other time in the past decade.’

‘We have been at the brink of regional war several times with the first state-on-state attacks between Iran and Israel in their history,’ Kurilla told lawmakers. ‘In the Red Sea, Houthi attempts to kill Americans operating in the Red Sea necessitated an aggressive response to protect our sailors and mariners and restore freedom of navigation. This is while Tehran is continuing to progress towards a nuclear weapons program — threatening catastrophic ramifications across the region and beyond.’ 

As a result, Kurilla said CENTCOM is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. Kurilla said he has provided Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth a host of options to employ to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran. 

Since Kurilla’s testimony, tensions have escalated even further in the Middle East after Israel kicked off massive airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear sites that Israel claims have killed several high-ranking military leaders. Likewise, Iran also launched strikes against Israel as the two ramp up military campaigns against one another.

Trump is still navigating whether the U.S. will conduct direct strikes against Iran. Trump told reporters he may order strikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites and that the ‘next week is going to be very big.’

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,’ Trump said. ‘I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate.’ 

U.S. troops based in the Middle East could face increased attacks in the coming days or weeks, should the U.S. decide to become involved in the growing conflict between Israel and Iran. 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that President Donald Trump will make a decision in the next two weeks whether the U.S. will move forward and strike Iranian nuclear facilities. 

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it,’ Trump said Wednesday. ‘I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate.’ 

Meanwhile, Iran has issued a clear message: Doing so will come with consequences. Iran has cautioned that the U.S. will suffer if it chooses to become involved in the conflict, and previously issued retaliatory strikes against bases where U.S. troops were housed after the U.S. killed a top Iranian general in 2020. 

‘The Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage,’ Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday, according to state media. 

The Pentagon has bolstered its forces in the Middle East in light of the growing tensions, including sending the aircraft carrier Nimitz from the South China Sea to join the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the Middle East. 

The Pentagon referred Fox News Digital to Department of Defense spokesperson Sean Parnell’s Monday statement that American forces remain in a ‘defensive posture’ and Hegseth’s announcement Monday that more forces had been deployed to the Middle East. 

‘Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these deployments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region,’ Hegseth said Monday. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., pressed Hegseth Wednesday for details regarding what contingency plans are in place from drones amid rising tensions in the Middle East. Three U.S. service members were killed in an unmanned drone attack in Jordan in January 2024 that was attributed to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-backed militia. 

‘I have no assurance that we have the capacity to safeguard against a swarm of small, lightweight, slow-moving drones that are, in my view, our major vulnerability, and right now, if we engaged in the Iran conflict, would put us and U.S. personnel at risk there,’ Blumenthal said Wednesday. 

The U.S. currently has more than 40,000 U.S. troops and Defense Department civilians stationed in the Middle East. Here are some of the countries where U.S. military personnel are based and could face heightened threats:

Iraq 

Roughly 2,500 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Iraq as of September 2024, and are assigned to Combined Joint Task Force–Operation Inherent Resolve, according to the Department of Defense. Their role in Iraq involves advising and supporting partner forces in the region to defeat ISIS. 

Following the 2020 U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, Iranian forces launched ballistic missile attacks at Erbil Air Base and Ain al-Asad Air Base in Iraq, where U.S. troops are stationed. 

Jordan

About 350 U.S. troops are deployed to Jordan at a remote military base known as Tower 22, according to the Department of Defense. 

In January 2024, three soldiers were killed and another 40 were injured when a one-way uncrewed aerial system struck Tower 22. 

In May, ten New York Army National Guard soldiers were awarded the Purple Heart for the injuries they suffered in the attack. The Pentagon blamed an Iranian-backed militia for the attack. 

Kuwait

The U.S. currently operates five bases in Kuwait: Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Base, Camp Buehring, Camp Patriot and Camp Spearhead. 

As of January, approximately 13,500 U.S. troops are based there and primarily are focused on eliminating the threat of ISIS, according to the U.S. State Department. 

Qatar 

Qatar hosts U.S. Central Command’s forward headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base, home of the Air Force’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, which Air Forces Central Command has dubbed the ‘largest and most diverse wing’ within the command. The wing includes airlift, aerial refueling intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and aeromedical evacuation assets, according to Air Forces Central Command. 

Bahrain 

Naval Forces Central Command is based out of Manama, Bahrain, where it spearheads a coalition of regional and international partners that are focused on supporting task forces targeting counterterrorism, counter-piracy and maritime security in the region. 

The Navy first established a base in Bahrain in 1971, which has hosted Naval Forces Central Command since 1983. 

United Arab Emirates

Just 20 miles south of the United Arab Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi is Al Dhafra Air Base, home of the Air Force’s 380th Air Expeditionary Wing. 

The wing includes unmanned aircraft including the RQ-4 Global Hawk, a remotely piloted surveillance aircraft. 

Several Boeing 747s have been spotted on radar leaving China for Iran over the last week, according to reports, sparking concerns that the CCP is helping the Middle Eastern nation transport cargo or people out of the country as Israel continues to strike the country’s nuclear facilities. 

Starting on June 14th, FlightRadar24 shows that at least five flights traveled from China to Iran, and The Telegraph reported that the ‘mystery transport planes’ had flown westward along northern China before crossing into Kazakhstan, south through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and then fell off radar as they approached Iran. 

Additionally, the report indicated that the flights had a final destination of Luxembourg but don’t appear to have ever crossed into European airspace.

Some experts have speculated that these types of planes are typically used for transport and could be evidence of China aiding its longtime ally Iran during the conflict with Israel, although Fox News Digital has not independently confirmed the nature of the flights. 

‘I think it’s important to remember what the relationship is, forty-three percent of China’s oil and gas comes from the Middle East, a large volume of that from Iran,’ Robert Greenway, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, told ‘The Ingraham Angle’ on Wednesday night. 

‘It likes to buy sanctioned oil below market value, and that fuels the Chinese economy and also its military ambitions, and so, that’s the central relationship. They’ve been relatively quiet – in fact, extremely quiet – about the current conflict and coming to Iran’s assistance. We also know that a large fire in Bandar-Bas port was Chinese solid propellant for missiles that exploded and created a tremendous amount of damage just about a month ago. I think it’s unlikely to see Chinese arms shipments under the circumstances to Iran. It’s more likely that Iran may be removing material or personnel or regime valuables to safe haven in light of the conflict. I think that’s probably the extent to which China is willing to accept the risk associated with the current circumstances.’

In 2021, Fox News Digital reported that Tehran and Beijing signed a 25-year cooperation deal amidst great fanfare in the Iranian capital. University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Marandi, who is close to the regime, told Fox News that it is about much more than what’s on paper. 

‘This strategic partnership is important because it allows Iran and China to build a roadmap for long-term relations that will be much more fruitful,’ he said. ‘It’s also a signal being sent to the United States. The more the U.S. tries to isolate Iran and China, the more it causes countries like Iran and China to move more closely to each other.’

Some have cast doubt on the flights representing a nefarious connection between the two nations, including Atlantic Council fellow Tuvia Gering who posted on X that an aviation expert told him the flights are ‘nothing to write home about.’ 

‘There are regular cargo flights by the Luxembourg-based freight company from several locations in China to Europe, with a stopover in Turkmenistan (just a few dozen kilometers from the Iranian border),’ Gering wrote. 

‘Some flight tracking websites lose the tracking signal shortly before landing and continue to show a projected route that appears to enter Iranian airspace. The sites clearly indicate that this is an estimated path; checking the aircraft tail numbers shows they take off again from Turkmenistan a few hours later, and reviewing the flight history of these routes shows they always land in Ashgabat and do not continue into Iran. All this is before even considering the obvious logic that a major European cargo company is highly unlikely to be the channel through which China transfers its super-advanced, top-secret strategic weapons to Iran.’

Tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated significantly in recent days, with the United States contemplating whether it will get directly involved in striking Iran. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and he is expected to meet with national security and defense leaders again on Thursday. 

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,’ Trump said Wednesday. 

‘And I said, why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn’t you go? I said to people, why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country. It’s very sad to watch this,’ the president added.