Hello, and happy Tuesday. This is Senior Editor Will Kaback, settling in for our 13th edition on the war in Iran since February 28. Three weeks ago, the prospect of a peace deal felt tangible, albeit tenuous. Today, a resolution seems as distant as it did on day one. We’ll explore where the Iran conflict could be headed — and for how long — as well as what variables could alter each side’s calculations. Then, an under-the-radar story on a defamation lawsuit brought by Hunter Biden, and a palate-cleansing report on an escaped giraffe. 

It’s a 13-minute read.

Too busy to read? Push play instead!

Listen to the newsletter every Monday - Friday here. Or checkout the ad-free members only podcast here.

Quick hits.

1. The Department of Homeland Security claimed that the man killed by a federal immigration agent in Biddeford, Maine, on Monday was attempting to evade authorities and “weaponized his vehicle toward law enforcement,” causing the agent to fear for his safety. Eyewitnesses have offered conflicting accounts, and clear video evidence has yet to surface. Maine officials have demanded a full investigation into the shooting. (The latest)
2. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) appointed Darline Graham Nordone to serve the remainder of her late brother Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R) term. (The appointment)
3. A federal judge rebuked the Trump administration for its $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, saying the suit was brought to “manipulate the judicial process.” The judge voided the settlement and referred some of President Trump’s attorneys for possible disciplinary action. (The ruling)
4. The consumer price index rose 3.5% in June compared to the year prior, down from 4.2% in May. Prices dropped 0.4% month-over-month, the largest drop since April 2020. (The numbers)
5. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a joint task force with the Justice Department to identify and prosecute information leaks to the media. (The announcement)

Today’s topic.

The latest developments in Iran. On Monday night, the U.S. carried out its third straight day of strikes against Iran, the latest in a series of military engagements that began last week. On Friday, President Donald Trump notified Congress that the U.S. had resumed military activities against Iran as of July 7, when U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reported engaging in “retaliatory strikes” following Iran’s strikes on vessels attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz. The resumption of military engagement follows weeks of increasing tensions as peace negotiations stalled.

Back up: The U.S. and Iran reached a ceasefire agreement in April and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June, outlining the terms of a permanent peace deal. In recent weeks, the two sides had been discussing control of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program, though no breakthroughs were reported. Throughout the ceasefire, both sides have exchanged strikes, but claimed that the ceasefire was still in effect. However, in recent weeks, tensions have risen, with President Trump threatening Iran over rumored plans to assassinate him. On Friday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that the ceasefire with Iran was “over,” though negotiations would continue.

Over the course of three days last week, U.S. strikes targeted over 300 Iranian military sites in an attempt to reduce the country’s ability to threaten ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Following U.S. strikes, Iran carried out strikes against U.S. bases in other Gulf countries, including Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, as well as ships crossing the strait. On Saturday, Iran claimed it would close the strait to further trade in retaliation for U.S. strikes. 

President Trump has disputed Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz. In a Truth Social post, he claimed the U.S. would become the “guardian” of the strait and that the waterway would remain open. He initially announced plans to charge a 20% fee on cargo passing through the strait; however, in another Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said the U.S. would instead negotiate trade and investment deals with other Gulf states. Following the resumption of hostilities, Brent crude oil prices rose to $84.62 a barrel as of 11 AM ET. Additionally, CENTCOM said U.S. forces plan to resume their blockade of Iranian ports — which had been lifted in June — on Tuesday. 

Below, you’ll hear from the left, right, and writers in the Middle East about the latest military actions. Then, Senior Editor Will Kaback gives his take.

What the left is saying.

• Many on the left say Trump’s posturing makes negotiations difficult and has trapped the U.S. in the conflict. 
• Others suggest Iran’s position is not as strong as it thinks.  

In MS NOW, Nicholas Grossman argued “Trump lost his war with Iran — now he’s trapped in it.”

“The U.S. lost the war Trump started, failing to achieve the president’s declared goals of regime change and unconditional surrender, or his fallback aim of forcing Iran to accept tight nuclear restrictions,” Grossman wrote. “Whatever the reason Trump pretends an obvious loss is a win, the fact that he keeps doing it perpetuates the conflict… Reaching a real peace agreement is even harder when the president of the United States keeps lying about the reality of the situation, and demanding that others do as well.”

“The U.S. is bombing Iran again. But the original, larger aerial campaign failed to collapse the Iranian government or stop Iran from blocking Hormuz, so there’s no reason to expect a smaller bombing effort to succeed,” Grossman said. “The situation in the Gulf is bad for the U.S., with Iran in a stronger position. The U.S. president’s response is to pretend it’s the opposite. As long as that persists, the conflict will remain unresolved.”

In Vox, Joshua Keating said “the US was overconfident before the war. Iran may be overconfident now.”

“Iran’s new leaders now view de facto control of the Strait as their primary deterrent against future attacks by their enemies — an arguably more effective and flexible deterrent than their nuclear program ever was,” Keating wrote. “[But] the ability to close Hormuz may… not be as powerful a weapon of mass disruption as many thought it would be. Crude oil prices went as high as $126 per barrel during the war, but usually hovered closer to $100 — well short of the $200 many experts were predicting at the outset of the war.”

“While continued flare-ups in the fighting have driven spikes in oil prices throughout the crisis — including this week — markets have also been quick to settle in the periods of calm that followed,” Keating said. “The US and Israel launched this war with what proved to be massive overconfidence in their ability to force a weaker country to bend to their will through sheer dominance in firepower. In this new lower-intensity phase of the conflict, Iran may have similar overconfidence in its ability to coerce its rivals through an advantage in geography.”

What the right is saying.

• The right is mixed, with some arguing Trump must return to hostile engagement after diplomacy failed.
• Others praise the president, saying the U.S. retains a strong position in the conflict.

The Washington Post editorial board described “Trump’s Iran choice.”

“The best thing that can be said about President Donald Trump’s experiment with appeasing the Islamic Republic of Iran is that it didn’t last long,” the board wrote. “It might seem like unfortunate miscalculations killed the memorandum of understanding between the White House and the hardliners running Tehran. The reality is that diplomacy was doomed from the start. The Iranian regime perceived the White House’s decision to end the fighting under political pressure and offer multibillion-dollar sanctions relief not as a sign of goodwill but proof of weakness.”

“None of [Trump’s] objectives is fully complete, but the memorandum of understanding struck last month offered Iran financial relief if it opened the Strait of Hormuz. Releasing tens of billions of dollars to a regime that won’t honor its end of the bargain will embolden it to ask for more,” the board said. “That doesn’t mean the U.S. needs to go back to full-on war. But the administration can ratchet up sanctions pressure, impose an embargo on Iranian oil and take limited kinetic action when necessary… There will be pressure to go back to the tired playbook of bribing the regime into good behavior, but that hasn’t worked recently and it won’t work again.”

In American Greatness, Fred Fleitz wrote “Trump’s patience with the Iranian regime runs out.”

“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,” Fleitz said. “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.”

“Beneath [Trump’s] 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,” Fleitz wrote. “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… President Trump’s decisive action this week reaffirms that the United States will not subsidize aggression through endless patience.”

What writers in the Middle East are saying.

• Some writers criticize both the U.S. and Iran for the failed negotiations. 
• Others see last week’s developments as a historic shift in the relationship between Iran and the United States.

In The Hill, Peiman Salehi said “both sides signed the Iran deal, but neither could deliver.”

“As it turned out, the deal was less a diplomatic breakthrough and more a mechanism for ending a war that neither side could afford to continue. And even for that purpose, it wasn’t suited to the task,” Salehi wrote. “The memorandum of understanding mattered less as a peace treaty than as a signal about the limits of American coercive power… The U.S. launched a full military campaign against Iran and could not, at least initially, break its strategic posture.”

“The Iranian side faced a public and a Supreme Leader that had already signaled that uranium transfers and unconditional Persian Gulf access are politically impossible. The American side faced a skeptical Senate that may not ratify any final agreement, and an administration that kept contradicting its own negotiators. Is it any surprise, then, that the memorandum failed to end the war?” Salehi asked. “Whether the memorandum is formally alive or dead changes little on the ground. The conduct of both sides since its first days made clear they were never moving toward a final agreement.”

In The Jerusalem Post, Erfan Fard suggested “Trump signals new era in Iran policy.” 

“[Trump’s NATO Summit remarks] may represent one of the most consequential shifts in America’s strategic language toward the Islamic Shiite regime since 1979,” Fard wrote. “By warning that any new Iranian attack would trigger an even more devastating response — and by describing the regime as a ‘cancer’ that must be removed — Trump signaled something far more significant than political theater. In the language of national security, such terminology is rarely accidental. It often reflects a deeper redefinition of the threat itself.

“For more than four decades, US policy toward the Islamic Republic has revolved around containment and deterrence. The assumption was that Tehran’s behavior could be managed, constrained, or made more costly,” Fard said. “If Trump’s words evolve into policy, the region may be entering a new strategic era. Not one of endless management, but one of surgical disruption of the machinery that has sustained one of the most destabilizing ideological systems of the modern age.”

My Take

Will Kaback

Senior Editor

 

• The resumption of fighting is frustrating but not surprising. 
• With the MOU seemingly dead, it’s hard to see a way out of this conflict. 
• Even after nearly five months of war, the fundamentals on each side remain about the same.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment on the website.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

This proverb has rattled about in my head since the early days of the war, when I thought the fighting would change little about the underlying dynamics between the U.S. and Iran. I was skeptical that the Trump administration could achieve its objectives; I doubted that military force would fundamentally change the disposition of the Iranian government, which has shown itself undeterred by decapitation strikes, economic pressure, or its people’s suffering. In other words, I didn’t think the Trump administration understood its adversary. Sure, we could overwhelm Iran’s air defenses, strike it endlessly and even take out its top leaders en masse, but as long as Iran’s theocratic ruling structure remained in place, could we bend it to our will? 

So far, the answer is no. For all the twists and turns over the past five months of this conflict, neither side’s posture has meaningfully changed. One month ago, Vice President JD Vance told CNBC that “our relationship with Iran has fundamentally transformed. You hear the President talk about the fact that we’re dealing with a totally different group of people. That’s absolutely true.” Today, that comment looks naive at best. As peace discussions break down again, hostilities resume again and the Strait of Hormuz takes center stage again, Iran’s thinking clearly hasn't changed, and the war appears increasingly intractable. 

I’ll be the first to acknowledge that pessimism colors my view. When we covered the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June, I wrote, “The war is not necessarily over… Without the ability to control movement through the strait, we’ll just be back in the same place we are today, no matter how many Iranian leaders we kill or how many military sites we destroy.” The developments in the past three weeks have mostly reinforced that position: After peace talks broke down last week, Iran shut down the waterway (attacking commercial ships in the process), the U.S. called off the ceasefire and imposed its own blockade, and both sides signaled they were digging in for a new fight. 

The last time around, President Trump said oil reserves were “four weeks” from running out prior to the MOU’s signing. Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency reportedly assessed earlier in the conflict that Iran could withstand a U.S. blockade of the waterway for 3–4 months before an acute economic crisis. We haven’t reached either side’s breaking point yet, but as things stand, I think Iran’s pain tolerance is still greater. 

And yet, its position is also tenuous. Vox’s Joshua Keating (under “What the left is saying”) made the strongest case that Iran’s leadership is overplaying its hand. As he noted, oil prices did not rise as much as some experts predicted when the strait first closed, partially due to non-Mideast producers increasing their output and partially due to China cutting oil imports. Furthermore, the impact of the closure is prompting Gulf nations to establish alternate routes to transport oil and gas. That infrastructure won’t be built overnight, but change is coming, and Iran could come to regret a protracted strait closure that permanently drives away Gulf customers. I still think the U.S. lacks leverage in the current standoff, but Iran’s position has never been risk-free. 

What’s more, Iran fumbled a peace deal that was tilted heavily in its favor. The Trump administration — led in negotiations by Vice President Vance — seemed eager to pull out of the conflict as gas prices soared and voters soured ahead of the midterms, making it willing to offer major victories to the Iranian regime. The MOU unlocked billions in sanctions relief for Iran, lifted export restrictions and outlined a $300 billion reconstruction plan, all while keeping the Iranian regime intact. Those are consequential terms for a country whose economy had been crippled by sanctions and whose leadership was largely wiped out at the start of the war. Three weeks ago, Iran was on the cusp of a strategic and moral victory against a hated adversary. Now, the conflict has returned to square one.

Of course, Iran’s leaders aren’t rational actors — at least in the terms that Americans understand. The hardliners in the government want a protracted fight with the United States, and they’re happy to sacrifice their own people (or even die themselves) to see that fight out. I disagree with pro-war interventionists like The Wall Street Journal editorial board about the necessity of this conflict, but they’re right that Iran likely saw the MOU as a sign of U.S. weakness that emboldened them to press further. I also think The Washington Post editorial board (under “What the right is saying”) is correct that last month’s attempt at diplomacy was doomed; as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s top negotiator, said last week, “The era of bullying and extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don’t fold.” Ghalibaf is posturing, but Iran’s track record makes me think those aren’t the words of an adversary looking for an off ramp. 

So… here we are. Iran’s position may be weaker than it was three weeks ago, but that doesn’t mean it’s any closer to folding. The Trump administration may be more clear-eyed about the negotiators on the other side, but that realization doesn’t mean a lasting resolution is coming. 

On the home front, the costs of the war may reach new levels, and the political pressure will ramp up ahead of November’s elections. The latest inflation report showed energy prices cooling after heating up for several months, but with the conflict resuming and the strait disrupted, I expect they’ll start to tick back up. Even if President Trump — notably sensitive to market pressures — wants to head off these pressures and adopts a more conciliatory tone, he still can’t control the flow of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. can help guide some ships to safety, sure, but that’s not a lasting solution, and Iran only needs to maintain a credible threat of disrupting the entire waterway to retain its economic leverage. 

We are in a quagmire, with no straightforward path to victory. This was avoidable, of course, if we had not initiated this war without a plan for countering the enemy’s trump card (the strait). Regardless, we’re here now, and the past week’s developments lead me to think that we’re in it for the long haul — needless to say, a much longer conflict than the Trump administration promised at the outset.

I don’t know exactly how the coming days, weeks and months will play out in Iran, but I’m confident that they will bring more bombs, more threats, more obstruction, and more disruption. The underlying motivations on each side are the same as when the war started, and this latest breakdown in peace talks has sent both back to their corners, as motivated as ever to see the other’s destruction. 

Will more strikes change the calculus? A new MOU? New negotiators? New targets? 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Take the survey: How long could the war last? Let us know.

Disagree? That’s okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we’ll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: Given the numerous data/security breaches, why won’t / can’t the USA government reissue Social Security Numbers? While I’m sure more data breaches will still happen, it feels like there have been so many breaches, including folks’ SSNs, that a nationwide reset would be helpful. I feel like a reset would at least even the playing field a bit.

— Karen from Seattle, WA

Tangle: In the U.S., both the private and public sectors use Social Security numbers (SSNs); the federal government uses them to track earnings and pay benefits, and employers use them as universal identity verification tools. Essentially, a person’s SSN is connected to every single major life event or financial benchmark, including credit histories, tax filings, insurance accounts, bank accounts, employment — and more. 

Right now, new SSNs are issued only in a few narrow cases, such as cases involving ongoing, unresolved fraud, domestic violence or safety, and other serious life disruptions. Having your number exposed or stolen in a breach does not qualify as a reason for a new number, and the Social Security Administration requires proof that you’ve exhausted other remedies first before considering assigning you a new number. 

In theory, Congress could pass legislation mandating a national reset of SSNs. But there’s a near-zero chance that ever happens — not least because of the absolute scale of the upheaval to the Social Security system it would entail. Imagine the most basic administrative obstacles: If every single driving-age American needed a new license overnight, local DMVs simply couldn’t manage the logistics, and there are thousands of those across the country. Every single institution that uses SSNs to prove someone’s identity would need to update its records and potentially issue new documents. It’s an unfathomable volume of highly sensitive work. 

The Social Security Administration is just one entity, already riddled with staffing shortages and extensive wait times just to fulfill basic day-to-day operations. Though it sounds straightforward enough, updating everyone’s SSNs would result in a workflow paralysis that would take years (or decades) to wade through. 

Perhaps most importantly, changing the numbers won’t actually solve fraud: The old number would need to be connected to the new number to keep track of a person’s history, and simply changing numbers wouldn’t reduce the risk of future leaks. If anything, it could actually increase the risk, given all the opportunities fraudsters would have to infiltrate the transition to and delivery of new SSNs. 

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Numbers.

• 136. The number of days since the U.S.–Iran war began.
• $84.62. The price, in U.S. dollars, per barrel of Brent crude oil as of 11 AM ET on July 14, 2026. 
• 14. The number of vessels that crossed the Strait of Hormuz on July 12. 
• 5. The number of countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, and Oman) in which U.S. bases were targeted by Iran on July 12. 
• $34–42 billion. The estimated range of the cost, in dollars, of the United States’s military conflict with Iran, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Under the radar.

On Friday, a California district judge ruled in favor of Hunter Biden in a defamation lawsuit, awarding former President Joe Biden’s son $1.7 million in damages. Biden sued former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne in November 2023 for falsely stating in an interview that Biden sought an $800 million bribe from Iran. In response to Biden’s lawsuit, Byrne argued that he had not made the statements with “actual malice,” asserting that an Iranian official had informed him of the alleged bribery and that he believed them to be true. The court found evidence supporting the finding “that [Byrne] knew the story to be false” and that much of his narrative about his meeting with the Iranian official “was fabricated.” U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson ordered Byrne to pay nearly $35,000 in court sanctions and awarded Biden $1 in nominal damages and $1.7 million in punitive damages. The Hill has the story. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered the immigration raids in California.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was the report on the ICE shooting in Maine.
• Nothing to do with politics: DNA cracks a Revolutionary War-era cold case. 
• Our last survey: 3,195 readers responded to our survey on Sen. Lindsey Graham’s legacy, with 36% saying his legacy is mostly negative. “Ukraine aside, this man was the worst type of politician — someone who chases power at all costs,” one respondent said. “I fear a lot of legislation he championed will fail. His passing will be felt throughout America and many parts of the world,” said another.

Have a nice day.

Of all the creatures to go missing in Texas, a giraffe would probably be your last guess. You may also guess that the animal’s exotic look and sheer size would make it easy to spot. And yet, Gracie the giraffe undercut all assumptions, going on the run from Cedar Hollow Ranch and evading her rescuers for two weeks. Estimated to be three to four years old, Gracie appears to have gotten lost on a hillside after feeding in a new spot. In late June, she was seen on a trail camera, and handlers from the ranch were able to bring her home. According to Real Country Sheriff Nathan Johnson, Gracie had a bit of a “catch me if you can” attitude, but was found “fat and happy.” News 4 San Antonio has the story.