Connect with us

America

Trump caught between hawks, markets, and his base as Iran war drags past initial timeline

Published

on

A complex power struggle is playing out inside the White House. As advisers clash over when and how to declare “victory” in a conflict that has spread across West Asia, their competing counsel is shaping the increasingly erratic public statements Donald Trump makes about the course of his Iran war.

Interviews conducted by Reuters with an adviser close to Trump and with sources familiar with the decision-making process offer a previously unpublished account of how the administration is navigating what has become the largest US military operation since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Nearly two weeks after fighting began, the conflict has rattled global financial markets and disrupted international oil trade.

The stakes are extraordinarily high for a president who, upon returning to office last year, pledged to avoid “unnecessary military entanglements.”

While competition for Trump’s ear is a recurring feature of his presidency, what hangs in the balance this time is war and peace in one of the world’s most volatile and economically consequential regions.

The message shifts, the markets swing

Since launching the war on Feb. 28 with an expansive set of stated objectives, Trump has in recent days progressively retreated from those goals, recasting the conflict as “a limited operation that is largely complete.”

That message, however, has yet to hold. Energy markets continue to swing with each Trump statement.

At a rally in Kentucky on Wednesday, Trump declared, “We won the war,” before immediately pivoting. “But we don’t want to leave too early, do we?” he added. “We need to finish the job.”

The economy sends alarm signals

Economic advisers — including officials from the Treasury Department and the National Economic Council — have warned Trump that the oil shock and surging gasoline prices could rapidly erode domestic public support for the war, according to sources. Political advisers are pressing similar arguments.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and her deputy James Blair are urging Trump to define victory “narrowly” and to emphasize that the operation appears limited and nearly concluded, with particular attention to the political fallout of high fuel prices.

The hawks hold the line

On a separate front, hawkish voices are pressing Trump to maintain military pressure on Iran. That camp includes Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, along with commentator Mark Levin.

These figures argue that the US must prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and must respond forcefully to attacks against American troops and maritime shipping.

A third pressure track comes from Trump’s populist base. Strategist Steve Bannon and right-wing broadcaster Tucker Carlson have been conveying to Trump that the US must not be dragged into a new, protracted “Middle East war.”

An adviser close to Trump distilled the dynamic with striking clarity: “Trump is letting the hawks believe the campaign is ongoing, wants the markets to think the war could be ending soon, and is trying to show his own base that the escalation will remain contained.”

In response to requests for comment, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “This report is based on gossip and speculation from anonymous sources who have not even been in any meetings with President Trump. The president is a good listener and takes in the views of many people, but he is the one who makes the final call and sets the best message. The president’s entire team is focused on fully achieving the objectives of Operation Righteous Fury.”

Threading contradictory narratives

Trump offered scant public explanation when he took the country to war. The administration’s stated war aims have since shifted across a wide spectrum — from preventing an imminent Iranian attack, to crippling its nuclear programme, to effecting regime change.

Now seeking an exit from a conflict that lacks broad public support, Trump appears to be simultaneously sustaining contradictory narratives, according to some analysts — a balancing act made more treacherous by Iran’s continued resistance despite the devastating toll of US-Israeli airstrikes.

Political and economic advisers whose pre-war warnings about economic shock were largely dismissed have come to the fore this week. They appear to be playing a decisive role in Trump’s efforts to calm markets and limit the rise in oil and gas prices.

Trump’s characterization of the war as “a short-duration operation” and his insistence that the spike in gasoline prices is temporary are aimed at defusing anxiety over a prolonged conflict.

Some senior advisers have counseled Trump to work toward “a result he can present as a military victory,” according to sources — a scenario under which the war could be brought to a close even if much of Iran’s leadership survives and vestiges of its nuclear programme persist.

Limited gains on the ground, mounting costs at sea

A series of US and Israeli airstrikes has killed numerous senior Iranian officials. Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, its navy, and its infrastructure have sustained damage, and its capacity to support proxy forces has been weakened.

But those military gains have been substantially overshadowed by Iran’s escalating attacks on oil tankers and transit facilities in the Gulf, which have driven crude prices higher.

Trump has stated that he alone will decide when the operation ends. He and his advisers privately acknowledge that it has extended well beyond the four-to-six-week timeframe initially announced. The shifting rationales for why the war began, combined with the conflict’s spread across more than half a dozen countries, make it increasingly difficult to predict what comes next.

In the assessment of analysts, Iran’s government will claim victory by asserting its survival in the face of the US-Israeli assault — a narrative that gains force wherever Iran can demonstrate that it has inflicted damage on Israel, the US, and their allies.

The Strait of Hormuz: The decisive test

The conflict’s central hinge point is the Strait of Hormuz. Under normal circumstances, roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil shipments pass through that narrow waterway. Flow has now nearly ground to a halt.

Iran has in recent days targeted tankers in Iraqi waters and vessels near the strait; Mojtaba Khamenei, the newly installed supreme leader, has pledged to keep the waterway closed.

Should Iran’s stranglehold on the strait push gasoline prices sharply higher in the US, the resulting pressure on Republicans — who are fighting to preserve their razor-thin congressional majorities ahead of November’s midterm elections — could intensify demands on Trump to bring the war to an end.

Trump has lately been less vocal about the prospect of toppling the government in Tehran. US intelligence assesses that Iran’s leadership faces no imminent risk of collapse.

The cost of the Venezuela illusion

Some of the confusion surrounding the war’s trajectory may trace back to the swift military success the US achieved in Venezuela.

According to a source familiar with the administration’s thinking, some advisers struggled to convince Trump that the Iran operation would bear no resemblance to the Venezuela raid of Jan. 3.

In that operation, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was seized and Trump secured significant leverage over the country’s vast oil reserves without requiring a sustained military campaign. Iran has proved a far more formidable adversary — one with more advanced weapons and deeply entrenched religious and security institutions.

Analysts note that even as Trump has repeatedly insisted since June that the US-Israeli bombardment “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear programme, Trump’s own aides are pushing back against the claim that Iran was weeks away from producing a nuclear weapon.

It is believed that a significant portion of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile was buried during the June strikes; that material could theoretically be recovered, re-enriched, and brought to weapons grade. Iran has consistently denied pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Should the war drag on, American casualties mount, and economic costs escalate, some analysts believe those developments could erode support within Trump’s political base.

Yet despite criticism from some supporters who oppose military interventions, members of the Make America Great Again movement have, by and large, continued to back Trump’s Iran policy. Republican strategist Ford O’Connell summed up the dynamic: “The MAGA base will give the president room to maneuver.”

America

US national debt hits record $40 trillion as borrowing accelerates

Published

on

The US national debt has reached a record $40 trillion as borrowing expanded at a historic pace.

The development has heightened investor concern over the state of US public finances, despite Donald Trump’s pledge to bring spending under control.

Gross federal debt crossed the threshold on Tuesday, according to Treasury Department data published on Wednesday.

Calculations by the Financial Times show that debt climbed by $3 trillion over the past year, registering the fastest rate of increase in history outside the pandemic period.

Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank, said:

“This is like a giant, flashing ‘check engine’ light. It doesn’t mean your engine will melt down tomorrow, but it is a clear sign that things have gotten quite out of hand. And it’s not just the size of the number; it’s the speed at which we’ve reached it.”

The US national debt has surged over the past two decades, climbing from below $6 trillion at the start of the century (about $12 trillion in 2026 dollar terms) as massive public spending during the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic compounded enormous budget deficits.

In the past 10 years alone, the total debt load has doubled. Debt held by the public—a key gauge tracked by markets that excludes intra-governmental holdings—now exceeds $32 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the US economy.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects debt held by the public to surpass the post-Second World War record of 106% of GDP by the end of the decade and to reach 120% by 2036.

As borrowing increased, investors began demanding a higher premium to hold US bonds.

This has driven interest rates higher, leaving debt servicing costs larger than national defence spending.

The situation has created unease in Washington. On Wednesday, prior to the release of the debt data, the Treasury Department announced it would double its buybacks of long-term government debt in a bid to halt a recent sell-off.

Last week, the US paid its highest borrowing costs since 2001 to sell 30-year bonds.

Wednesday’s 10-year Treasury auction produced the highest yields since 2007 as investors fretted over the scale of the debt.

Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said: “That is an awful lot of money being borrowed. It is going to feed on itself with interest expenses. If interest rates rise because of concerns about the high debt load, that will lead to even more interest expense. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Trump returned to office in 2025 promising to rein in “wasteful” government spending.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of Trump’s term.

However, measures to trim spending in some areas were offset by broad tax cuts in the president’s signature 2025 fiscal legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will add more than $4 trillion to the debt by 2034.

Trump also requested an increase of more than 50% in annual defence spending, seeking $1.5 trillion in the largest budget request in US history.

The deficit fell to 5.9% of GDP in 2025 from 6.3% the previous year. The CBO expects the deficit to decline to 5.8% this year. The US national debt comprises years of accumulated deficits compounded by interest charges.

Analysts noted that both US political parties missed opportunities during periods of economic expansion to take significant steps toward curbing spending.

Calculations by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee indicate that over the past year, total national debt grew by roughly $7.9 billion a day, or approximately $91,000 per second.

Budget specialists said they hoped crossing the $40 trillion threshold would spur politicians from both parties to take meaningful steps to bring borrowing back under control.

Michael Peterson, head of the Peterson Foundation, a think tank dedicated to returning debt to a sustainable trajectory, said:

“My hope is that this serves as a national alarm and wake-up call to address our fiscal future. If we keep borrowing this much, we are going to face a day of reckoning in financial markets… People will wake up one day and decide: ‘You know what? I’m more worried about the United States now. I’m going to demand higher interest rates, or I’m going to put my money somewhere else.'”

Continue Reading

America

Independent US oil firms set to sign output deals in Venezuela

Published

on

Several independent US oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in the coming days.

According to sources who spoke to Politico on condition of anonymity because details of the event have not yet been made public, a signing ceremony involving several small US producers and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was scheduled to take place in Houston on Tuesday (18 August) evening.

One source said Venezuela’s oil minister and the head of PDVSA’s exploration division were scheduled to attend the ceremony. Another source added that the event could be postponed until Wednesday morning.

The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, was not expected to be officially involved in Tuesday’s ceremony.

However, the development follows a visit by senior officials to Caracas in late April, where they signed memorandums of understanding that established the framework for formal production agreements in the country, which holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Despite the tailwind provided by high crude prices, negotiations had stalled over key details such as dispute resolution, while officials in Caracas contended with two devastating earthquakes in June that claimed thousands of lives.

Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, announced new regulations last month that offer more favourable fiscal terms to international oil companies.

According to an industry source close to the negotiations, the signing of the contracts comes after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to ensure PDVSA concludes agreements with American firms.

The source said these efforts included outreach by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenues could assist the country following the devastating earthquake earlier this summer.

The source added:

“Delcy reached a renewed awareness that increased oil production is the way to rebuild after the earthquakes and to achieve what her government wants to do for the people suffering from the earthquakes.”

David Goldwyn, president of the international energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investments from independent oil producers and boosting output from existing fields would serve as the “primary source of new oil growth for the next few years” for Venezuela.

“While the oil majors are trying to buy time to see how the political situation clarifies and whether they can cherry-pick the best assets, independent companies can de-risk their projects in the short term,” Goldwyn said.

However, Goldwyn noted that these investments would add no more than 300,000 barrels per day to the country’s oil production over the next year, falling far short of the multi-million-barrel increase that officials in Caracas and Washington wish to see.

“Until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clear, all we will see is incremental production growth,” the strategist said.

Continue Reading

America

US-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs

Published

on

Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.

According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.

Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.

A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.

However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.

The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.

De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.

The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.

Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”

However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.

“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.

Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.

While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.

Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.

That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.

A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.

Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.

Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.

The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.

Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.

Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey