President Donald Trump told reporters Friday that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is ‘wrong’ in her assessment that Iran is not close to building a nuclear weapon.

Trump’s comments came after he departed Air Force One en route to his Bedminister, New Jersey, golf club, when he stepped aside to take a few questions from reporters. 

‘She’s wrong,’ Trump said after he was asked about Gabbard’s assessment that Iran is not close to building a nuclear weapon. ‘My intelligence community is wrong.’

Trump’s remarks were preceded by a question from a reporter asking the president, who publicly opposed the Iraq war roughly 20 years ago, what made this situation with Iran different – considering no weapons of mass destruction were ever found after the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq. 

‘There were no weapons of mass destruction. I never thought there were. That was somewhat pre-nuclear. You know, it was –  there was a nuclear age, but nothing like it is today,’ Trump said. ‘And it looked like I’m right about the material that they’ve gathered already [in Iran]. It’s a tremendous amount of material. And I think within a matter of weeks, or certainly within a matter of months, [Iran was] going to be able to have a nuclear weapon. We can’t let that happen.’

In March, DNI Gabbard said during an opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee that that the intelligence community ‘continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.’

Meanwhile, last week Gabbard posted a cryptic three and a half minute video on X last week, warning of the risks of a potential nuclear war, and blasting ‘warmongers’ for bringing the world ‘closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.’

President Donald Trump said aboard Air Force One earlier this week that he doesn’t care what Gabbard says, ‘I think they were very close to having one,’ when pressed on the pair’s divergent opinions. 

This week, according to The Guardian, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said Gabbard’s assessment has been ‘reconfirmed’ by current intelligence.

Fox News Digital reached out to Gabbard’s office for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

European and Iranian negotiators ended their talks in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday without a clear breakthrough, but diplomats told The Associated Press they were hopeful of more discussions with the Iranians.

The talks with Iran come a day after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a message from President Trump, stating, ‘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.’

One former Pentagon official says there is an important issue that is not being discussed.

‘If Iran gives up its nuclear program as Trump has demanded, there’s another problem we’re not talking about, which is how do we get all the nuclear material outside of Iran,’ Michael Rubin, an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, told Fox News Digital.

Rubin, who has lived in post-revolution Iran, Yemen, and both pre- and postwar Iraq, mentioned that there are a few options available.

‘The United States could do it, but we don’t want boots on the ground.’

He said the International Atomic Energy Agency could be tasked with doing it, adding, ‘Who really trusts the United Nations and U.N. agencies?’

‘If Trump is serious about getting Iran to forfeit its nuclear program, it’s time to start having a conversation with other allies about who could take command, control and custody of this nuclear material until it’s outside of Iran.’

Rubin said he would nominate India to seize the nuclear material.

‘They are trusted by the Americans, they’re trusted by the Israelis and they’re trusted by the Iranians. But we need to start not only being reactive, but also proactive,’ said Rubin

Rubin cited a quote from Margaret Thatcher to George H.W. Bush in 1990 —  ‘Don’t go wobbly on me now, George’ — when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq. 

‘I suspect Marco Rubio is filling Margaret Thatcher’s britches, that he is the one going around now to our European allies, saying, ‘Don’t go wobbly on me now.,’’ said Rubin.

‘[He] is saying this to everyone else within the European Union and the United Kingdom because if the Europeans have their choice, they’re going to choose quiet over common sense.’

On Thursday, Rubio spoke with counterparts to discuss the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. 

According to State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, he spoke with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot in separate conversations about the ongoing conflict. 

They all agreed to ‘continue to work together closely to commit to a path of peace and ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon,’ Bruce said.

Louis Casiano and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Diplomats from Britain, France, Germany and the European Union met with Iran’s foreign minister on Friday, urging the country to continue diplomacy with the U.S. one week after stalled nuclear talks escalated into attacks between Iran and Israel. 

‘We are keen to continue ongoing discussions and negotiations with Iran, and we urge Iran to continue their talks with the United States,’ British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said. ‘We were clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.’

The meeting, held in Geneva, Switzerland, was the first face-to-face with an Iranian leader since last weekend’s flashpoint. 

‘The good result today is that we leave the room with the impression that the Iranian side is fundamentally ready to continue talking about all important issues,’ German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said. He said the two sides had held ‘very serious talks.’

The meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi lasted for more than three hours.

‘Military operations can slow Iran’s nuclear program but in no way can they eliminate it,’ French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said. ‘We know well — after having seen what happened in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya — how illusory and dangerous it is to want to impose regime change from outside.’

In a joint statement, France, the U.K., Germany and the E.U. said they shared their ‘grave concerns’ with Araghchi ‘with regard to the escalation of tensions in the Middle East and reiterated their firm commitment to Israel’s security,’ adding that ‘all sides should refrain from taking steps which lead to further escalation in the region, and urgently find a negotiated solution to ensure that Iran never obtains or acquires a nuclear weapon.’

Early last Friday, Israel launched airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites after nuclear talks seemed to stall, causing Iran to retaliate. The two countries continue to trade strikes. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared soon afterward that the strikes were necessary to ‘roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.’

The meeting also comes less than a month after a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency warned the country is swiftly increasing its stockpile of near weapons-grade enriched uranium. 

On Friday, the European diplomats ‘reiterated their longstanding concerns about Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme, which has no credible civilian purpose, in violation of almost all JCPoA provisions.’

They added that they ‘discussed avenues towards a negotiated solution to Iran’s nuclear programme, while emphasising the urgency of the matter. They expressed their willingness to continue discussing all questions relevant to Iran’s nuclear programme and broader issues,’ urging Iran to cooperate with the IAEA.

Earlier this week, U.S. President Donald Trump said he may consider a U.S. strike on Iran. 

‘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 told reporters Wednesday on the U.S. potentially striking Iran as it continues trading deadly strikes with Israel. ‘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.’

Trump on Friday told reporters the U.S. is ‘willing and able’ to talk to Iran, adding that Iran doesn’t want to talk to Europe. ‘They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to help,’ he said. 

He added that while he was against the war in Iraq in 2003 because he didn’t believe there were weapons on mass destruction, he believes Iran is building a nuclear weapon, saying that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is ‘wrong’ in saying there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that. 

‘The material that they’ve gathered already. It’s a tremendous amount of material. And I think within a matter of weeks, or certainly within a matter of months, they are going to be able to have a nuclear weapon,’ he said. ‘We can’t let that happen.’ 

On Friday, the U.K., France, Germany and EU diplomats, said they also ‘shared their support for discussions to continue’ with Iran and ‘welcomed ongoing US efforts to seek a negotiated solution. They expressed their willingness to meet again in the future.’

 Fox News’ Emma Colton and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency essentially dismantled by DOGE amid complaints from Democrats that cutting waste would harm impoverished countries, is at the center of a massive bribery scandal.

A federal contracting officer and three businessmen have pleaded guilty in a scheme involving bribes like cash, NBA tickets, and a country club wedding in a scandal the Department of Justice (DOJ) said was part of a $550 million scam, Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent Mike Emanuel reported Friday. 

Roderick Watson, 57, worked as a USAID contracting officer, according to a DOJ press release, and pleaded guilty to ‘bribery of a public official.’

According to the DOJ, Watson sold his influence starting in 2013, with contractors Walter Barnes, owner of Vistant, and Darryl Britt, owner of Apprio, funneling payoffs through subcontractor Paul Young to hide their tracks. 

‘During the scheme, Britt and Barnes paid bribes to Watson that were often concealed by passing them through Young, who was the president of another subcontractor to Apprio and Vistant,’ the press release explained. 

‘Britt and Barnes also regularly funneled bribes to Watson, including cash, laptops, thousands of dollars in tickets to a suite at an NBA game, a country club wedding, downpayments on two residential mortgages, cellular phones, and jobs for relatives. The bribes were also often concealed through electronic bank transfers falsely listing Watson on payroll, incorporated shell companies, and false invoices. Watson is alleged to have received bribes valued at more than approximately $1 million as part of the scheme.’

Vistant was awarded in November 2023, as part of a joint venture, a contract worth up to $800 million with one of the focuses of that contract being to address ‘a variety of issues affecting the root causes of irregular migration from Central America to the United States,’ an issue that President Joe Biden tasked then-Vice President Kamala Harris with during his presidency.

Several days later, that contract was canceled after USAID published a notice that said Vistant was excluded from government contracting due to ‘evidence of conduct of a lack of business honesty or integrity.’

The joint venture then successfully sued the government over being put on that exclusion list and was re-awarded the contract and given a $10,000 payment in August 2024. 

‘Corruption in government programs will not be tolerated. Watson abused his position of trust for personal gain while federal contractors engaged in a pay-to-play scheme,’ Acting Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Sean Bottary of the USAID Office of Inspector General (USAID-OIG) said in the press release.

‘USAID-OIG is firmly committed to rooting out fraud and corruption within U.S. foreign assistance programs. Today’s announcement underscores our unwavering focus on exposing criminal activity, including bribery schemes by those entrusted to faithfully award government contracts. We appreciate our longstanding partnership with the Department of Justice in holding accountable those who defraud American taxpayers.’    

USAID was one of the public faces and most drastic examples of DOGE’s efforts to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government, and the effort resulted in the agency’s programs being cut by 83%, while the programs deemed vital were moved to the State Department. 

USAID’s website went dark, and employees were barred from entering its headquarters on Feb. 3, while others had their work put on hold. The Trump administration then announced that all USAID direct-hire personnel would be put on administrative leave.

The agency came under fire for many funding choices, including allocating $1.5 million for a program that sought to ‘advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’ and a $70,000 program for a ‘DEI musical’ in Ireland.

During DOGE’s sweep, it was revealed that U.S. dollars were ending up in the hands of terror-linked groups, such as funds reportedly providing ‘full funding’ for al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to attend college in Colorado, Fox News Digital previously reported. 

As DOGE was dismantling USAID, many Democrats and media outlets blasted the cuts, claiming they would harm impoverished recipients of aid across the globe and some, including U2 frontman Bono, who said the cuts would lead to over 300,000 deaths. 

Several House and Senate Democrats protested outside of USAID’s headquarters in early February, expressing outrage over the layoffs and cuts, The Hill reported.

‘Anybody who cares about good and effective government should be concerned about the waste, fraud, and abuse in government agencies, including USAID,’ Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said in the DOJ’s press release. 

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy and Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump has reported to the West Wing’s Situation Room multiple times in recent days as the conflict in Iran comes to a rolling boil and the U.S. considers launching its own attacks on the Islamic Republic over mounting concerns it could produce a nuclear weapon in a short span of time. 

‘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 told reporters Wednesday on the U.S. potentially striking Iran as it continues trading deadly strikes with Israel. ‘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.’

Fox News Digital spoke to previous presidential administration officials — Fox News host and former Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who served under the first Trump administration, and former National Security Advisor under the first Trump administration John Bolton, who also served as ambassador to the U.N. under President George W. Bush’s administration. They both conveyed the serious and historic tone the room and its meetings typically hold. 

The Situation Room is a high-tech 5,000-square-foot complex in the West Wing of the White House that includes multiple conference rooms. President John F. Kennedy commissioned the complex in 1961 following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba that same year, according to the National Archives. The complex was built in order to provide future presidents a dedicated area for crisis management, and was revamped in 2006 and renovated again in 2023. 

‘I often would sit there and think about the Osama bin Laden raid,’ McEnany told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday morning. ‘This is where we saw our heroic Special Forces take out Osama bin Laden during the Obama administration. And I think we’re at another point where similar decisions are being made, and even bigger decisions that may change the course of history are happening right now in that room.’

Trump again held a meeting in the Situation Room Thursday morning, when he received an intelligence briefing with national security advisers, which followed a Situation Room meeting on Wednesday afternoon, another meeting on Tuesday afternoon with national security advisers and a Monday evening meeting upon his abrupt return from the G7 summit in Canada this week. 

Top national security officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, are among officials who have joined Trump in the meetings as the administration weighs the spiraling conflict. 

Bolton explained to Fox Digital in a Thursday morning phone interview that two types of top-level meetings are held in the Situation Room. 

The first is known as a ‘principals meeting,’ he said, which includes Cabinet secretaries, such as the secretary of state and secretary of defense, and is chaired by the national security advisor — a role currently filled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

‘The principals committee usually meets to try and get everything sorted out so that they know what decisions the president is going to be confronted with,’ Bolton said. ‘They try and make sure all the information is pulled together so we can make an informed decision, set out the options they see, what the pros and cons are, and then have (the president) briefed.’ 

The second type of Situation Room meeting at the top level are official National Security Council meetings, which the president chairs. 

‘He chairs a full NSC meeting, and people review the information, update the situation, and the president can go back and forth with the advisors about asking questions, probing about the analysis, asking for more detail on something, kind of picking and choosing among the options, or suggesting new options,’ said Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor between April 2018 and September 2019. 

‘And out of that could well come decisions,’ he added. 

McEnany served as the first Trump administration’s top spokeswoman at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Coronavirus Task Force operated out of the Situation Room as COVID-19 swept across the nation. 

‘A lot of critical decisions were made during the pandemic,’ she said. ‘It’s a humbling encounter. Every time you go in, you leave your phone at the door. You go in, I think it’s like 5,000 square feet, you’re sitting there, there’s clocks up from every country around the world, the different time zones. And you’re just sitting there as critical decisions are made. And, in my case, it was regarding the pandemic, and there’s back and forth, there’s deliberation, and these decisions are made with the president there, obviously.’ 

She continued that during the pandemic, the task force would spend hours in the Situation Room on a daily basis as the team fielded an onslaught of updates from across the country. Trump frequently received the top lines from the meetings and joined the Situation Room during key decisions amid the spread of the virus. 

‘When he was in there, absolutely, there’s a deference,’ she said, referring to how the tone of the room would change upon Trump’s arrival. ‘Yet, you had key officials who spoke up, who were not afraid to give their point of view to him. But I think there’s a recognition he’s the commander in chief.’

Press secretaries typically do not attend high-profile National Security Council meetings in the Situation Room, but have security clearances and can call into the room if needed, and are given updates from senior officials. 

McEnany added that press secretaries wouldn’t typically want to be in the room for high-stakes talks because ‘you don’t want your head filled with these sensitive deliberations of classified information’ when speaking with the media.

Bolton explained that for an issue such as Iran, the Situation Room meetings are likely restrictive and include top national security officials, such as the secretary of defense, director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

‘Sometimes it includes many more people, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commerce Secretary, things like that,’ he said. ‘But in with this kind of decision, it could be very restrictive, so maybe just – well, there is no national security advisor – but, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, maybe the attorney general.’

Trump’s first national security advisor under the second administration, Mike Waltz, was removed from the role and nominated as the next U.S. ambassador to the UN in May, with Rubio taking on the additional role. The White House has also slashed NSC staffing since Trump took office, including after Rubio took the helm. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press conference on Thursday — the first since Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran June 12 — and said the next two weeks will be a critical time period as U.S. officials map out next steps. 

‘I have a message directly from the president, and I quote: ‘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.’ That’s a quote directly from the president,’ she said Thursday. 

Israel launched pre-emptive strikes on Iran June 12 after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared soon afterward that the strikes were necessary to ‘roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.’

He added that if Israel had not acted, ‘Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.’ 

Dubbed ‘Operation Rising Lion,’ the strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and killed a handful of senior Iranian military leaders.

Trump repeatedly has urged Iran to make a deal on its nuclear program, but the country pulled out of ongoing talks with the U.S. scheduled for Sunday in Oman. 

‘Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign,’ Trump posted to Truth Social Monday evening, when he abruptly left an ongoing G7 summit in Canada to better focus on the Israel–Iran conflict. ‘What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!’ 

Leavitt added during Thursday’s briefing that Trump is the ‘peacemaker-in-chief,’ while noting that he is also not one to shy from flexing America’s strength. 

‘The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution to the problems in the global conflicts in this world. Again, he is a peacemaker in chief. He is the peace-through-strength president. And so, if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the president’s always going to grab it. But he’s not afraid to use strength as well,’ she said. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for additional comment on the high-level talks but did not immediately receive a reply. 

While lawmakers argue over their position in the command chain as President Donald Trump mulls a possible strike on Iran, one expert believes that the president is within his constitutional authority to move ahead with a bunker-busting bomb.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are embroiled in debate over where they are in the pecking order. Some argue they should have the sole authority to authorize a strike, let alone declare war, while others believe that is within Trump’s purview if he wanted to join Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran.

The predominant argument on the Hill is that the entire point of supporting Israel is to prevent the Islamic Republic from creating or acquiring a nuclear weapon.

However, a legal scholar who helped to craft the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorized the usage of the U.S. armed forces to engage with the entities that then-President George W. Bush believed were behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City, argued that there was a difference between Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war and the president’s authority to use force abroad.

‘The position we took then, I think, is the same one that Trump should take now,’ John Yoo told Fox News Digital. ‘As a legal matter, the president doesn’t need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it’s very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies.’

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military. Nearly two centuries later, at the height of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was born, which sought to further define those roles.

Yoo agreed that the Constitution was clear that Congress has the sole authority to declare war, which effectively changes the legal status of the country. However, he countered that ‘the framers did not think that language meant that the President and Congress are like the two weapons officers on a nuclear sub and have to turn the keys at the same time to use force.’

‘The founders were very practical men, and they knew that Congress is slow to act, that Congress is a large body that deliberates, but it’s the president who acts swiftly and decisively in defense of the nation,’ he said.

Adding fuel to the debate in Washington are a pair of resolutions in the Senate from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and the House, from Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. The measures are designed to put a check on Trump’s power and reaffirm Congress’ constitutional authority.

Yoo said that the resolutions appeared to be forms of ‘political opportunism’ and noted that when former President Joe Biden wanted to send aid to Ukraine, when former President Barack Obama engaged abroad or when Trump authorized a drone strike to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, there was no resolution demanding Congress have a say.

‘People on the Hill are conflating what’s constitutionally necessary with what’s politically expedient,’ Yoo said. ‘Two very different things.’

Congress’ real power over war, he said, was the power of the purse, meaning lawmakers’ ability to decide whether to fund the Pentagon and military in their appropriations process. Republicans are currently working to ram Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ through Congress and onto his desk by Independence Day.

Included in the colossal bill is roughly $150 billion in funding for the Defense Department.

‘If Congress really doesn’t want us to, doesn’t want Trump to, get deeper involved in the Israel-Iran war,’ Yoo said. ‘All they got to do is not fund the military.’

‘The ironic thing is, you have people who are voting to give extra tens of billions of dollars to the Defense Department, who are then turning around and complaining that they don’t have the ability to vote on war,’ he said. ‘Every time they vote for funding, they’re voting to make war possible.’

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.