"20% Too Much, We Will Be Fair": Iran On Trump's Hormuz Fee Demand

07/13/26 11:59 PM

Araghchi's comments followed a post by Trump on his Truth Social platform, in which he laid out his plan for the strait.

'Art of the Deal' writer rocked by WSJ for poorly-worded clause that disintegrated pact

07/09/26 6:45 PM

President Donald Trump may call himself the master of making a deal, but four Wall Street Journal writers think he stinks at writing them. The Journal on Thursday published a stern rebuke of Trump's memorandum of understanding with Iran, arguing a single "poorly worded clause" resulted in the battle for the Strait of Hormuz. "The root of the dispute is Paragraph 5, which says Iran will make arrangements to restore shipping through the strategic waterway and then work with Oman to determine how to administer it in the future," the report states. "But it also includes an Iranian pledge to ensure safe passage and remove military obstacles such as mines." The pledge became a problem because it was open to different interpretations by both sides as the war ramps up again, the Wall Street Journal reporters argued."Trump administration officials saw that clause as unlocking the strait, the main accomplishment of the president’s deal." they wrote. "Iranian hard-liners, however, have used it to push a maximalist interpretation that gives the Islamic Republic exclusive control over the waterway as a key source of leverage."Geopolitical analyst Michael Horowitz agreed with their assessment. "Washington has tried to convince Tehran that compliance would be more profitable, but this framing misses the point," he reportedly said. "Iran's behavior isn't driven by financial motives but by security concerns and bargaining leverage. It's a power dynamic."Now the U.S. faces tough times ahead in the struggle, according to the analysis"Tehran has also repeatedly asserted that it will work out arrangements for future management of the strait with its weaker neighbor across the waterway, Oman," the Journal report stated. "The difficulty coming to terms on opening the Strait of Hormuz points to rough negotiations ahead."

'Dumb and dangerous' Trump battered on MS NOW after setting off travel firestorm

07/13/26 11:43 AM

The decision by the Trump administration to go after New York Times reporters with subpoenas after they reported on the critical vulnerabilities with a Qatari plane gifted to the president was hammered on MS NOW on Monday morning. Appearing on “Morning Joe,” an incensed Jim VandeHei, founder of Axios, claimed the decision to fly the luxury jet into the Middle East put the president and the nation at risk. Then he blasted conservatives who are applauding the DOJ investigation.MS NOW contributor Katty Kay prompted VandeHei with, “Jim, you and I were talking during the break about how this seems like overkill from the White House to issue these subpoenas. Is this just because the president was embarrassed about the reporting when we knew that this plane wasn't ready in a defensive capacity?”“Yeah, I think it's both dumb and dangerous, right?” he shot back. “It's dumb in that it was pretty widely known that this aircraft wasn't up to the standards of Air Force One. That usually goes to a two-year period of being built and being vetted, and everybody knew that this was gifted by the Qataris. Everyone also knows that the Iranians are trying to actively assassinate the president of the United States, and he's in the Middle East.” "And so this idea then is that you go after the reporters — and they wrote about it after the fact — the only way you'd actually have a plausible case is if you put the president's life at risk or you really jeopardize national security because you reported it before it happened,” he continued before repeating, “They reported it after it happened.”“And anybody out there who's like, ‘Oh, yeah, but oh, it's the New York Times, I hate the New York Times,’ again, you have to always think about imagine that the other party does this,” he cautioned. “Any time that you don't like a story, that you send agents of the federal government to their home to try to intimidate them because they wrote something that made you feel uncomfortable, that was actually authentically, really, really important to the safety of the president of the United States, whether you like him or not, matters profoundly. And so when you start doing these things, you start normalizing these things, and if anybody cheers it, you better cheer it when they come after you.” - YouTube youtu.be