America
Trump caught between hawks, markets, and his base as Iran war drags past initial timeline
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by Reuters with an adviser close to Trump and with sources familiar with the decision-making process offer a previously unpublished account of how the administration is navigating what has become the largest US military operation since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.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
Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports
The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.
According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.
In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.
As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.
Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.
Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.
On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.
These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.
Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.
CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.
That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.
A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.
Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.
The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.
White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.
The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.
During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.
In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.
The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.
America
Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races
A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.
These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.
According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.
The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.
Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.
Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.
Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:
“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”
The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.
Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.
Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.
More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.
The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.
According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.
Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.
America
Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives
Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.
The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.
Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.
Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
— Jacob Coxon (@hilbertspaess) September 9, 2026
“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”
In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.
Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.
Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.
Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.
Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.
Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.
In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.
Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.
“They are gambling with our lives”
Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.
However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.
Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.
Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.
On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.
It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.
Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.
A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.
Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.
-
Europe4 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia1 week agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East1 week agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia1 week agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
