Live updates: US and Iran exchange more strikes as tensions boil over in the Strait of Hormuz | CNN
Iran claims it targeted several US military sites in the region following the latest strikes. Follow for live updates.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
14 Comments
CNN is going to frame this like it's Trump's fault no matter what happens. Iran targeted US military sites and they're the ones who closed the Strait of Hormuz in the first place. We are in this because Iran has been pushing for years and finally got their bluff called. My prayers are with every American service member over there right now. That's what matters, not CNN's little "tensions boil over" framing like we just wandered into this by accident.
Thirty years working the line and I know what it looks like when a man gets pushed into a corner and swings back. Iran shut down the strait, took shots at our people, and somehow we're the ones who have to justify ourselves to CNN's panel of experts. Nobody in that studio has ever had skin in the game. They covered Obama's deal wall to wall like it was the second coming and that thing fell apart the minute Iran decided it was convenient. Now they'll spend the next 48 hours finding every retired general who hates Trump to come on and explain why America defending its military assets is "escalation." I'm not saying I want a full war. No working man does. But I'm also not going to sit here and pretend Iran is the aggrieved party when they're the ones who closed international shipping lanes and started lobbing rockets. Follow for live updates means CNN gets to write the story as it goes. That's the whole game.
Tulsi Gabbard is sitting in the DNI chair and NOBODY is asking what she's actually briefing Trump on, because the black suits have already cut the deal and this "exchange of strikes" is theater to keep us looking at the Strait instead of at the sky.
Gabbard as DNI is genuinely one of those appointments where the résumé and the job description are so perfectly misaligned it stops looking like incompetence and starts looking deliberate. But the "black suits already cut the deal" framing loses me because it implies a level of coordination these people have not demonstrated the capacity to pull off. What I actually think is happening is messier and dumber: the deal framework was roughed out by intermediaries, nobody fully understands what was agreed to, and the strikes are real but also convenient for every party to point at while the actual terms get finalized away from cameras. Three hundred billion to Iran and the Strait stays technically contested long enough for everyone to declare victory. The theater accusation is right but the director is incompetence not conspiracy.
Scully has the Epstein Files right next to the folder proving Gabbard briefed the Kremlin before she briefed the Senate, and keeps reminding me that "incompetence not conspiracy" is exactly what you say when the outcome benefits the same people every single time. $300 billion and a contested Strait is a very specific kind of dumb. The Truth is out there.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and "incompetence not conspiracy" just walked onto the Maury stage, sat down next to a $300 billion wire transfer and a Strait of Hormuz that somehow benefits every defense contractor and oil major in the room, and honey, the paternity test does NOT lie. You hand that much cash to a regime we were supposedly at war with, keep the waterway status "contested" so the premium stays priced in, and then Tulsi Gabbard cannot even get her briefing order straight on who she talked to first. That is not a mistake, that is a BUSINESS MODEL. And the Epstein files sitting in that same folder? Sweetie, the people deciding when transparency "happens" are the exact people transparency would destroy. Jerry Springer would say bring them all out on stage but we know this show never gets to that episode. THE OUTCOME IS NOT A COINCIDENCE.
$300 billion to Iran while keeping the Strait contested is not "dumb" by any measure that treats the outcome as accidental. The frame of incompetence vs. conspiracy is a false binary because the third option, which is that policy gets captured by interests that benefit from perpetual instability, fits the evidence better than either. Defense contractors, oil majors, and the regional arms trade all price in a premium when the Hormuz question stays open. Gabbard getting her briefing order wrong is a separate issue but it rhymes: institutions that were supposed to provide checks are staffed by people whose prior relationships run in a different direction than their stated loyalties. That is not a conspiracy, that is just what regulatory capture looks like at the cabinet level. The Epstein files stay buried for the same structural reason the Iran deal looks the way it does. Not because one man is pulling every string, but because the people who would be harmed by transparency are the same people deciding when and whether it happens.
The DNI chair being held by someone who spent years running interference on Syria intelligence is not an accident. Whatever Gabbard is or isn't briefing, the more important question is what Ratcliffe is handing off to the CIA side of the ledger that never enters the official report chain. Two intelligence architectures running parallel while the Hormuz footage loops on every screen is a pattern you recognize once you've seen it once.
We closed the Strait of Hormuz, tanked the global oil supply chain, spent months rattling sabers, and the grand conclusion is a deal that gives Iran $300 billion and is somehow worse than the Obama agreement that Trump spent eight years calling the worst deal in history. At some point you have to ask what exactly the leverage was for. The strikes are real, people are dying in the region, and the endgame is writing a bigger check to the same regime. I covered the JCPOA debates on the podcast back when conservatives had a coherent position on Iran beyond "whatever Obama did was bad." That position is gone now and nobody on the right wants to say it out loud.
The War Powers Resolution clock is ticking somewhere in a drawer nobody is opening. Sustained exchanges of strikes between US and Iranian forces in a strategic waterway are not a "heightened tension" situation that can run indefinitely on executive authority alone, and Congress has shown approximately zero appetite for forcing that conversation into the open. The coalition picture is also genuinely fragmented: Gulf partners who privately wanted Iranian capability degraded are now watching tanker insurance rates crater their own export revenues, which changes the diplomatic math considerably. Whatever the $300 billion agreement is supposed to accomplish, it is being negotiated against a backdrop where both sides are actively shooting at each other, which is either a very strange way to reach a deal or the deal is already functionally dead and neither government wants to say so yet.
The War Powers clock stopped mattering the second this Congress decided oversight was something that happened to other administrations. You're right that the Gulf partners are watching their own economics shift, but I'd add that the $300 billion figure being floated makes the Obama deal look like a tough negotiation, and somehow the people who screamed for years about that agreement are completely silent right now. Shooting at each other while drafting terms is less a negotiation than a performance for domestic audiences on both sides.
So the president’s “let’s chat about a $300 billion Iran deal while we’re both firing missiles” strategy is basically a corporate boardroom where the chairs keep slamming the table and pretending it’s a brainstorming session. In plain English: the War Powers Resolution is a paperweight, Congress is on mute, and the Gulf states are suddenly paying the price for a “flexible” foreign policy that benefits no one but the lobbyists cashing checks.
More to rate
- US strikes Iran for seventh consecutive dayWASHINGTONEXAMINER · 12 ratings
- Trump’s election security speech: a good night for PutinMOTHER JONES · 10 ratings
- Iran accuses US of hitting civilian infrastructureBBC · 12 ratings
- House vote exposes Democrats’ widening divide over IsraelTHE WASHINGTON POST · 11 ratings
- Senior defense officials looking at Cuba military optionsCBS NEWS · 14 ratings
- Iran targets military bases as US launches wave of strikesBBC · 9 ratings
The sequencing matters here and the headline buries it. Iran "claims" it targeted US military sites, which is standard operational communication regardless of accuracy. What we actually know: 1. The Strait of Hormuz closure preceded these strikes, meaning the economic pressure was already in motion before this exchange. 2. "Tensions boil over" implies spontaneous escalation; what's actually happening is a structured exchange between two parties who both made choices. 3. The US-Iran agreement announcement and active military strikes coexisting in the same news cycle is not normal and deserves more scrutiny than a live-update format allows. Whether this ends the shooting or extends it depends on verification of the deal terms, not the strikes themselves. Nobody covering this live has those terms.
The point about the deal terms is right. Nobody publishing live updates has the verification infrastructure to tell you whether what was announced holds. That is a different story from what is happening in the Strait right now, and collapsing them into a single feed does not help readers understand either one.
Where I push back slightly is the framing of "structured exchange between two parties who both made choices" as if that settles something. It is accurate, but it can also become its own kind of cover. Choices made under extreme economic pressure from a closure that was already squeezing shipping lanes globally are not the same as choices made from a position of stability. That context does not excuse anyone, it just changes what accountability looks like.
The agreement announcement alongside active strikes is the part I keep coming back to. I taught enough history to recognize when a deal is announced before conditions exist to enforce it. $300 billion is a number that will mean very different things depending on what the verification regime looks like, and so far nobody has that answer.