Trump emphasizes end of US-Iran ceasefire, claims Iran requested to resume negotiations - Goldie Katz

 

by Goldie Katz

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked us to continue 'talks.’ We have agreed to do so, but the United States has stated to them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cease Fire is OVER!” Trump asserted.

 

US President Donald Trump reacts as he speaks to the media with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent behind him, on the day of a NATO leaders' summit in Ankara, Turkey, July 8, 2026.

(photo credit: REUTERS/UMIT BEKTAS)

US President Donald Trump claimed the US has accepted a request from Iran’s leadership to resume negotiations, but emphasized that the ceasefire between the nations is over in a post on Truth Social on Friday, after having previously declared that the Washington-Tehran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was also over.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked us to continue 'talks.’ We have agreed to do so, but the United States has stated to them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cease Fire is OVER!” Trump asserted.

US President Donald Trump posts on Truth Social on July 10, 2026. (credit: SCREENSHOT/TRUTH SOCIAL)

According to Iranian state media reports, a spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry denied that any requests were made regarding the continuation of talks and stated that any US breaches of commitments would be met with “reciprocal action.”

The spokesperson noted that Iran had agreed to a visit by Qatari mediators.

Qatari officials discuss US-Iran tensions with Iranian, Pakistani officials

According to semi-official Iranian news outlet Tasnim, a Qatari delegation arrived in Iran on Friday to consolidate Doha’s role as a mediator between Tehran and Washington after clashes in the Strait of Hormuz reignited hostilities between the two nations.

Tasnim reported that Iranian officials will also discuss Doha’s condemnation of Iran’s recent strikes on commercial vessels transiting the strait.

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani held a phone call with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Friday, according to his office, to discuss the US-Iran situation and Pakistan’s role in negotiations.

According to a statement regarding the call, both leaders stressed the importance of continuing talks, reducing regional tensions, and resolving the disputes through diplomatic means. 

Goldie Katz

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-902142

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran Failed Trump's Test - Ahmed Charai

 

by Ahmed Charai

The regime did not moderate. It did not reassure its neighbors. It did not abandon its hostility toward Israel. It did not choose prosperity for the Iranian people. It returned to its usual methods: missiles, drones, threats, blackmail, and violence. Trump did not abandon diplomacy. Iran destroyed it.

 

• Trump... gave the remnants of the regime a final chance: step back, accept restraint, and choose coexistence over confrontation. Iran failed that test.

• The regime did not moderate. It did not reassure its neighbors. It did not abandon its hostility toward Israel. It did not choose prosperity for the Iranian people. It returned to its usual methods: missiles, drones, threats, blackmail, and violence. Trump did not abandon diplomacy. Iran destroyed it.

• When Iran threatens Hormuz, it threatens Washington, Jerusalem, Manama, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, Riyadh, Doha, and Muscat. It also threatens Paris, Berlin, Rome, London, and every capital that depends on global commerce. Maritime security is a collective responsibility.

• The question of the Iranian regime itself is different. That has now become a matter of American national security.

• A dictatorial regime that publicly tolerates calls for the assassination of the president of the United States cannot be treated as just another difficult adversary. A red line has been crossed. No dictator, militia leader, or revolutionary movement should believe that threatening an American president and his family can be dismissed...

• The survival of this regime, in its current form, is incompatible with regional peace, nuclear restraint, freedom of navigation, Israel's security, Gulf stability, and American interests. A political transition in Iran is no longer a radical idea. It is the most reasonable strategic outcome.

• Trump gave Tehran a chance. Tehran failed. Now he must finish what he began.

• Every dictatorship is watching. If Iran can threaten an American president, attack American partners, endanger international trade, and survive with limited consequences, others will draw the wrong lesson.

• Every dictatorship is watching. If Iran can threaten an American president, attack American partners, endanger international trade, and survive with limited consequences, others will draw the wrong lesson

• He has already shown the courage to begin. Now he must show the resolve to finish.

A dictatorial regime that publicly tolerates calls for the assassination of the president of the United States cannot be treated as just another difficult adversary. A red line has been crossed. No dictator, militia leader, or revolutionary movement should believe that threatening an American president and his family can be dismissed. Pictured: A​​​​ large banner offering a reward for the assassination of US President Donald Trump, in Tehran on July 5, 2026. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump's intransigence on Iran should not be underestimated.

From the beginning, his approach followed a clear sequence: strike, weaken, test, and enforce. American power changed the balance of force. Diplomacy then tested whether what remained of the Iranian regime could recognize reality and choose restraint. Tehran answered with escalation. Enforcement became unavoidable.

Trump weakened Iran's military confidence and damaged key elements of its nuclear and strategic infrastructure. Then he gave the remnants of the regime a final chance: step back, accept restraint, and choose coexistence over confrontation. Iran failed that test.

The resumption of American strikes against Iranian military targets is not a contradiction of diplomacy. It is the consequence of diplomacy being betrayed.

Several weeks ago, I argued that Trump's opening to Tehran should be understood neither as naïveté nor as surrender. It was a test. It was designed to determine whether a weakened regime still had enough strategic sense to stop before destroying itself.

The answer is now clear.

The regime did not moderate. It did not reassure its neighbors. It did not abandon its hostility toward Israel. It did not choose prosperity for the Iranian people. It returned to its usual methods: missiles, drones, threats, blackmail, and violence. Trump did not abandon diplomacy. Iran destroyed it.

Iran's renewed aggression in the Gulf is part of the same strategic pattern: pressure the Gulf, threaten Israel, intimidate international trade, and test American resolve. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait have faced direct attacks, but the entire Gulf remains under Iranian threat.

In such moments, leadership matters. Some leaders have responded with clarity, courage, and dignity. The United Arab Emirates has shown that firmness and composure can go together. Others continue to rely on ambiguity, hoping that caution will protect them from a regime that respects only strength. That illusion has failed many times before.

The regime was offered a way out. It chose escalation.

The Strait of Hormuz now makes this a matter far beyond the Gulf. Protecting Gulf states, freedom of navigation, and international trade cannot be left to the United States alone. These are European interests. They are NATO interests. They are the interests of every economy that depends on the movement of energy, goods, and commerce through one of the world's most important waterways.

Europe and NATO must maintain a serious military presence alongside the United States to secure the Gulf and protect maritime trade. When Iran threatens Hormuz, it threatens Washington, Jerusalem, Manama, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City, Riyadh, Doha, and Muscat. It also threatens Paris, Berlin, Rome, London, and every capital that depends on global commerce. Maritime security is a collective responsibility.

The question of the Iranian regime itself is different. That has now become a matter of American national security.

A dictatorial regime that publicly tolerates calls for the assassination of the president of the United States cannot be treated as just another difficult adversary. A red line has been crossed. No dictator, militia leader, or revolutionary movement should believe that threatening an American president and his family can be dismissed as propaganda or answered with another warning. This is deterrence.

The United States must send a clear message to every dictatorship watching: America may negotiate. America may show restraint. America may offer a path away from confrontation. But if a regime mistakes restraint for weakness, attacks American allies, threatens global trade, and incites violence against the president of the United States, it will face consequences beyond temporary strikes.

That is why the objective cannot be another pause before the next crisis. It cannot be another memorandum, another negotiation, or another diplomatic photo that allows Tehran to regroup. The objective must be to ensure that this regime can no longer threaten Israel, the Gulf, Europe, or the United States with impunity.

Trump understood this. He used force. He opened a diplomatic door. He waited to see whether Iran's remaining leadership had the judgment to step back. They did not.

The survival of this regime, in its current form, is incompatible with regional peace, nuclear restraint, freedom of navigation, Israel's security, Gulf stability, and American interests. A political transition in Iran is no longer a radical idea. It is the most reasonable strategic outcome.

This does not require occupation. It does not require nation-building. It does not require repeating past mistakes. It requires pressure, clarity, and political will.

The United States has options. It can continue to degrade the regime's military capabilities. It can isolate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It can intensify pressure on the financial networks that sustain repression and proxy warfare. It can support the Iranian people's access to information. It can work with allies to protect Gulf states from missile and drone attacks. And it can make clear that threats against American leaders and their families will be treated as acts of strategic hostility, not slogans.

Trump gave Tehran a chance. Tehran failed. Now he must finish what he began.

Trump broke that psychological barrier. He proved that American power can be used directly against the regime's military machine when American interests and allies are threatened.

That achievement should not be wasted.

This is now about the security of the United States, the safety of its allies, the protection of global trade, and the credibility of American deterrence. Every dictatorship is watching. If Iran can threaten an American president, attack American partners, endanger international trade, and survive with limited consequences, others will draw the wrong lesson.

Trump has reached a defining moment. He can be remembered as the leader who temporarily contained Iran, or as the president who broke the regime's ability to threaten the region and America itself.

He has already shown the courage to begin. Now he must show the resolve to finish.

This article was originally published in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune.  

Ahmed Charai is the Chairman and CEO of World Herald Tribune, Inc., and the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, TV Abraham, and Radio Abraham. He serves on the boards of several prominent institutions, including the Atlantic Council, the Center for the National Interest, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the International Crisis Group. He is also an International Councilor and a member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22689/iran-failed-trump-test

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China Launches ICBM, Sanders Proposes Disarmament - Gordon G. Chang

 

by Gordon G. Chang

[I]f the United States is to possess a deterrent, it will have to carry through with existing plans to simultaneously modernize all three legs of its nuclear "triad": missiles housed in land-based silos, weapons launched from submarines, and nukes carried by bombers and fighters.

 

• China's military activities have become far more brazen. Some Americans, unfortunately, have not noticed. For instance, Senators Edward Markey and Bernie Sanders introduced the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act last September.

• Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center looks at the rapid increase in delivery platforms, such as missiles and submarines, and believes China will have 7,000 [nuclear warheads].

• [I]f the United States is to possess a deterrent, it will have to carry through with existing plans to simultaneously modernize all three legs of its nuclear "triad": missiles housed in land-based silos, weapons launched from submarines, and nukes carried by bombers and fighters.

• The U.S. does not need to match the number of China's and Russia's nukes or delivery systems, but it does need to maintain a credible deterrent. Markey proposes to reduce "deployed strategic warheads from approximately 1,500 to 1,000."

• Markey's proposal would create an imbalance that might tempt a bold or desperate aggressor to think it could, by making threats to launch, intimidate the U.S. into not defending an ally or friend. Russian President Vladimir Putin made such threats both before and after the start of his ongoing "special military operation" against Ukraine.

• More ominously, the test told the world of Chinese plans. Various publications have said that the test showed China's second-strike — retaliatory — ability, but it also demonstrated something else. "This test clearly indicates China's intent to obtain a first-strike capability," said James Fanell, a former U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to this publication.

• What will deter our enemies from launching nuclear first-strikes? Perhaps a sea-launched nuclear-armed cruise missile, a Golden Dome missile-defense system, or "any number of new technologies and strategies," Peter Huessy of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies wrote shortly before China's missile launch.

• One thing Huessy knows will not work: "unilateral restraint that does not take such threats seriously in the first place."

China's military activities have become far more brazen. On July 6, a Chinese Navy submarine launched either a JL-2 or JL-3 nuclear-capable, intercontinental ballistic missile, the first known Chinese submarine-launched missile test since 1982. Pictured: JL-3 missiles are displayed at a military parade in Beijing's Tiananmen Square on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images)

On July 6, a Chinese Navy submarine launched either a JL-2 or JL-3 nuclear-capable, intercontinental ballistic missile.

The missile, traveling in a southeasterly direction and carrying a mock warhead, landed in the Pacific Ocean, in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.

The launch was the first known Chinese submarine-launched missile test since 1982 and the first ever from a Chinese nuclear-powered sub.

"China's long-range ballistic missile launch wasn't just a routine drill," the House Select Committee on China posted on X on July 6. "It was yet another act of CCP aggression toward our allies and like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific."

"Beijing is testing global patience to its absolute limit with an alarming nuclear-capable escalation directly in the Pacific," commented the UnveiledChina site on X.

The official Xinhua News Agency called the launch "a routine arrangement of the annual training of the PLA Navy" and declared it was "not directed at any specific country or target."

Whether targeting any specific country or not, China's military activities have become far more brazen. Some Americans, unfortunately, have not noticed. For instance, Senators Edward Markey and Bernie Sanders introduced the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act last September.

The SANE Act, as they call it, "would reduce wasteful nuclear weapons programs and generate tens of billions of dollars in cost savings."

"It is time to halt the proliferation of wasteful nuclear weapons programs and create a future that is safe from the dangers of nuclear conflict," Markey stated. "Under Trump, the United States is inviting a new nuclear arms race that will endanger the lives of Americans as well as all those around the world."

The United States is "inviting a new nuclear arms race"? The number of deployed warheads of China, Russia, and North Korea — perhaps 6,100 — outstrips that of the U.S., Britain, and France by about 460.

China, for one, is on a tear. It could possess far more than the 620 warheads as currently estimated.

The current number, however, is not the issue. "I don't think I've seen anything more disturbing in my career than the Chinese ongoing expansion of their nuclear force," said Frank Kendall when he was secretary of the Air Force in House testimony in March 2023.

"We are witnessing a strategic breakout by China," Admiral Charles Richard, then commander of U.S. Strategic Command in 2021, said.

The Pentagon, in a November 2022 report, forecast that China would quadruple warheads from about 400 then to 1,500 by 2035.

That is an underestimation. James Howe, the noted nuclear analyst, predicts China will have between 3,390 and 3,740 weapons by that year. Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center looks at the rapid increase in delivery platforms, such as missiles and submarines, and believes China will have 7,000.

Whatever estimate turns out to be correct, it is simply wrong to think, as Markey does, that the United States is to blame for an arms race. In fact, America has not been looking to increase the number of warheads.

America does plan to spend substantial sums on its arsenal. Markey reports "approximately $1 trillion over the next decade." But if the United States is to possess a deterrent, it will have to carry through with existing plans to simultaneously modernize all three legs of its nuclear "triad": missiles housed in land-based silos, weapons launched from submarines, and nukes carried by bombers and fighters.

All three legs of the U.S. nuclear deterrent are aging; in many cases delivery systems are already beyond useful lives. Parts of the arsenal now cost more to sustain than to replace.

The big spend is not "wasteful," and it is not driven by Washington. It is driven by Beijing.

There are now no more bilateral arms agreements with Russia. The last one, known as "New START," expired in February. The U.S. did not renew it because of blatant Russian violations and China's refusal to engage in arms-control talks. With Russia and China cooperating militarily, the U.S. is outnumbered.

The U.S. does not need to match the number of China's and Russia's nukes or delivery systems, but it does need to maintain a credible deterrent. Markey proposes to reduce "deployed strategic warheads from approximately 1,500 to 1,000."

Markey's proposal would create an imbalance that might tempt a bold or desperate aggressor to think it could, by making threats to launch, intimidate the U.S. into not defending an ally or friend. Russian President Vladimir Putin made such threats both before and after the start of his ongoing "special military operation" against Ukraine.

Is China also thinking of making threats of this sort? Beijing could have tested this missile anywhere, but its choice says much about its intentions. As the Lexington Institute's Rebecca Grant told Gatestone, "Beijing could not have picked a more obnoxious flight path."

The missile, for instance, overflew what the Chinese call the First Island and Second Island Chains and was aimed in the general direction of Fiji, which on the same day signed a landmark defense pact with Australia. The agreement had angered Beijing.

More ominously, the test told the world of Chinese plans. Various publications have said that the test showed China's second-strike — retaliatory — ability, but it also demonstrated something else. "This test clearly indicates China's intent to obtain a first-strike capability," said James Fanell, a former U.S. Navy captain who served as director of Intelligence and Information Operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to this publication.

What will deter our enemies from launching nuke first-strikes? Perhaps a sea-launched nuclear-armed cruise missile, a Golden Dome missile-defense system, or "any number of new technologies and strategies," Peter Huessy of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies wrote shortly before China's missile launch.

One thing Huessy knows will not work: "unilateral restraint that does not take such threats seriously in the first place."

• Follow Gordon G. Chang on X (formerly Twitter) 

Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22687/china-launches-icbm

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump’s Patience With the Iranian Regime Runs Out - Fred Fleitz

 

by Fred Fleitz

President Trump’s decisive action this week reaffirms that the United States will not subsidize aggression through endless patience.

 

After weeks of patience, President Trump has finally had enough with Iran’s radical Islamist regime. Divided, economically crippled, and increasingly desperate, Iran’s leaders responded to U.S. peace efforts and restraint with repeated violations of a ceasefire, threats against its neighbors, and blatant lies about negotiations with the U.S. On Wednesday, the president declared the ceasefire and the associated Memorandum of Understanding “over.” He ordered intensive U.S. airstrikes against strategic targets across Iran and reimposed crippling sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Trump’s message was clear: his patience with the Iranian regime has run out.

The airstrikes were a major escalation and struck about 90 Iranian targets to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, according to CENTCOM. The airstrikes also targeted other key regime assets, including missile production facilities, IRGC command centers, and nuclear-related infrastructure that survived earlier operations. These were not attacks on civilians but precision operations aimed at degrading the regime’s ability to project power and threaten the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. also struck a railway bridge in northern Iran’s Golestan province linking the country to China and Russia—a rail link that has taken on growing importance as Iran leans on overland trade to blunt the effect of the U.S. naval blockade on its Gulf ports. The strike is a reminder that Washington’s pressure campaign extends beyond the battlefield to the economic lifelines propping up the regime.

In addition, the reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil sales will deliver immediate economic pain to a regime already reeling from a dramatic reduction in revenue and mounting internal unrest. As Trump noted, his special envoys to Iran, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, may continue to pursue diplomacy with Tehran, but he now sees little value in talks, describing further engagement with Iran’s leaders as “a waste of time.”

Iran’s leaders badly miscalculated. They assumed Trump’s desire to end foreign conflicts quickly—particularly with midterm elections approaching—gave them room to cheat and defy the U.S. They violated ceasefire terms, continued proxy attacks through militias, disrupted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and strung along negotiators with empty promises while rebuilding their offensive capabilities in secret. In doing so, Iran’s leaders repeated the same mistakes: underestimating American resolve when core interests are at stake.

This is classic Trump. His public willingness to float bold and unorthodox ideas keeps America’s adversaries off balance. But beneath his rhetoric is a clear America First calculus: peace through strength, not weakness. Trump entered these talks seeking a sustainable end to hostilities—having already achieved his core objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He will not now accept a temporary pause that lets Iran rebuild its nuclear and missile programs, threaten the Strait of Hormuz, or continue funding terrorism. The goal remains ending the war as rapidly as possible, but on terms that protect U.S. and regional security interests, secure freedom of navigation, and deter future Iranian aggression.

The regime’s miscalculation was predictable. Years of weak Iran policies by prior Democratic and Republican presidents taught Tehran that the U.S. will make major concessions in its eagerness for a deal. Trump’s first term and the maximum-pressure campaign that followed proved otherwise, delivering the Abraham Accords and degrading Iranian capabilities without starting new endless wars. The second term has followed the same pattern: engagement paired with overwhelming leverage. By violating the ceasefire, Iran tested whether Trump was so eager for peace that he would accept appeasement. He will not.

It remains to be seen whether Iran’s broken and fanatical regime will respond to these strikes by agreeing to a genuine, sustained ceasefire or by doubling down on defiance. Further escalation will bring only greater isolation and pain. Given Tehran’s recent record of deceit, Iranian leaders will have to demonstrate far more than words to convince President Trump that they are serious about a negotiated settlement.

The Iranian people deserve better than the corrupt, radical Islamist leadership that has impoverished and isolated them. America’s partners in the region deserve security, not constant threats of terrorism, missiles, and nuclear blackmail. Global markets deserve reliable energy flows. President Trump’s decisive action this week reaffirms that the United States will not subsidize aggression through endless patience. Strength remains the surest path to peace. It is time for Iran’s leaders to understand that Trump’s response to their continued defiance and provocations will be devastating pressure, not appeasement.

Photo: UNITED STATES - APRIL 6: President Donald Trump conducts a news conference in the White House briefing room about the war in Iran on Monday, April 6, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) 

Fred Fleitz previously served as chief of staff of the Trump National Security Council. He is vice chair of the America First Policy Institute. He is the author of North Korea, Nuclear Brinkmanship, and the Oval Office, which was just released by Texas A&M Press.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/10/trumps-patience-with-the-iranian-regime-runs-out/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump has plenty of options to avoid endless war in Iran after ceasefire collapse - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

From ramping up economic pressure to surgical strikes, here are the options President Trump has to bring Iran back to the table.

 

The fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran finally broke this week when Tehran’s forces launched missiles at several commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. After the attacks, President Donald Trump appeared to finally run out of patience. 

"We're gonna hit 'em hard tonight," Trump said Wednesday during the NATO summit in Turkey, after conceding to reporters earlier that day about the ceasefire, "To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them." 

In response to Iran’s violations of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which set a timeline for negotiations between Washington and Tehran over the Iranian regime’s illicit nuclear program, the U.S. military unleashed a new wave of strikes against Iran’s forces and facilities. By Thursday, U.S. Central Command said the U.S. has hit approximately 90 targets in airstrikes across Iran. 

The quick breakdown in negotiations shows that ending the war on terms acceptable to the United States may take more time than the American president had hoped. 

Analysts say that Trump still has several options to pursue his goals – encouraging Iran to denuclearize, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and end the conflict – without embroiling the United States in a protracted or “endless war” of the kind that he railed against from the time he first ran for president in 2016. 

Restoring economic pressure

Victoria Coates, vice president at the Heritage Foundation and former Trump deputy national security advisor, says that the military strikes are only part of the pressure that the Trump administration is imposing on Iran, and ultimately it is crippling economic pressure that can convince Iran to give into U.S. demands. 

“We have a president, for the first time, bringing all three of those things to bear: the economic pressure, the military pressure, and the diplomatic pressure–simultaneously to bear on Iran,” Coates said in an interview on Fox News’ Hannity. 

“From my perspective, the economic pressure, what Secretary Bessent has done under Operation Economic Fury, is what, ultimately, is going to destroy Iran,” she continued. “They can’t come back from what’s happened to them, but that’s only because President Trump was willing to do the military piece.” 

She added, “So we will keep that pressure up, and eventually ... Iran is going to buckle under the pressure.” 

Before launching new strikes against Iranian military targets, the Trump administration restored sanctions on Iranian oil that the Treasury Department had temporarily lifted during the MOU ceasefire. On Wednesday, the Office of Foreign Assets Control revoked the license given to Iran to sell its oil freely. 

Earlier this year, the administration imposed an oil blockade on Iran after the failed first-round of talks between Vice President JD Vance and Iranian officials in Islamabad, Pakistan. The U.S. Navy prevented ships leaving or sailing to Iran from passing through the strait – a key international shipping channel for oil and natural gas. And the administration ordered the military to intercept at least 12 vessels tied to Iran from April to June.  

It remains to be seen whether the American president will reinstate the strict oil embargo. Experts previously told Just the News that a sustained oil embargo would strip Tehran of one of its last streams of revenue, forcing its leaders to choose between a deal or “economic” and “regime collapse.” 

Proportional response to Iranian violations

Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Just the News, however, that he is skeptical that Iran will ultimately fold to U.S. demands without ground troops, whether from the United States or armed insurgents. 

“Historically, air-only campaigns cannot change regimes without armed insurgents on the ground. Examples of this include Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011,” he said. 

Rather, Montgomery believes Trump is trying to avoid returning to all-out combat operations and instead intends to respond proportionally to Iranian MOU violations. 

“I think Trump wants to avoid a return to full-scale combat operations and thus has kept his responsive strikes proportional on target sets appropriate to the Iranian strikes such as maritime and drone facilities,” Montgomery said. 

He also says the United States’ success in shepherding commercial ships through the strait, outside of Iran’s control, likely spurred Iran to break the ceasefire to reestablish leverage. 

“The challenge is he can’t return to ceasefire conditions where a number of very large crude carriers can transit through the southern transit scheme alongside Oman, without Iranian compliance. It's clear that the success of this route caused Iran to break the ceasefire and attack merchant ships using the southern transit scheme,” he told Just the News. 

The strait has remained one of the main points of contention between Iran and the United States during the fragile ceasefire and agreement. The Iranian regime, under heavy bombardment and facing overwhelming force from both the militarily superior U.S. and Israel, bet early in the conflict that it could inflict maximum pain on the U.S.'s allies by shutting down the strait and disrupting the global oil markets. 

Now that Trump is trying to wind down the conflict, Iran has persevered in its attempts to secure long-term control over shipping in the strait. It intends to do so by charging “service fees” and wants to give China and its other supporters “special privileges” for standing with the country in “wartime,” Just the News reported earlier this week. 

Trump and U.S. officials have reiterated that it would be unacceptable for Iran to charge tolls or fees for any commercial vessels transiting the waterway. “No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during a trip to the Middle East last month. 

Attempt to preserve the MOU

Other analysts argue that Trump should not back out of the MOU over “skirmishes” in the strait.  

“Ending the ceasefire with Iran over skirmishes in Hormuz would be missing the forest for the trees – and Trump must not make that mistake. The war with Iran does not and never has served U.S. interests. It has cost U.S. lives, wasted U.S. treasure and sapped U.S. military power, all while strengthening Iran by demonstrating its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz,” said Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities, which advocates a more restrained American foreign policy. 

“When will President Trump figure out what Americans already know – that war with Iran isn’t worth it?” she said in a statement following the collapse of the ceasefire. “Trump fashions himself a dealmaker. Now is the time to show it by either reaching a durable settlement with Iran to restore the flow of oil, or failing that, walking away so at least he does no further harm.”

Trump himself has previously warned about the perils of an endless conflict with Iran, including out-of-control oil prices and “economic catastrophe.” 

Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/diplomacy/trumps-options-avoid-endless-war-iran-after-ceasefire-collapse

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump terminates all members of Election Assistance Commission ahead of midterms - Misty Severi

 

by Misty Severi

All three of the remaining commissioners were removed in some way, with the two Democratic commissioners, Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland, notified by email. The Republican commissioner, Christy McCormick, was allowed to resign.

 

President Donald Trump on Thursday night reportedly terminated the members of the Election Assistance ​Commission, which is an independent commission that assists election administration officials nationwide. 

All three of the remaining commissioners were removed in some way, according to Reuters, with the two Democratic commissioners, Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland, notified by email. The Republican commissioner, Christy McCormick, was allowed to resign.

"On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I ⁠am ⁠writing to inform you that ⁠your ​position as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately," the email reads, according to the news outlet. "Thank ​you for your ⁠service."

The firings leave the four-member commission with no commissioners, meaning it cannot take official action until new members are installed. The fourth member, a Republican, had left voluntarily earlier this year, according to USA Today. 

Commissioners are required to be nominated by the president based on recommendations from the Republican and Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, and no more than two commissioners can serve from either party at a time.

Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage. 

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/trump-terminates-all-members-election-assistance-commission-ahead-midterms

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Key GOP lawmaker seeks vote to restrict birthright citizenship as Trump weighs second SCOTUS appeal - Christina Park

 

by Christina Park

Rep. Glenn Grothman says birthright citizenship ruling “the worst Supreme Court decision as far as impact on our country in my lifetime.”

 

Pushing back against the recent Supreme Court ruling that protected birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, House Republicans are renewing a legislative push to restrict birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants in order to force the issue back before the high court.

Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., a House subcommittee chairman long influential on immigration issues, told the Just the News, No Noise TV show on Thursday that he was co-sponsoring congressional bills aimed at clarifying the scope of birthright citizenship, ensuring that it only applied to children of citizens, permanent residents, or military members. 

“Hopefully, by limiting that, we'll give it another shot at the Supreme Court,” Grothman said. 

Specifically, Grothman is co-sponsoring the Birthright Citizenship Act which, by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, restricts birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are “(1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or (3) a non-U.S. national (alien under federal law) with a lawful immigration status who is performing active service in the Armed Forces.”

Grothman stated he hopes Speaker Mike Johnson will bring the bill to the House floor for a vote “as early as July.” 

This comes after a landmark Supreme Court decision on June 30 in Trump v. Barbara where the Court struck down President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of temporary visa holders or illegal immigrants. It upheld that the 14th Amendment automatically guarantees that children born on U.S. soil are citizens. 

“I should say this is the worst Supreme Court decision as far as impact on our country in my lifetime,” Grothman said. 

On Wednesday, Trump also announced that he would get the Supreme Court to rehear the birthright citizenship case from the executive order he signed on Jan. 20, 2025. The Supreme Court has not agreed to rehear the ruling, and has not agreed to rehear already-argued cases since 1965, with the last time it reversed a decision from an argued case being in 1956.

“AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong,” Trump said in a Truth Social Post on Wednesday. “I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision,” he said.

Much like the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote and which stalled in the Senate three times, Grothman noted that the Birthright Citizenship Act faces an obstacle due to the Senate’s cloture rule, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to bypass a Democratic filibuster, which the Republicans currently do not have. 

“We have some people that are barely Republican up there, but I'd be very disappointed if any Republican would even think about voting against this,” Grothman said.  

However, the Wisconsin representative said that if Republicans won control of both the House and the Senate, then it would be “one of those things we can look at doing next year.” 

Criticizing the massive influx of illegal immigration under the Biden administration, Grothman also said that “the easiest way to change America is to get a lot more people in America from different countries who are not familiar with our values, not familiar with our freedoms," and that moves by states to restrict birthright citizenship would also be "a good thing."

He said that he “would not be surprised” if Wisconsin passed measures to prevent birth tourism, though he noted that it was “one of those things where you need a Republican governor.” 

The lawmaker emphasized that it was not “impossible” to become a citizen in the country, stating that about 800,000 people were sworn in as new citizens each year. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency welcomed 818,500 new citizens in 2024.

Proponents of the bill are scrutinizing the massive scale of alternative pathways to citizenship. The Pew Research Center estimates that 320,000 babies were born to mothers in 2023 who were unauthorized immigrants or held temporary legal status in the U.S., representing about 9% of total U.S. births.

“As far as changing America, I can't think of anything that has a greater impact than saying, ‘your mother can come here,’ have you as a tourist, as on a student visa... and that person becomes a citizen. That's just outlandish,” Grothman said.  

Christina Park

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/hld-republicans-push-clarifying-legislation-supreme-court-birthright

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Federal appeals court upholds ban on states providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens - Misty Severi

 

by Misty Severi

Portions of the Texas Education Code previously allowed illegal migrants to receive the discounted tuition price as long as they reside in the state.

 

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling Thursday that states are prohibited under federal law from offering in-state tuition to illegal migrants at public universities, a major win for states like Texas trying to fight the scourge of illegal migration.

The ruling comes after the Justice Department sued multiple states over the issue, including California, Kansas, New Jersey and Texas. Portions of the Texas Education Code previously allowed illegal migrants to receive the discounted tuition price as long as they reside in the state. 

The order comes after Texas and the Justice Department agreed to have a federal judge block the program. A judge did sign off on a permanent injunction on lower tuition rates for undocumented students in June 2025.

The three-judge panel said in a 2-1 ruling that they could not intervene because federal law blocks the Dream Act and that a lower court was correct in ruling that two advocacy groups, a community college, and a student could not intervene and undo the consent judgment and dismissed the remaining claims for want of appellate jurisdiction.

"The district court correctly denied intervention after concluding that they could not plausibly defend the preemption claim," the appeals court wrote. 

Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott celebrated the ruling in a social media post, describing it as a "major victory" for the state and the "rule of law."  

"Texas and the Trump DOJ just secured another major victory for the rule of law," Abbott said on X. "The Fifth Circuit upheld the END of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in Texas."

Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage. 

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/fifth-circuit-upholds-ban-states-providing-state-tuition-benefits-illegal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Venezuela reforms its socialist oil policies, and production soars with Trump’s help - Kevin Killough

 

by Kevin Killough

Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, this week signed regulations reforming the country’s main oil law, and American oil companies are looking to invest.

 

Venezuela, as an oil-producing country, appears to be making its comeback as the Trump administration’s efforts to reform the country’s oil law come to fruition. 

The South American country appeared to take another big step in that effort this week when acting President Delcy Rodriguez signed regulations reforming Venezuela's main oil law. 

Under the new regulations, the country’s national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), effectively loses control of Venezuela’s vast oil resources. 

Under the former communist regime, the country’s oil industry floundered. In May 2021, Venezuela was producing less than 600,000 barrels of oil a day, despite having the world’s largest oil reserves. This past May, it was producing nearly 1.2 million barrels of oil per day. 

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in the 1970s. Then in 2007, former President Hugo Chávez forced foreign oil companies to surrender majority stakes to the state, which resulted in the departure of ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. Of the big players, only Chevron acquiesced to the communist leader’s demands. 

Hesitation gives way to interest

Ever since the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, the Trump administration has been guiding the country toward reforms that would unleash these resources, and the new regulations are a significant step in dislodging the centralized control of the industry that has scared off foreign investment. 

The new regulations, according to Bloomberg, lay out rules for how the private sector will operate, from the wells to the retail points, as well as taxes that reflect the risk profile of assets, including offshore oil operations. 

The rules make no mention of PDVSA, which had ceded managerial control over oil production to Chevron and other private-sector companies starting in 2022. The new regulations further open up the country’s industry, including oil refining, marketing and distribution. 

In January, President Donald Trump met with more than two dozen oil executives and companies involved in infrastructure development and project finance to discuss ramping up production of Venezuelan oil. 

At the time, experts cast considerable doubt on the prospects of investing in Venezuela. The country’s oil infrastructure, neglected and abused under years of socialist rule, would need billions of dollars to refurbish or replace – Trump threw out $100 billion as the figure – and companies were seeking security for their assets from socialist expropriation and protection for their equipment and personnel from criminal violence.  

Exxon CEO Darren Woods told Trump that Venezuela would need to reform its laws before it could be an attractive investment opportunity, and he expressed a lot of skepticism about the company’s prospects there. Trump wasn’t happy with the CEO’s doubt and suggested he might “keep Exxon out” of the boom he was sure to come. 

A few months later, the industry had changed its tune. Engineers, lawyers and other representatives from America’s oil industry met at the J.W. Marriott in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, in May, according to the Wall Street Journal. At the heavily guarded hotel, the participants pitched to the people in Venezuela’s oil industry plans to revive its rundown oil fields. The meeting even included one small Texas operator. 

In an earnings call the same month, Woods acknowledged that Venezuela has opened up, and he said Exxon, with its experience in Canada, is uniquely positioned to tap into Venezuela’s oil. Like Canada, Venezuela’s oil is particularly heavy, requiring specialized knowledge to produce, transport and refine.

War in Iran could help Venezuela

The improved regulatory environment in the South American country is enticing more interest from America’s producers, but so is the global energy market in the wake of the war in Iran. The blockades of the Strait of Hormuz sent oil prices into triple digits, and though they dropped to pre-war levels following the signing of a temporary agreement, that agreement appears to be crumbling with renewed hostilities. 

Even if peace does come between the U.S. and Iran, global interest in oil resources that aren’t dependent on the Strait of Hormuz won’t go away anytime soon. It’s possible, though not certain, that Venezuela will become a major player in the world energy market, and U.S. companies appear likely to play a big role in that future.  

Kevin Killough

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/venezuela-reforms-its-socialist-oil-policies-and-oil-production-highest-its

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

British Jewish group ‘concerned’ over Andy Burnham antisemitism remarks - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

The prime minister-in-waiting said the Labour Party must “do more to put pressure on the Israeli government.”

 

Labour MP and challenger for leader of the party Andy Burnham leaves Millbank studios in Westminster, central London, on July 2, 2026. Photo by Toby Shepheard/AFP via Getty Images.

 

The Board of Deputies of British Jews issued a statement on Friday expressing concern over recent remarks made by Andy Burnham, a possible Labour Party candidate to replace Keir Starmer as the prime minister, saying they fell short of adequately addressing the rise in antisemitism in the U.K.

“We welcome his [Burnham’s] zero tolerance approach to antisemitism, affirm his assertion that there is no contradiction between fighting antisemitism and disagreeing with actions of the Israeli government, and share concern for the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,” the statement reads.

However, tackling antisemitism requires addressing the “Islamist, far-left and far-right extremists” who channel their hatred at Jews and Israelis directly, the statement continues.

“These voices build on distorted or one-sided portrayals of the situation in Gaza and its causes, and ceaseless attempts to single out the world’s only Jewish state.”

The largest Jewish organization in the U.K. stressed that as then-Manchester mayor during the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack in 2025, in which two people were murdered and three others wounded, “Burnham knows firsthand the links between hatred of Israel, antisemitic extremism and deadly violence against British Jews.”

The Board of Deputies added that it is looking forward to the opportunity to discuss these matters with Burnham and his team in the near future.

The Board of Deputies and @JLC_uk have conveyed concerns to Andy Burnham's team following his statement yesterday.

We welcome his commitment to tackling antisemitism, but it cannot be confronted without addressing all its drivers, including extreme hatred of Israel that builds… pic.twitter.com/lYwjq9xdrB

— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) July 10, 2026

On Thursday, Burnham, in an interview with The Guardian, apologized for his party’s initial response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre.

“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza my party didn’t get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said.

“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government. ... Yes, we have taken some important steps. … But let’s be honest, the U.K. was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach,” he went on to say.

Shortly after Hamas’s invasion of the northwestern Negev, incumbent Prime Minister Starmer expressed support for the Jewish state’s right to withhold power and water from Gaza, which triggered a storm within the Labour Party.

“Hamas’s actions are terrorism and Israel has the right to defend herself. Israel has the right to do everything it can to get those hostages back safe and sound. Hamas bears responsibility,” Starmer said at the time.

JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/antisemitism/british-jewish-group-concerned-over-andy-burnham-antisemitism-remarks

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Anti-Israel protests organized by global NGO network tied to IRGC, Islamists, NGO Monitor reveals - Mathilda Heller

 

by Mathilda Heller

NGO Monitor aimed to lift the veil on the notion that the protests are grassroots, revealing them instead to be part of a well-coordinated effort by NGOs, special interests, and foreign agents.

 

Demonstrators protest in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, in London, in January.

(photo credit: HOLLIE ADAMS/REUTERS)

 

The anti-Israel protests that exploded across the UK after October 7 have been organized by a globally connected and financed network of NGOs aimed at promoting IRGC propaganda, Islamist and anti-Western narratives, and Israel eliminationism, NGO Monitor revealed in a new 129-page report, presented in UK’s House of Lords on Wednesday.

NGO Monitor aimed to lift the veil on the notion that the protests are grassroots, revealing them instead to be part of a well-coordinated effort by NGOs, special interests, and foreign agents to create false perceptions of anti-Israel attitudes and therefore sway global policy.

The report revealed that 80% of the UK’s protests were orchestrated by NGOs, with many circumventing UK transparency laws by raising funding via US-based charitable vehicles.

The report also found that at least 11 of the 40 major post-October 7th protests and mobilization campaigns in the UK have links to extremist organizations and/or have officials who have met with or cooperated with extremist actors, including the Iranian regime, the IRGC, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Examples of NGOs with terror links are Friends of Al Aqsa, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and the Muslim Association of Britain.

A man holds a mock-up of a key during a march, held by Palestine Solidarity Campaign, to mark the 78th anniversary of the Nakba in London on May 16, 2026. (credit: REUTERS/CHRIS J RATCLIFFE/POOL)

Terror-linked organizations funded by UK government

Nineteen of these organizations get UK government funding either via the FCDO or by Gift Aid. At least 11 are receiving taxpayer funding from countries such as the United States, Belgium, European Commission, Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland.

According to the report, at least two organizations, CAGE and Palestine Action, are raising funding via cryptocurrency.

A lot of the mobilization efforts of NGOs are directed at youth. For example, Amnesty International UK runs a training course (called Rise Up) for 16-24-year-olds on how to engage in disruptive protests, specifically focused on Israel. The fully funded training course “helps young people develop their campaigning skills …. [regarding] the Occupied Palestinian Territory [the programme.]”

Amnesty International UK has a total income of about £24.1 million, and receives funding from local entities.

House of Lords hears evidence protests are not grassroots

NGO Monitor’s legal advisor Anne Herzberg presented the findings at the UK’s House of Lords, at the invitation of Lord Walney, who moderated a conversation between Herzberg and barrister Jonathan Hall KC. Lord Michael Gove contributed the report’s afterword.

“The anti-Israel protests that exploded across the Western world on October 7 are presented as grassroots appeals for Palestinian human rights,” said Herzberg.

“In reality, and as our new report documents, they are organized by a globally connected and financed network of NGOs aimed at promoting IRGC propaganda, Islamist and anti-Western narratives, and Israel eliminationism.”

“Many of these groups are overtly linked to Hamas and other terrorist actors. It is time to see these demonstrations as a significant destabilizing threat and for governments to investigate these networks.”

“I have argued before that it cannot be right for organizations to enjoy the full privileges of charity while under serious investigation for links to extremism, and that our regulators are too often too slow and too weak to act,” said Walney. “The evidence assembled here only sharpens that case.”

Mathilda Heller

Source: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-902004

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump envoy warns China's power move at sea is threat 'we cannot afford to ignore' - Eric Mack

 

by Eric Mack

US Ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens says China's desire to dominate global waterways is a threat to sovereign nations

 

China is seeking to turn ports, ships and supply chains into instruments of geopolitical leverage, U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens warned in a statement to the International Maritime Organization Council (IMO).

"I spoke about a challenge that we cannot afford to ignore: China's systematic effort to use maritime power as an instrument of political coercion," Stephens wrote in a Truth Social post after the speech. 

SEN TODD YOUNG: THE HIDDEN DANGER CHINA’S SHIPS COULD BRING TO OUR SHORES

"Beijing has pursued an aggressive strategy of acquiring port concessions and infrastructure around the world — not simply for commercial gain, but to extend its strategic reach and weaponize that access against sovereign nations."

The U.S. is "not a passive observer of maritime affairs," Stephens told the IMO, calling America a "cornerstone of the global maritime economy." 

He said the U.S. Maritime Transportation System supports $5.4 trillion in economic activity each year and nearly 30 million jobs.

China's designs on global sea power have U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens sounding alarms. (Zha Chunming/Xinhua)

The warning comes as Trump continued peacemaking efforts in the Strait of Hormuz and pressing Demark and NATO for U.S. control over Greenland due to Chinese and Russian threats to free navigation in the Arctic.

"Denmark doesn't spend money to really help Greenland, but it's an important part for the United States. And it's surrounded by China ships and Russian ships," Trump said at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey.

For global security, Greenland "should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark," Trump added.

"They wouldn't go along with it," Trump said of Denmark. "And with all the money we spend to help them with Russia. And we don't have to spend any money. We could remove all of our soldiers out of Europe because, as you probably noticed, Europe is a very different place than it was 20 years ago. A lot different."

DENMARK VOWS TO DEFEND GREENLAND AFTER TRUMP REITERATES US SHOULD CONTROL TERRITORY

U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens issued an urgent warning that China is using global dominance over waterways as a political coercion tool. (Lucy North/PA Images via Getty Images)

Greenland’s position between the Arctic and North Atlantic has made it a key piece of U.S. security planning.

"President Trump has made restoring American maritime leadership a national priority," Stephens said in his IMO remarks warning on China’s broader maritime footprint.

"The evidence is clear and growing," Stephens said. "China currently builds more than half of the world’s ships. It dominates the production of ship-to-shore cranes and shipping containers."

Stephens cited Panama as a recent example, pointing to a ruling by Panama’s Supreme Court that found CK Hutchison’s port concessions at the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals unconstitutional. The terminals sit at opposite ends of the Panama Canal, one of the world’s most strategically important trade corridors.

TRUMP MAKES FRESH GREENLAND PLAY AFTER XI TALKS AS CHINA’S ARCTIC AMBITIONS LOOM

Video

 

 

 

Stephens said China’s response to the Panama ruling was "swift and punishing," accusing Beijing of taking action against Panama-flagged vessels in a move the U.S. characterized as an attempt to undermine Panama’s sovereignty and disrupt global supply chains.

"What happened to Panama is a warning to every nation in this room," Stephens said.

"When a country allows a foreign power or its proxies to control its ports, it does not simply accept a commercial arrangement," he added. "It accepts a vulnerability."

Stephens urged IMO member states to closely scrutinize deals allowing foreign entities, especially state-linked enterprises, to operate critical port infrastructure.

"Transparency, the rule of law and genuine sovereignty are not obstacles to commerce," Stephens said. "They are its foundation."

The ambassador also said the U.S. would press for maritime security, sanctions enforcement, protection of flag state rights, freedom of navigation and updated standards on polar operations, autonomous vessels and cyber risk management.

"The pattern is consistent: China uses its maritime and economic power to coerce, to intimidate and to punish those who assert their sovereign rights," Stephens said.

The Chinese government has routinely rejected U.S. accusations that its overseas infrastructure investments are coercive, portraying its port, shipping and Belt and Road projects as commercial partnerships that support global trade and development.

Video

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

 

 

Stephens said the U.S. will continue contributing expertise, resources and leadership at the IMO but warned that the rules-based maritime order cannot be taken for granted.

"A free and open ocean is not guaranteed," he said. "It must be defended." 

Eric Mack

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-envoy-warns-chinas-power-move-sea-threat-cannot-afford-ignore

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter