Authored by David Marks via The Brownstone Institute,

At a recent family gathering, I sat at the dinner table with a group of loved ones for the first time since the Covid-19 fiasco. Most of the cheerful discussion focused on the spectacular event of the week: my mother’s 100th birthday. 

I was the only person at the table who hadn’t had any form of flu for many years, while all of the guests had been ill to one degree or another. Almost everyone had tested positive for Covid at least once over the last few years with accompanying flu symptoms. Although no one in my family was hospitalized or died during the so-called pandemic; they all had been vaccinated repeatedly. As far as I know, my wife and I were the only ones in our families who didn’t get any Covid shot, and I haven’t been inoculated for anything in the last seventy years. 

On this happy occasion, the fear, masks, lockdowns, and accusations of the recent past had been mostly forgotten. It was not because the signs and symptoms of the disease had ended, nor that the call for vaccination or testing had been silenced. No one understood why they were still occasionally feeling unwell, with some continuing to report they’d been diagnosed with Covid. 

My view of healthcare has always been outside of the box, having practiced Traditional Chinese Medicine for many decades. I’d worked closely with medical doctors in treating some of their patients and also served as the chief medical officer of a volunteer fire department, appreciating life-saving emergency procedures of modern biomedicine. Through a range of experiences, I gained some knowledge of the causes and cures for suffering and illness.

Before the Covid fiasco, my alternative approach to illness had been respected; I’d shared my knowledge with whoever might ask. My medical perspective was no secret from friends and family. When my daughters were young, they weren’t vaccinated as there were no threats of deadly or debilitating diseases. This was in a place and time when vaccination for infants could be considered and refused, not done by rote. There was reasonable dialogue about the topic — and non-compliance certainly did not elicit threats of excommunication. 

As the specter of a pandemic arose, my opinion about vaccination became dangerous and irrelevant. 

From the outset, it was apparent that the claimed benefits of the new vaccines did not outweigh their risks. I openly said and wrote that the technology remained untested — though never advised anyone to refrain from inoculation — only counseling those who listened to remain fully informed.

It wasn’t complicated. Using genetic-based technology in developing a new drug that attempted to manipulate the magnificent complexity of the human immune system was at a minimum, a gamble. As easily demonstrated, this new technology embraced the bold assumption that human design was flawed and could be improved. It was premature to declare that this experimental treatment was safe and effective. We still don’t know the actual long-term effects — particularly over generations.

This simple and logical evaluation was considered preposterous by those who responded to the seemingly new disease with unbridled fear. The danger of the Covid flu was deemed sufficient to quell all reasonable responses about the risks of the vaccines. Suddenly, there was an eclipse of medical autonomy, and debate was scorned. The actions and motives of corrupted government agencies and their profit-oriented allies in Big Pharma were blessed by devious leaders, who deemed them altruistic and unquestionable. 

This atmosphere, developed and enforced in a haze of authoritarian dictates, created an unprecedented climate of hostility that infected all relationships. Because of my views and unvaccinated status, I rapidly became a pariah to my family.

Early on, when the fear tactics were in high gear, my cousin, who is an attorney involved in healthcare issues, sent a blistering email, condemning one of my first articles skewering the pandemic response. He left no room for dialogue and writing, it is the height of irresponsibility to add to the disinformation that is everywhere about the Covid vaccine. He concluded…

I am really upset that you have chosen to use your talents and thoughtful manner to give credence to the kind of wrongheaded rhetoric and conspiracy theories that feed the mass hysteria over accepting the reality that if we are to beat this pandemic, we need to not just take the vaccine if we want to, but take it on a societal level whether certain individuals want to or not. Your call for “transparency” just further feeds a certain, huge segment of the populations’ belief that they know better than the experts on this issue. They do not. You do not. I do not. But every reputable researcher and medical professional who has reviewed this data agree – it is safe, it is effective, and it is critical.

The venom exuded in response to my unwillingness to join in the mass delusion supporting vaccination was palpable. My crime was unforgivable.

Although we had been very close, all contact ended. However, it was not his unconscious, misdirected anger that troubled me, rather that he shared his views and wrath with my daughters, supporting their inclination to distance themselves from me because of my independent views. This wound with my cousin may never heal.

My mother, who had cordially disagreed with me on vaccination, balanced his bias with sound advice to her granddaughters. She urged them not to be harsh, suggesting that whatever differences they see, these were not worthy of destroying their relationship with their father. Thanks to her wise counsel, the love my daughters and I share has survived.

This and similar events had been left smoldering. In the spring of 2025, at this happy gathering celebrating my mom’s longevity, to my surprise, the topic turned to Covid. (My cousin was not there.) Conversation comprised mostly of personal accounts of suffering and confessions of a lack of understanding of why the virus persisted. 

My sister said she’d attended a lecture at a local college on the history of the social response to mass infection. She described the common human responses and behaviors to past epidemics and pandemics, including how scapegoating was a dominant and destructive response. 

Managing to remain quiet until all had acknowledged these horrors of the past, I spoke up, voicing a simple question: Did the recent Covid pandemic fit this pattern?

Of course, was the answer.

I innocently replied, And what group was reproached and attacked for causing the Covid pandemic?

There was a considered pause, and then everyone agreed, it was the Chinese.

With certainty I said, There were questions about whether an animal market or a lab leak was the initiating cause, but the Chinese as a culture or a nation were never blamed. Wasn’t there another group that became the scapegoats?

No one seemed to be willing to consider this inquiry, and I was pressed to say who I believed was targeted.

The vast majority of health professionals, public figures, including actors and business leaders, government medical agencies and the entire administration stood behind the President of the United States who openly declared that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The press echoed this vicious attack. A majority of Americans did not object to this belligerent contrivance, but there was never any evidence that the unvaccinated had caused or exacerbated the pandemic. Wasn’t this overt and classic scapegoating?

There was dead silence at the table.

I expected some defense of my assessment, but there was none.

Then suddenly my brother (who had been vaccinated and had been ill a few times) spoke up loudly and emotionally, almost in tears, saying, I don’t want to hear any more about Covid — it has caused enough pain and suffering — and we should stop talking about it.

As he was trembling with emotion, I gently suggested that he leave the table and he did. His explosive declaration ended any conversation about the topic —there was no further response to my contention; I didn’t push it further. 

My brother soon returned and unnecessarily apologized for his outburst. Though seemingly irrational, it was a direct response to my assertion — he had processed it as best he could. No one else had responded to my suggestion that they had participated in scapegoating the unvaccinated; he failed to recognize his ethical transgression, though had at least expressed some emotion. 

It became apparent that historical atrocities are much easier to recognize than more recent iniquities. Few have admitted that ignorance, anger, and the demeaning of innocent people in response to Covid was an egregious, unfounded violation of human rights. 

Those who sat with me at this table — and millions of others — have not considered the eclipse of their compassion and rationality. Few people can confess to having been manipulated into indefensible, loathsome conduct. They would have to see their similarity with those in past pandemics, who had projected blame and abused innocents for the suffering they were feeling. It takes a brave soul to admit that their emptiness and desperation caused them to display venom, disdain, and violence.

Because of the unwillingness to face the truth, the unrecognized pain and tears of those who questioned or refused mass vaccination remain unhealed, continuing a climate where repressive tactics and regimes are tolerated. 

No matter how much information about the abuses of powerful forces during the pandemic, no matter how much data supports the dangers of the Covid response, no matter how much is learned about the deviant behavior of leadership and government agencies, the unvaccinated have yet to be vindicated.

Self-serving, unconscious attitudes continue to dominate, confirming human nature has not evolved since the plagues of the Dark Ages. In times of difficulty and stress, it remains more convenient and simpler to find others at fault, rather than perceive our failures.

Republished from the author’s Substack

The US Supreme Court just lifted a lower court’s order that required the Trump administration to give people 10 days’ notice and a chance to object before deporting them to a third country.

“The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove,” Solicitor General John Saur wrote in an emergency application to the court in May.

“When illegal aliens commit crimes in this country, they are typically ordered removed. But when those crimes are especially heinous, their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. As a result, criminal aliens are often allowed to stay in the United States for years on end, victimizing law-abiding Americans in the meantime.”

The brief unsigned order came in the case known as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. with (surprise, surprise) Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissenting from the decision, who said they “cannot join so gross an abuse” of the high court’s authority.

“Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,” Sotomayor wrote.

“That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”

The government has tried to speed up the deportation process “by removing aliens to third countries that have agreed to accept them.”

“Convincing third countries to accept some of the most undesirable aliens requires sensitive diplomacy, which involves negotiation and the balancing of other foreign-policy interests,” it stated.

Now, the administration can proceed with fast-track deportations of “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens” to countries it has made deals with, such as South Sudan.

Of course, not everyone is happy.

“The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

“It strips away critical due process protections…”

We look forward to seeing President Trump’s response.

Authored by Arthur Schaper via American Greatness,

I was born in California and have a firsthand view of the damage done to the Golden State under sixteen years of Democratic trifecta rule.

Yet, for all the troubles, I don’t plan on leaving unless:

1. California joins Canada

2. The Democratic Party starts building concentration camps

3. Criminals get elected to every major office in the state

Also, I have many reasons to hope for my home state. Recent electoral victories are chipping away at California’s woke madness, and even the woke Angelenos and San Franciscans who insisted on voting left are tired of getting left behind in their brazen destruction. They want a change. One of the worst, wokest county district attorneys in the country (LA County District Attorney George Gascon) lost his job last year in a total rout. Republican-turned-common-sense-independent DA Nathan Hochman took his place, and he is cleaning house, even more conservative than the DA who preceded Gascon. San Francisco’s BLM-on-steroids mayor, London Breed, lost to the more centrist (at least by San Francisco standards) Levi-Strauss heir Daniel Lurie, who is trying to restore some semblance of law and order to the city.

Even former Democratic Sheriff of LA County, Alex Villanueva, moved to the right when his deputies started getting assassinated. He resisted the COVID-19 lockdown orders during his tenure. This year, he reregistered as a Republican, rejecting the party of “paid protests, purple hair, and pronouns.”

What about the current governor?

Gavin Newsom, who as mayor of San Francisco appointed George Gascon to replace Kamala Harris as San Francisco District Attorney, is the real train wreck. He’s presided over and accelerated the epic, public collapse of our once Golden State.

The state’s budget has ballooned on his watch, while Californians are fleeing as fast as they can every day. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he locked down businesses, ordered mask mandates across the state, and released prisoners early. He deemed pot shops and the porn shops essential businesses, but he ordered the churches, charities, and legitimate businesses closed. Unreal! He gives food, medical care, and schooling to illegal aliens, while everyday citizens clamor for justice and a decent living, and get neither. He’s the face—hair gel and all—for California’s failure today.

On top of that, he’s the most arrogant, insufferable politician in the country. In 2023, he debated Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with no regard for the truth, convinced that he could lie his way through the whole thing with his slick San Francisco charm, even when debate moderator Sean Hannity presented one statistic after another exposing the California Disaster versus the Florida Miracle. Newsom embarrassed himself, but smiled it off.

What accounts for Gavin’s near-sociopathic disconnect? He has never lost a general election in California. Aside from losing a non-partisan 1995 city council race in Tiburon, CA, Newsom is undefeated politically. From his two terms on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to two terms as mayor to his election as lieutenant governor (defeating a Republican incumbent) and then governor, Newsom has been unstoppable. California residents sponsored five recalls to get rid of this guy, yet he survived the one that made it to the ballot by a lopsided margin.

That kind of hubris does crazy things to people. Kamala Harris boasted a similar record. She not only won every election; in her first (in 2003), she defeated an incumbent progressive DA in San Francisco … because he was not progressive enough!

Yet Kamala Harris lost bigly to Trump. Her one defeat will define her, and with her demise has come the ascendancy of common sense and the death of all things woke.

Imagine what would happen if Newsom ran and won the Democratic nomination. Is there any hope for California with this guy in charge?

Yes, and his greatest defect is working in California’s favor.

Newsom’s vain (in every sense) presidential ambitions have forced him to moderate the legislature’s illegal wackiness. In 2022, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed experimental injection sites in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Sacramento Democrats have balked at turning sex trafficking of minors back into a felony, but Newsom has weighed in, demanding that the bills come forward. He’s talked about rolling back taxpayer funding for illegal alien healthcare. He has even told the legislature to stop sending pro-LGBT legislation to his desk!

But there’s more. Whom the gods wish to punish, they first make mad. If anyone is mad with self-righteous glory, it is Gavin Newsom. I want him to fail bigly on the national stage, and with his demise, California as a vanguard state for future presidents will die on the ash heap of history. California is not just the land of fruits and nuts, but the politicians are a special kind of crazy. Not just crazy, but stuffed with hubris, thinking that the world owes them a living and a calling. The whole country deserves to see California’s politicos crash and burn on the national stage. In 1992, Jerry Brown failed against Bill Clinton. Kamala crashed and burned. Gavin Newsom will surely go down to the ground, even in the final round.

Conservative and common-sense pundits fear, however, that Newsom’s right-wing shift will fool the rest of the country. I find that hard to believe. Newsom is trying to tiptoe away from that record, but the base is already turning on him. Sunny Hostin from “The View” ripped him up over that. Leftist-turned-Trump-supporter comic Michael Rapaport fired on him for ignoring the wildfire ravaging his state. U.S. Senator Michael Bennet has downplayed Newsom’s changes. Even Stephen Smith has called foul on Gavin’s game. Newsom is unpopular in California. He is polling single digits in a potential 2028 primary bid.

Thankfully, none of this will stop him.

All the political facelifts in the world will not get Newsom the nomination, but I am happy to watch his political career and the progressive woke agenda die in the wake of his trying!

The latest Department of Homeland (DHS) alerts are telling the American public to expect some form of Iranian retaliation in response to this weekend’s major US bombing raids targeting three key Iranian nuclear energy and uranium enrichment sites.

And the Pentagon is preparing for potential attack on US bases in the Middle East, whether in Iraq or Syria where reduced troop presences still remain, or in the Gulf Arab countries – home to major naval and air bases.

But the latest DHS warnings speak of a not-so-new threat (which gets repeated just about every year) of stepped-up Iranian cyber threat activity.

A fresh terrorism advisory bulletin from DHS warns that Iran’s response could include violent actions on US soil as well as increased cyber operations.

The supposed heightened threat environment predicts likely low-level cyberattacks from pro-Iranian hacktivists, but also more serious threats from state-backed Iranian hackers:

“The ongoing Iran conflict is causing a heightened threat environment in the United States,” the DHS said. “Low-level cyber attacks against US networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US networks.”

But behind the headlines, the reality is that the fear-mongering from US officials will front-run the actual threats and ‘attacks’ – and likely grow louder, according to the all too familiar playbook of the Bush-Cheney era…

Here comes the massive wave of evidence-free war propaganda. Next week they’ll be telling you Iran has hypersonic missiles aimed at your grandma’s bingo hall. https://t.co/CiC13QuUdd

— Wyatt Reed (@wyattreed13) June 22, 2025

But markets have been responding positively to the ‘cyberthreat’ headlines from Bloomberg and others, given a mere few minor cyberattacks against US infrastructure or interests will be a far cry from a massive hot war in the Middle East.

Of more concern will be the question of where is all that enriched uranium? following the US bombings at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Without doubt, the Iranians are busy moving it, or have moved it. The ‘unknowns’ (cue Rumsfeld) surrounding this, and whether the US goes up the escalation ladder, remain probably the biggest danger. 

A fresh Goldman Sachs report has cited Richard Nephew, a former senior US official, who says: “On the basis of what we’ve seen at this point, we don’t know where the material is. We don’t have any real confidence that we’ve got the ability to get it any time soon.” 

Authored by Peter Earle via TheDailyEconomy.org,

The recent weakness in the US dollar has reignited the debate over the durability of the dollar’s dominance in global finance. Over the first half of the year, the Bloomberg Dollar Index has fallen nearly 8.5 percent, marking one of the sharpest declines since the mid-1980s.

Yet while this drawdown has fueled widespread commentary about de-dollarization, it is important to distinguish between dollar weakness — a familiar, cyclical phenomenon — and the far more consequential and complex issue of de-dollarization, which concerns the dollar’s standing as the world’s primary reserve currency and medium of international exchange.

Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index & US Dollar Index Spot Rate, 2023- present

(Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

The current period of dollar weakness is rooted in several overlapping forces. Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, aggressive trade policies, escalating tariff conflicts, and sharp reversals in longstanding diplomatic and economic norms have unnerved international investors. The dollar index has fallen nearly nine percent since inauguration, the worst such performance since the 1971 Nixon shock, when the US severed the dollar’s convertibility to gold. Bank of America’s fund manager surveys indicate that bearish sentiment toward the dollar is at its highest level since 2006, while foreign appetite for US assets — particularly Treasurys and equities — has declined meaningfully, with foreign ownership of Treasurys falling to 32.9 percent as of late 2024.

Simultaneously, the fiscal position of the United States has worsened considerably. The Trump administration’s substantial tax cuts and growing entitlement obligations are threatening to push deficits to alarming levels, while rising interest costs on government debt threaten long-term fiscal stability. These dynamics are now feeding into market pricing and investor expectations. With global capital increasingly reluctant to finance Washington’s deficits on previous terms, foreign inflows into dollar-denominated assets have moderated. Many foreign investors, particularly from Europe, are in a sustained “buyers’ strike” on US assets, compounding downward pressure on the dollar.

Yearly Growth of Payments via SWIFT in USD, 2020 – present

(Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

One of the most noteworthy shifts underlying the dollar’s recent slide has been its emerging role as a funding currency for global carry trades. In an environment characterized by stable but modest global growth, subdued volatility, and a widening divergence in interest rates across economies, investors have increasingly sold dollars to finance long positions in higher-yielding emerging market currencies such as the Brazilian real, Mexican peso, Chilean peso, and South African rand. That dynamic introduces a new class of structural dollar sellers, adding both to downward pressure and to heightened volatility. Becoming a favored funding currency — a role long played by the Japanese yen or Swiss franc — reflects declining confidence in the US growth exceptionalism narrative that once anchored the dollar’s premium valuation.

Yet even as the cyclical bearish case gains adherents, the broader question remains: does dollar weakness equate to de-dollarization? The short answer is: no, or at least not yet. The dollar still accounts for nearly 60 percent of global foreign exchange reserves, more than 50 percent of global trade invoicing, and nearly 90 percent of global foreign exchange transactions. Despite short-term market aversion — for central banks, commodity traders, and multinational corporations — the dollar remains indispensable. Its liquidity, the depth of US capital markets, and the breadth of dollar-denominated instruments such as US corporate bonds, Treasurys, and dollar-pegged financial products continue to make it the default global currency.

Incremental signs of de-dollarization are emerging, particularly in Asia and among members of the expanded BRICS bloc. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has actively committed to increasing the use of local currencies in intra-regional trade, aiming to reduce exposure to dollar volatility and geopolitical leverage. Countries such as China, India, and South Korea have increased currency swap agreements, promoted bilateral trade settlements in their own currencies, and repatriated portions of their foreign-held assets. Asian institutional investors, including life insurers and pension funds in Japan and Taiwan, have raised hedge ratios on dollar exposure, gradually shifting portfolio balances toward local currencies.

US Foreign Exchange Reserves in Millions of USD, 2010 – present

Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

The BRICS alliance, recently expanded to include members such as Iran, Egypt, the UAE, and Indonesia, has amplified its political push toward de-dollarization. While the group remains economically diverse and geopolitically fragmented, its growing weight in global energy production, trade flows, and financial architecture reflects a strategic ambition to reduce reliance on the dollar. Joint liquidity pools, cross-border payment initiatives, and the creation of alternative commodity trading platforms further illustrate the group’s long-term objectives. Nonetheless, internal frictions within BRICS — particularly between China and India — and the absence of a truly unified financial infrastructure have limited hopes to erode dollar primacy.

A significant development in the de-dollarization narrative is the surge in official sector gold purchases. Central banks, particularly those aligned with or adjacent to China and Russia, have accumulated over 1,000 tons of gold annually for three consecutive years — doubling the pace of purchases seen in the 2010s. The European Central Bank now reports that gold accounts for 20 percent of global reserves, up sharply from previous levels to eclipse holdings of the euro itself.  Meanwhile, the dollar’s share of global reserves has slipped from over 70 percent in 2000 to 57.8 percent in 2024. Gold’s role as a politically neutral store of value makes it an attractive hedge against both inflation and geopolitical risks, particularly in an environment where financial sanctions and reserve asset weaponization have grown more common.

Global Gold Demand (white) & Global Gold Demand Net Central Bank Purchases (blue), 2010 – present

(Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

Still, gold’s structural limitations mean that it is unlikely to fully supplant the dollar’s reserve currency functions. Even amid recent turmoil, global dollarization continues in many respects, particularly through the rapid expansion of dollar-based nonbank financial intermediation, dollar-denominated debt issuance, and the technological proliferation of dollar-linked stablecoins.

In sum, dollar weakness and de-dollarization are not synonymous. The recent depreciation of the dollar relative to other currencies reflects a complex interplay of trade disputes, fiscal excesses, cyclical capital flows, and risk sentiment shifts. 

True de-dollarization, by contrast, requires the sustained development of viable alternatives that can match the dollar’s liquidity, legal protections, and institutional depth — an outcome that remains distant, though not unimaginable over the long term. While policymakers and market participants should not dismiss the slow, grinding adjustments occurring at the margins, the dollar nevertheless remains firmly entrenched as the central pillar of global finance.

A more sobering truth is this: the greatest threat to continued dollar dominance comes not from external challengers but within. Persistent fiscal indiscipline, rising debt-to-GDP ratios, erratic policy shifts, and the politicization of monetary and financial institutions collectively erode the confidence that anchors reserve currency status. 

If that erosion continues, the dollar may eventually cede ground — not through a sudden collapse, but through the gradual accumulation of self-inflicted wounds. In the meantime, the world remains tethered to King Dollar, even as it cautiously explores alternatives.

Goldman analysts, led by Kate McShane, note that the ongoing social media-driven boycott continues to pressure Target’s traffic and sales. McShane maintains a “Neutral” rating on the stock—downgraded from “Buy” in April—as consumer perception of the woke retailer has yet to recover.

McShane and her team analyzed X activity, sentiment, app downloads, and in-store foot traffic trends to gauge where Target stands in the current boycott cycle—and their findings suggest a continuation: 

“Looking at historical trends, transactions appear to be the lowest 3-6 months following the call for a boycott, and we would note that NPS and NPI at TGT appear to be improving. That said, in our view, it is still too early to call a turnaround given the difficult macro backdrop for discretionary categories.” 

Negative sentiment on social media persists into June…

Walmart enjoys stronger consumer favorability than Target—likely because it’s less woke, but also a result of offering the most competitive prices for budget-conscious shoppers (separate GS note here). 

Net favorability is even deteriorating among Democratic consumers…

App downloads in May fell 17.2% year-over-year, and monthly active users also declined. 

Traffic trends showed improvement from February lows but deteriorated again in June…

However, Target’s Net Promoter Scores and Net Purchase Intent on a trailing 3-month basis have reached lows on the year and could be followed by improvement, according to the analysts. 

McShane traces the roots of the current boycott back to 2023 (read here), noting that in both the 2016 and 2023 boycotts, Target experienced negative transaction growth and delayed recoveries. She adds that the current boycott is following a similar trajectory. 

McShane’s overview of the retailer:

• The boycott has weighed on Target’s traffic and brand perception.

• Improvement is possible but will require a macro tailwind, recovery in discretionary spending, and inventory adjustments.

• Despite weakness, acknowledges upside potential if sentiment improves or SG&A is better managed.

McShane maintains a “Neutral” rating on Target with a 12-month price target of $90. 

The nationwide boycott of Target over Pride merchandise for children is widely viewed as part of America’s broader culture war. Many consumers are fed up with woke, globalist corporations pushing far-left political agendas, and they’re increasingly realizing they can protest with their pocketbooks. 

We took a stroll with @SarahPPerry through a Target store to see the extent of their “pride” merchandise.

What we found is that @Target is very much in the business of promoting gender confusion and grooming children.

The verdict: avoid shopping at Target. pic.twitter.com/qGnkyFM3gK

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) May 25, 2023

Target has new Pride collection. What this corporation is doing is far worse than anything Bud Light did. They are targeting children and selling chest binders and “tuck-friendly” bathing suits for children. pic.twitter.com/1koW3N6mkZ

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) May 16, 2023

This kind of consumer pushback is only gaining momentum, forcing mega corps to choose between listening to their customer base or facing backlash and boycotts on X. In response, a parallel economy is emerging… 

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough (D) has booted several major provisions from the Republican megabill to enact President Trump’s agenda – including language which would authorize states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement (which are traditionally duties of the federal government). 

The reason – whatever’s in the bill needs to adhere to the “Byrd Rule” – named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV-KKK Exalted Cyclops-Hillary Clinton’s Mentor) – and which requires that bills passed via reconciliation (a two-stage legislative process that allows the majority party to pass legislation while avoiding a filibuster) must relate to the federal budget, government revenue, and the national debt. 

Another provision stripped out of the bill was the nonapplication of civil service protections for new federal employees – which would have reduced their pay if they didn’t agree to be “at-will” employees. Civil service rules notably make it difficult to fire longtime federal employees, while the Trump administration has done just that through recommendations made through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), of probationary employees.

A third provision MacDonnough nixed would have applied a $350 fee for those filing a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, which oversees appeals by terminated federal employees. 

A fourth provision would have included bonuses for agencies that cut costs (WTF). 

As the Epoch Times notes further, a measure to sell the U.S. Postal Service’s fleet of electric vehicles was deemed not germane.

Additionally, provisions that would have allowed the reorganization or elimination of federal agencies in addition to “prohibiting agencies from implementing, administering, or enforcing any rules with budgetary effects that are not explicitly required by statute” were ruled ineligible under reconciliation rules.

Judiciary provisions in the bill were also deemed out of order.

One included making sanctuary cities such as Chicago ineligible for federal funding, while another allowed local and state authorities to arrest people in the country illegally.

“There is no better way to define this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill than families lose, and billionaires win. Democrats are on the side of families and workers and are scrutinizing this bill piece by piece to ensure Republicans can’t use the reconciliation process to force their anti-worker policies on the American people,” said Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

“The Byrd Rule is enshrined in law for a reason, and Democrats are making sure it is enforced.”

Republicans could overrule the parliamentarian, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that they will not do so.

One provision instituting a 10-year ban on states regulating artificial intelligence was ruled not to violate the Byrd Rule.

However, conservatives such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have come out against this measure. She said she would not vote again for the bill if it had this provision.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

1. What are we to make of Saturday night’s destruction of the three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan?

Trump and the U.S. military took a great risk and succeeded in astounding fashion. Operationally, the destruction of the nuclear sites seems to have gone perfectly, in contrast to a long history of America’s Middle East debacles from the failed 1980 Carter rescue mission to the 2021 flight from Kabul.

The long-overdue message to Iran is that there are finally consequences for a half-century effort of killing Americans, promising death to the U.S. and Israel, and attempting to murder a U.S. president.

It’s also surreal to see leftist critics now say that Trump deviated from past presidents’ heroic, peaceful efforts to negotiate an end to the Iranian nuclear threat, when suddenly, after assuming office, Trump was apprised that Iran was weeks away from getting a bomb.

So, how did that happen after all those heroic diplomatic efforts? Why was the Iranian bomb program not ended during the Biden administration’s last four years? And who but Barack Obama opened the floodgates of Iranian revenue to fund these monstrous programs?

How strange the legal criticisms of the left are. In 2011, repeatedly bombing and killing hundreds of Libyan civilians and setting off a decade of chaos and mayhem were constitutionally okay, but a one-mission taking out a rogue nation’s nuclear facilities that threatened world peace and likely killed few, if any, civilians was unconstitutional and amoral?

Note well: Obama bombed, with B-2s no less, Libya again on his last full day in office in 2017—to finish off his disastrous five-year-long Susan Rice/Samantha Power/Hillary Clinton (“We came, we saw, he died”)/Ben Rhodes-directed destruction of Libya.

In the end, critics on the left and right are flummoxed and left sputtering only, “Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon”—even as every prior president had failed to slow Iran’s progression to a bomb—until Trump alone just did.

Intelligence-wise, it was quite stunning how there were no leaks but lots of successful misdirection and deceptions, such as redeploying the B-2s to Guam. It also made sense to strike early in Trump’s two-week window of warning, as otherwise, each day of quiet worked against the element of surprise.

It was not exactly rah-rah, Yanqui recklessness, but rather almost inevitable. Trump had warned the Iranians on numerous occasions. They never got the message. They were apparently listening to the American Left’s smears of Trump as a “TACO” (“Trump Always Chickens Out”)—a silly slur phrase that just died Saturday night.

The decision thus became whether the world wanted another North Korea in the Middle East or not. Even our enemies probably did not.

Trump has now given Iran the chance of a one-off attack and a return to negotiations—but over what, given that Iran now has nothing to negotiate with other than the survival of its regime?

Again, the fact that the operation was so complex and went apparently according to plan will impress allies and warn enemies—and make Iran worry that more of the same could come and be as effective.

2. But what happens now? Won’t Iran release its terrorist cells in the U.S., or attack U.S. bases nearby with missiles and drones, or unleash missiles at the Gulf oil fields, or mine the Straits of Hormuz, or unleash a new unforeseen volley of missiles at Israel?

Those scenarios are endless.

But this mission was not a 1991 or 2003 bombing as a preliminary to a ground invasion. Nor was it a pile-on 2011 Libyan bombing campaign designed for regime change. It had a limited agenda—the destruction of Iran’s nuclear fortresses—and it apparently succeeded. Iran would be wise to seek a ceasefire and negotiate for the regime’s survival. Pundits claim Iran must do something to restore its reputation. But the more it acts and fails, the greater its humiliation.

U.S. naval power will soon stop any Iranian naval attacks in the Straits of Hormuz. If Iran sends missiles into the Gulf oil fields, it will lose their own.

If they hit American bases, they will likely get a response quite unlike the aftermath lull of the killing of Gen. Soleimani. If they have a hidden massive missile arsenal to unleash on Israel, Israel will respond in kind.

What is unprecedented about the current tension is that the supposed powerhouse of the Middle East now has no defenses, no nuclear deterrent, and few terrorist operatives left in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, or Yemen. If they conduct terrorism in the United States, we would likely see mass deportations of thousands of Iranian green card or travel visa holders, and standoff missile and bombing retaliations against Iran.

Otherwise, Israel will continue to strike Iran, and the U.S. will likely pivot and offer to negotiate an end—unless it is attacked.

All wars end one way or another, usually when one side sees no chance of success. Iran may continue a Houthi-style missile exchange, but like them, it will eventually either sue for a truce or dissolve.

3. What will be the reaction of the Iranian street or the military?

Again, who knows?

Will the humiliation from the bombing force regime change? And would what follows be better, the same, or worse?

Theocracy is a much more dangerous government, given Iran’s size, wealth, and nuclear expertise, than those nations run by past bombed-out dictators like Gaddafi, Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein. And even their fates offer mixed messages as to what followed their forced demise. One could argue that what succeeded the jailed Milosevic was clearly better; the executed Saddam, eventually, maybe better; the murdered Gaddafi, likely no better and probably worse; and the Taliban simply returned to power, energized with $50 billion in U.S. munitions, vehicles, and military infrastructure.

The innate idea of bombing a nation with virtual impunity from the air, however justified, selective, or careful, often does not go down well with those on the receiving end.

But that said, the generals now know their superiors are being killed off by the Israelis, and would not wish to be next on the list. And they fear the military has just been further humiliated in the eyes of the public and revealed its impotence by losing this war.

The generals surely appreciate that the people not just resent perhaps $1 trillion over nearly fifty years invested in the greedy and now neutered Hamas, Hezbollah, the Assads, and the Houthis, as well as the vast subterranean nuclear facilities, and billions of dollars spent on missiles and air defense—but that it was all for nothing.

Those costs are aside from perhaps another $1 trillion lost needlessly over nearly half a century to sanctions and embargoes due to its ill-fated nuclear agenda and terrorism. Waste is one thing; waste and humiliation are another.

4. What was Trump doing by announcing a 1-14 day window to decide the use of force?

The value of talking about negotiations was fourfold:

a) to show the world Trump was not a trigger-happy interventionist, so if he did strike, he did so reluctantly, given the refusal of the mullahcracy to peacefully swear off enriching uranium;

b) to allow time for a final window for U.S. naval and air assets to assemble in the Gulf region or within striking distance of it;

c) to deceive Iran and the world into thinking he would attack in two weeks rather than two days, and to remind the world that his warnings are backed by consequences;

d) to see by chance if Israel could have solved the problem first—i.e., if it has any big surprises ranging from commando raids on nuclear facilities to the use of large cargo planes adapted to bunker-buster use. In the end, it apparently did not.

5. What is the attitude of the Arab Islamic world—specifically the proximate Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan—to the American elimination of the Iranian nuclear program?

Prior to the attack, the mindset of the so-called moderate Arab nations was predictable:

a) private communications to Iran’s Supreme Leader that they stand in solidarity with a fellow Islamic nation unduly attacked by the “Zionists”—something they claim they had nothing to do with and, of course, abhor;

b) mostly public silence, interspliced with sporadic calls for “negotiations,” “calm,” and “restraint,” punctuated with boilerplate criticism of Israel for its “preemption” and “aggression.”

c) frantic stealth communications with Trump and CentCom—and perhaps even Netanyahu—along the lines of something like, “If you all insist on doing this, please assure us that you don’t quit and leave a surviving Iran angry at our double-dealing. Guarantee to us that you will intervene and neuter or remove any vestiges of this rogue Iranian regime. Do not let this wounded animal lick its wounds and reemerge for revenge.”

And now postmortem?

d) The Arab world will be relieved, largely keep quiet other than a few protestations, but also insist that the U.S. protect the Gulf states from Iranian retaliation, and hope the U.S. can forge some sort of truce—but only if Iran is truly defanged.

6. After the attack, will the MAGA base splinter Trump’s support and help weaken his agenda before the midterms?

Not really.

Even Trump’s fiercest Iran critics, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Steven Bannon, or milder ones, like Rand Paul, know that they agree with 80 percent of his MAGA agenda. Tucker Carlson said if Iran tried to kill Trump (they did and the Biden DOJ filed charges), he would advocate a (nuclear) bombing campaign against it.

Conservative critics understand that their opposition to a Trump intervention does not poll well with either MAGA or Republicans at large, but very well with the Squad and Bernie Sanders’ new Democrat Party.

So, there will be no third-party movement. No one leaves a movement when it agrees with the vast majority of its efforts and there is no viable alternative.

Realistically, critiques of Trump’s intervention always hinged on its success or failure. So far, the military operation seems a success. It is hard to envision methods by which Iran could sustain a war against enemies who have no desire to set one foot on its ground.

Often, success or failure arbitrates the level of criticism. For example, by late April 2003, sharp but opportunistic critics of Bush’s invasion of Iraq suddenly pivoted—as Saddam’s statue fell, with only light American casualties—to brag that they were neocon nation builders (e.g., MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “We are all neocons now!”).

But by 2004, with the killings and insurgencies gaining ground, even Bush’s “Project for a New American Century” supporters now defected and whined that “our brilliant invasion was wrecked by your incompetent occupation.”

Human nature being what it is, most react predictably to success or failure. (Football teams 10-0 are sold out; those 2-8 can’t give away tickets.). So let us see how the current success ages in the next few months.

7. Will Russia or China put pressure on the U.S. to restrain Israel, intervene, or cause havoc?

No.

Russia? It is bleeding in Ukraine. It will privately not be unhappy that Iran will, for now, remain non-nuclear, but very happy any commotion in the Gulf could spike world oil prices and help Russia survive the embargo and refuel its aggression against Ukraine.

Trump will pay lip service to Putin so that he does not appear completely impotent after his forced departure from the Middle East.

And Putin will likely return to his 2017-21 appraisal that Trump is too volatile and unpredictable to gamble against.

China? It wants no upheaval anywhere near 50 percent of its imported oil. The idea that the U.S. could be distracted in the Middle East is seen by Beijing as desirable. Seeing Trump act quite successfully to take out a nuclear facility halfway across the world will likely sober President Xi.

8. How will Trump fare in the war?

Well, Iran, after all, likely tried to kill Trump and still brags about how it will destroy Israel and attack the U.S.—the same old boilerplate of the last half-century. Had the attack gone the way of past failed American efforts, Trump would have been in dire political trouble. But it did not, and so he will reap the advantages that accrue from success to a president.

Trump’s unpredictability so far has confused his enemies more than his allies. (Iran is probably flummoxed that no American president has ever bombed it, while post facto, no American president would ever be willing to talk to it during a war that it is losing.)

9. Will the image and profile of Israel in the Middle East change after the war?

It did after the euphoria of the brilliant 1967 Six-Day War victory, just as it slumped after being surprised by the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the October 7 massacres.

But as of now, the very idea, say, in October 2023, that 21 months later Israel would have destroyed Hamas; damaged the Houthis; dismantled the supposedly indestructible Hezbollah; helped create the momentum to collapse the entire Assad dynasty in Syria; seen Russia mostly ostracized and absent from the Middle East; destroyed utterly Iran’s air defenses; and been flying at will, systematically blowing up Iranian command and control personnel, its nuclear architecture, and its once dreaded missile fleet—would have been considered so unlikely as to be sheer fantasy. And that is well aside from the U.S. destroying what was left of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

So, yes, Israel will likely emerge from this two-year nightmare with a much higher deterrent profile and respect.

Its chief danger will be hubris. Overconfidence led to the surprises of 1973. And hubris also led to 2023, 50 years later, to the very hour after being similarly shocked. Israel will likely be wary of its unprecedented success.

10. How did Iran lose its Shia crescent and its terrorist surrogates?

In truth, Iran was likely the most hated nation in the world. The Arab world despised it. Europe and the U.S. loathed it. Its bullying terrorism turned off even illiberal regimes. Anti-Islamic China and Russia found it useful, but otherwise, did not boast about their creepy partner.

So, Iran had zero goodwill anywhere. Thus, once it started bleeding, no patron appeared to help it in extremis. Even its partners may have been not unhappy that this loud bully received a comeuppance and may now be silently glad the U.S. ended its nuclear threat.

In realist terms, a hubristic, smug Iran winked and nodded that it had a hand on October 7. No one believed its later, scared, and phony disavowals. Militarily speaking, if it was ultimately behind the horror of October 7, it should have realized that Israel was not going to allow another Holocaust.

On October 8, 2023, Tehran had a choice to publicly abhor the killing and communicate to Israel its innocence or go for broke and help to coordinate massive and simultaneous missile strikes from the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Iran in an all-out war.

Instead, each of these terrorist entities acted piecemeal, and Iran sat back and watched, hoping one might find success. Or worse, each was relieved when Israel attacked elsewhere one of their supposed allies.

Israel systematically checked off each terrorist entity, for the most part in a compartmentalized and separate fashion, before turning to Iran.

By that time, its surrogates were either defanged or harbored ill will that Tehran had led them on, but was nowhere to be found when they were held to account and crushed by Israel.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

The Kremlin has announced Monday that Russia stands ready to help Iran in its ongoing conflict with Israel and the United States in the Middle East, based on specific requests.

Such assistance “all depends on what Iran needs,” presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained, as quoted in TASS. “We have offered our mediation efforts. This is concrete. We have stated our position, which is also a very important form of support for the Iranian side.”

“Going forward, everything will depend on what Iran needs at this moment,” Peskov continued, while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is currently in Moscow, preparing to meet with President Vladimir Putin.

“Just today, the Iranian Foreign Minister [Abbas Araghchi] will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where they will be able to exchange views in the wake of this traumatic escalation,” Peskov stated. That’s when he made clear, “And, in fact, the Iranian side will be able to inform us about its proposals and its vision of the current situation.”

It is highly unlikely that Moscow would actually give any level of direct military assistance, but it could possibly come in the form of safety, containment, or logistical help at now damaged nuclear facilities, following American forces’ weekend bombings of three key sites.

Earlier in the week, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said that a ‘number of countries’ are now ready to supply Iran with ‘their own nuclear warheads’ – but this is typical of the former Russian president’s hyperbole and bravado aimed at the West.

Also on Monday, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova explained Moscow’s view that Iran has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, like any other country.

In reference to something that US Vice President JD Vance previously said about Russia and China not wanting Iran to develop nuclear weapons, she said, “First, Russia and China do not want the United States to interfere in their internal affairs in any form. And anyone making statements on behalf of, but not on behalf of, our two countries would do well to start with this.”

“For example, not to supply the Kyiv terrorist regime with deadly missiles, not to militarize Taiwan, etc. Secondly, Russia and China speak for themselves: the corresponding statements about the aggression of Israel and the United States were published by the Foreign Ministries of both countries,” she continued.

“Thirdly, Russia and China believe that Iran (like any other country) can and should determine its own strategy for the development of nuclear energy in accordance with international law, in particular the NPT, and other states can also base their attitude towards this on an international legal basis.”

And then, Zakharova said, “Fourthly, Iran created peaceful nuclear energy, which it has every right to do, and did not create nuclear weapons, which has been repeatedly confirmed by both Tehran itself and the IAEA.”

A hegemonic security strategy requires the US to weaken all major powers, rather than focusing on a single rival. Why would China assist the US in defeating Russia or pressuring Iran, when it knows it’s next on the hit list? pic.twitter.com/mWtQKIQhIy

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) June 23, 2025

Then a history lesson:

Fifth, a little history. Perhaps the very first time the idea of ​​a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East was voiced was in a statement by the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, then the official voice of Moscow, on January 22, 1958: “The Near and Middle East should and can become a zone of peace where there are not and should not be nuclear and missile weapons, a zone of good neighborliness and friendly cooperation between states.” In 1974, the same Iran that is now under attack from Israel and the United States initiated a discussion of this topic at the UN General Assembly, which ended with the adoption of a resolution on the “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East.” 128 countries voted “for,” including the Soviet Union and the United States. Israel abstained from voting. The USSR/Russia systematically advocated the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Iranian state media was quick to pick up these latest statements as Russia is standing with a regional ally with which it has had increased defense and trade ties, particularly since the start of the Ukraine war.

Ukraine and much of the West, meanwhile, see both Iran and North Korea as ‘rogue states’ who are helping fuel Putin’s war against Ukraine, and these have come under ratcheting US-led sanctions alongside Moscow.

Update(1335ET): NY Times is reporting that advanced notice was given, which appears confirmation that plans of the ‘retaliation’ attack were leaked beforehand and was in many ways telegraphed publicly.

“Iran coordinated the attacks on the American airbase in Qatar with Qatar officials and gave advanced notice that attacks were coming to minimize casualties, according to three Iranian officials familiar with the plans,” per the NY Times’ reporting.

War theater? Or just one big test of US-supplied anti-air defense hardware? One regional journalist and pundit writes:

So far this is looking like the response we got in 2020 in response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani. A telegraphed attack on US base that did not result in fatalities but is “face saving” for the Iranian regime.

Some are claiming missile impact on some targets, which would indeed be a very serious development. But Qatar’s Al-Arabi is saying there were no Iranian missile attacks on Iraq’s Ain al-Assad base, which hosts significant US forces.

CONFIRMED IMPACTS made at US al-Udeid airbase in Qatar — Al-Mayadeen citing IRGC

Onlookers observe impacts as smoke reportedly rises from site — Al-Quds news footage pic.twitter.com/I7nl8krTkZ

— RT (@RT_com) June 23, 2025

And meanwhile markets seem to be taking this all in as a bit of staged war theater…

Some odd trading behavior to say the least, seemingly indicating markets aren’t buying the ‘spectacle’ thus far…

Oil knows? 

* * *

Update(1242ET): The Iranian response appears to have begun, as it’s raining missiles over Doha, Qatar. AFP journalists are reporting explosions over Doha, and Reuters has also cited witnesses to the blasts.

Axios is reporting that Iran has launched six missiles toward American bases in Qatar. “Iranian missiles were launched targeting US bases in Qatar and Iraq,” according to JPost’s Amichai Stein. i24News is reporting that “at least 10 missiles were fired at Qatar.”

• IRAN LAUNCHES MISSILE STRIKE AT US AIR BASE IN QATAR: TASNIM
• UAE AIRSPACE IS CLOSED: FOX NEWS
• AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM ACTIVATED OVER US AIN AL-ASSAD AIRBASE IN IRAQ ON ATTACK FEARS
• IRAN LAUNCHES MISSILES AT US BASES IN QATAR, IRAQ AND KUWAIT
• ALARMS HAVE BEEN REPORTED AT ALI AL SALEM AIR BASE IN KUWAIT
• BAHRAIN URGES CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS TO GO TO SAFE PLACE
• IRAN SAYS ITS ATTACK WAS FAR FROM QATAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
• Trump in Situation Room with Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs — CNBC
• U.S. military jets are currently scrambling from bases in Saudi Arabia: Report
• Iranian military statement: we targeted the Al-Udeid Base in Qatar with ‘devastating and powerful’ missile attack.

Anti-air defenses active over the Gulf:

WILD FOOTAGE 🔴🔴

Video shows air defenses intercepting incoming Iranian missiles over Qatar.

Iran is officially striking the United States of America pic.twitter.com/lc3fcLSoA3

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 23, 2025

Doha, Qatar NOW pic.twitter.com/fJmWpZAvfX

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) June 23, 2025

More early, unconfirmed footage:

Footage Shows Activation of Air Defenses in Qatar

Newly circulated footage shows Qatari air defense systems being activated, reportedly in response to incoming missiles from Iran. pic.twitter.com/j408U0CHdn

— Ahmad Algohbary (@AhmadAlgohbary) June 23, 2025

It seems the Pentagon knew it was coming, and this may be telegraphed… perhaps more war theater:

Almost every single large military aircraft parked at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar evacuated the installation this week, with over 34 aircraft repositioning to other bases further from Iran.

The US confirmed that it moved some assets “vulnerable to Iranian attack.” -Reuters pic.twitter.com/DkaVAUz6s9

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 19, 2025

* * *

Update(1235ET): A series of rapid news wire headlines have set off the alarm of an Iranian attack on US interests in the Middle East is ‘imminent’. Lots of fast-paced unverified claims racing:

• Iran moves ballistic missile assets to target US assets across the region — WSJ
• Large GPS disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz
• US military jets being scrambled from Saudi Arabia, British & French military jets being scrambled
• TRUMP ADMIN PREPARING FOR IRAN ATTACK ON US GULF BASES: AXIOS
• CHINA URGES CITIZENS IN QATAR TO AVOID AL UDEID AIR BASE

Qatar has already been shutting down airspace, and importantly that is home to the US 5th Fleet.

JUST IN: Iran is moving missile launchers into place for a potential attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East in response to the surprise American strike on three nuclear sites over the weekend, according to U.S. officials.

DOD tracking a “credible” threat to U.S. forces in the…

— Lara Seligman (@laraseligman) June 23, 2025

“Iran is moving missile launchers into place for a potential attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East in response to the surprise American strike on three nuclear sites over the weekend, according to U.S. officials,” the breaking reports say.

S&P 500 ERASES GAIN

* * *

Update(1125ET): Iranian state media sources are reporting that Iran is likely to attack US military facilities in the Mideast region ‘in the coming hours’.

There are an estimated 40,000 American troops throughout the whole region, including at bases and on warships in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

On Sunday the NY Times had cited US officials to say anonymous US military and intelligence officials had detected signs that Iran-backed groups are preparing hostile action against US forces in places like Syria and Iraq. There’s also the possibility of direct Iranian ballistic missile launches on bases in Iraq, just as happened in the wake of Soleimani’s assassination during the first Trump administration.

But is this response being telegraphed or even coordinated with the US so as to avoid uncontrollable escalation? Israeli journalist Amit Segal reports:

Senior Israeli officials assess that Iran will, in one way or another, coordinate its attack on the United States — similar to how it acted following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. This is intended to avoid an unplanned escalation and out of hope to contain the incident. Perhaps in this context come the reports suggesting that the U.S. already knows the attack will take place within the next 48 hours.

Iranian missile and drone attacks on Israel started out fierce and sustained, but have waned in the last days. Tehran is not expected to go after US assets with such intensity, fearing that Washington could launch a full war of regime change targeting the Ayatollah.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic continues to get pummeled by now daily and nightly Israeli airstrikes, particularly over unprotected airspace in Western Iran…

The end of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters pic.twitter.com/s5FEB4a0AT

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) June 23, 2025

* * *

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said in a fresh interview that the US administration is ‘confident’ that Saturday’s bombings of three key Iranian nuclear sites accomplished the job of dismantling Tehran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. She also said Trump made the decision “based on his own instincts and the US intelligence that he saw.”

“This strike on Saturday did make our homeland safer because it took away Iran’s ability to create a nuclear bomb. This is a regime that threatens ‘death to America,’ and ‘death to Israel, and they no longer have the capability to build this nuclear weapon and threaten the world,” she told ABC News on Monday morning while making media rounds. 

At a moment White House officials have been trying to downplay that this is a conflict of regime change in Iran, Leavitt did say the US is seeking to “Take away the power of this incredibly violent regime.“

Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz were hit with huge bunker-buster bombs over the weekend, after which President Trump late Sunday declared on Truth Social: “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!”

However, UN inspectors at the IAEA currently have no access to the impacted sites of Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz – and the country remains essentially a warzone, also with airspace closed- as the region braces for potential Iranian response against US bases and assets. And of course, satellites can’t assess damage underground, where the enrichment facilities and stockpiles are located.

Press Secretary on FOX: “why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime?”

.@PressSec: “If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful, diplomatic solution — which the President is still interested in engaging in … why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime? … Our posture has not changed.” pic.twitter.com/EkBKDSFkcO

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 23, 2025

Also interesting is that Leavitt repeated the US administration talking point that the intel on Iran that Trump was provided made clear that Iran was ‘weeks’ from a nuclear weapon.

It remains that once again the American people are being led into supporting another US war and quagmire in the Middle East based on ‘trust us!’ from this administration, citing vague ‘intel reports’ on WMD, which sounds suspiciously like the faulty Bush-Cheney case against Saddam Hussein.

Still, the White House official narrative remains that Trump is not seeking full regime change in Iran, and this is also how Israeli media is presenting it in recent headlines:

“The President’s posture and our military posture has not changed,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt tells reporters.

“The president was simply raising a question that I think many people around the world are asking: if the Iranian regime refuses to give up its nuclear program or engage in talks… if they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn’t the Iranian people rise up against this brutal terrorist regime?”

So we are already in the ‘Iranian people should rise up’ phase of this war.

Below are all the latest headlines and developments of the last 24-48 hours…

* * *

Israel-Iran Latest Highlights

• US President Trump confirmed the launch of “Operation Midnight Hammer”, which involved targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation used 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 bombers, alongside submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. Fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (“bunker busters”) were deployed to penetrate deeply buried targets, notably Fordow.
• Satellite imagery shows significant damage at all facilities. Trump described it as a joint effort with Israel.
• IAEA say the damage assessment is pending; no signs of radiation leak.
• In retaliation, Iran’s parliament has approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the US launched strikes against the country’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s security body will make the final decision on whether to proceed with the plan, state television reported.
• Iran retaliated by missile strikes on Israel. Has said future action could target over 20 US bases or naval assets. Iran’s Military Central Command says powerful operations with heavy consequences for the US are to be expected. US entering the conflict expands the list of legitimate targets for Iran.
• The European morning has seen a slew of geopolitical updates (see section below). Some additional USD strength on: an Iranian provincial official says Israel is targeting the Fordow nuclear facility, via Tasnim. Israel struck Fordow’s access road, to prevent certain elements from approaching the area, according to Journalist Stein.
• Iran’s Military Central Command says powerful operations with heavy consequences for the US are to be expected. US entering the conflict expands the list of legitimate targets for Iran.
• Iran’s Army Chief says they are now free to take action against US interests, via IRNA.
• Iranian city Karaj has been targeted by Israeli missiles, according to Fars; reports of large explosions being heard in Tehran.
• Russian Kremlin says President Putin will receive the Iranian Foreign Minister later today. Communication channels remain open with the US, a call between US President Trump and Putin can be “quickly organised if required”; no current plans for a call. Iran can share its proposals later today.

Israel-Iran Weekend News

US Strike Operations

• US President Trump confirmed the launch of “Operation Midnight Hammer”, which involved targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation used 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 bombers, alongside submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles.
• Fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (“bunker busters”) were deployed to penetrate deeply buried targets, notably Fordow.
• Satellite imagery confirmed significant infrastructure damage at all three nuclear sites, with Fordow showing six fresh craters.
• All targets were reportedly struck between 23:40 BST (Saturday) and 00:05 BST (Sunday). Iran’s air defence systems failed to detect or intercept the incoming attacks.
• Trump described the attack as a joint effort with Israel, saying they “worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before.”
• Axios quoted officials as saying that Whitkov told Araqchi during the operation that “the strike is only once.” He confirmed that Washington was still seeking a diplomatic solution and wanted Tehran to return to negotiations.
• US President Trump did not want to continue striking Iran, but he would do so if US bases were targeted, according to Sky News Arabia citing Axios.
• US President Trump reportedly directed staff to announce a two-week window in order to conceal plans for the Iran attack, according to CNN sources.

Damage Assessment & Nuclear Risk

• IAEA Director General Grossi said craters are visible at Fordow, Natanz suffered direct hits, and tunnel entrances at Isfahan were struck. Full underground damage assessment remains pending. A special IAEA board meeting is scheduled for Monday.
• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine stated it is “too early” to assess whether Iran’s nuclear capability was fully neutralised.
• US intelligence officials have raised concerns Iran may have relocated enriched uranium stockpiles in advance.
• US Secretary of State Rubio urged Iran to surrender its enriched uranium stockpiles, claiming they remain buried under Isfahan and likely were not moved before the strikes.
• The IAEA reported no signs of a radiation leak. Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority confirmed no radioactive effects were detected in Gulf states.

Strait of Hormuz & Oil Flow Threat

• The Iranian parliament has approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the US launched strikes against the country’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s security body will make the final decision on whether to proceed with the plan, state television reported.
• US Secretary of State Rubio warned such a move would be “economic suicide” for Iran but remains a credible escalation vector.
• NOTE: Market contacts have suggested OPEC+ have not had any calls, with no talks of an emergency meeting yet amid no signs of supply disruptions, yet.

Iranian Military Response

• Iran launched retaliatory missile strikes on Tel Aviv and Haifa, Israel, resulting in at least 86 reported injuries.
• Iranian officials have warned that future actions could target over 20 US bases or naval assets in the region.
• Iran stated that its military would determine the timing, nature, and scale of its response, according to Reuters.
• Signs have emerged of Iran‑backed militias preparing to attack US bases in Iraq and Syria, according to Sky News Arabia citing The New York Times.
• Iranian air defences reportedly activated in Isfahan, targeting hostile Israeli aircraft.
• Iranian forces reported that Israeli airstrikes killed nine personnel — seven Revolutionary Guards and two conscripts — in Yazd province.

Iranian Messaging

• Iran is weighing its response — with its Foreign Minister saying “all options” are on the table after Washington proved “they only understand the language of threat and force”, according to CNN.
• Supreme Leader Khamenei warned that US strikes would “result in irreparable damage” to the US.
• Iran’s President Pezeshkian warned of a “more devastating” retaliation if Israel’s bombing campaign continued.
• Iranian regime sources denied any major nuclear material loss from the strikes, implying the sites had been pre-emptively evacuated.
• Iran’s Crisis Management HQ stated there was “no danger” to civilians near Fordow; state media reported the site had “long been evacuated.”
• An adviser to Khamenei claimed Iran still retains its enriched uranium, indigenous nuclear knowledge, and political will, despite facility damage.
• Iran’s Foreign Minister condemned the strikes as a violation of international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• The Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation called the attacks “a barbaric act” breaching international law.

International Reactions

• The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting at 20:00 BST on Sunday in response to the strikes. US Ambassador Dorothy Shea defended the operation; China, Russia, and Pakistan called for an immediate ceasefire and accused the US of breaching the UN Charter.
• The UN and EU called for de-escalation, with Secretary-General António Guterres warning of a “dangerous escalation.”
• The E3 (UK, France, Germany) released a joint statement urging Iran to return to nuclear negotiations and warning against further destabilising actions.
• Gulf Arab states including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait condemned the US strikes, calling for restraint and diplomatic resolution.
• UK PM Keir Starmer backed the US strike, describing it as a response to a “grave threat.”
• Israeli PM Netanyahu praised the US action, calling it a display of “awesome and righteous might” that could “change history.”
• Saudi Arabia, Oman, and India expressed concern and urged all sides to pursue diplomatic solutions.

US Political & Legal Fallout

• Congressional response to the strikes was mixed. Most Republicans expressed support, with Senator Ted Cruz praising the operation. However, some dissent emerged within the party, notably from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who stated, “Not our fight.” Democrats strongly criticised the move; Senator Bernie Sanders labelled it “grossly unconstitutional” and accused President Trump of bypassing Congress.
• US Department of Justice said President Trump had the authority under Article II to order Iran strikes without congressional approval, but a prolonged conflict might require Congress’s involvement, according to CNN.
• US President Trump to meet with National Security team at 13:00 EDT/18:00 BST on Monday, according to Bloomberg.

Trump on Truth Social

• US President Trump posted on Sunday “The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be “monumental.” The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. ” Trump added that “if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change”, and that “The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri.”
• President Trump later posted “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!… The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”

US Homeland Security & Domestic Threats

• The US is on high alert for Iranian-backed terrorist attacks, especially in the 48 hours following the strike. FBI, DHS, and local law enforcement have increased security presence at places of worship in major cities including New York and Washington, DC.
• DHS warned of a heightened domestic threat environment, including potential for cyberattacks or lone-wolf incidents inspired by religious rulings.
• The White House is monitoring potential Iranian sleeper cells inside the US.
• VP Vance stated the administration is watching known terror watch list individuals who entered during the Biden era.

Regional Axis Responses/Headlines

• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi arrived in Moscow to consult with President Putin. Russia condemned the US strikes as a “flagrant violation of international law.”
• Iran’s Foreign Minister Araqchi said he would discuss tackling common challenges and threats with Russian President Putin, according to Iranian news agency SNN.
• Hezbollah condemned the US strikes, calling them a violation of international and humanitarian law and warned the conflict could spiral globally.
• A Yemeni Houthi official warned retaliation for the US attack was “only a matter of time.”