Feed aggregator

President Trump said Wednesday that the 60-day negotiation period outlined in the newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran should not be viewed as a strict deadline, suggesting the talks could continue beyond that timeframe if progress is being made and Iran complies with its commitments.

Speaking to reporters in Paris, Trump dismissed the notion that the two-month window represented a final cutoff point for reaching a comprehensive agreement with Tehran.

“No, I don’t. [It] could take longer,” Trump said in Paris when asked if 60 days marked a final deadline.

The president indicated that the pace of negotiations was less important to him than Iran’s conduct during the process.

“I don’t view it as hard,” he continued. “Just as long as they’re behaving, I really don’t care that much.”

Trump’s remarks came shortly after senior administration officials released the full text of the memorandum to the press. According to the agreement, Washington and Tehran pledged “to negotiating and achieving the final deal in a maximum 60 days extended with mutual consent.”

Despite the breakthrough, Trump emphasized earlier in the day that the memorandum is merely a preliminary framework and should not be mistaken for a completed agreement.

“No, it’s not final. It’s a memorandum of understanding, and if I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head,” he said.

The president also warned that military action remains an option if Iran fails to meet expectations during the negotiation period.

“If they don’t behave, we’ll go back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head,” he continued, adding “they’ve misbehaved for 47 years.”

Under the framework agreement, Iran would pledge never to develop a nuclear weapon, a commitment similar to provisions included in the Obama-era nuclear accord that Trump later withdrew from. However, the memorandum leaves unresolved several major issues involving Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, including the fate of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Trump suggested Wednesday that securing control over Iran’s enriched nuclear material was not his primary concern, arguing that preventing the creation of a nuclear weapon was the more important objective.

“Because it’s very hard to get it. I don’t think anybody could get at. We could get at it with great work and a lot of time,” he said.

His comments underscored the administration’s position that the ultimate measure of success will be ensuring Iran remains unable to build a nuclear bomb, even as negotiators continue to work through the unresolved details of a final agreement.

{Matzav.com}

A growing number of Republican lawmakers are sounding the alarm over President Trump’s newly unveiled agreement with Iran, arguing that the deal grants sweeping concessions to Tehran while offering too little in return. Leading the criticism on Wednesday was Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who warned that the president is being poorly advised and is pursuing a dangerous course.

“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal,” Cruz told The Hill.

His criticism came shortly after the administration released the complete text of the memorandum of understanding designed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end hostilities between Washington and Tehran. Under the proposal, sanctions on Iranian oil exports would be removed, and Iran would gain access to a reconstruction fund valued at approximately $300 billion.

According to the document, the United States would be required to “terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, I.A.E.A. Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal.”

The agreement also includes a declaration from Iran reaffirming its longstanding claim that it does not seek to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons.

In addition, the two countries agreed to address Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched nuclear material. The memorandum specifies that Iran would be required to “down-blend” or dilute any weapons-grade nuclear material currently in its possession.

Cruz is not alone in his objections. Several prominent Republicans have sharply criticized the proposal, arguing that it rewards Tehran after years of confrontation and pressure.

Among the most vocal critics is Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who denounced the agreement on Wednesday as the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

“Reagan is rolling over in his grave. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” Cassidy posted on the social platform X.

The backlash highlights a widening divide within Republican circles as lawmakers debate whether the agreement represents a diplomatic breakthrough or a costly concession that could strengthen Iran economically and strategically for years to come.

{Matzav.com}

President Trump warned Wednesday that oil supplies could have been exhausted within a matter of weeks if the Strait of Hormuz had remained closed, arguing that the newly reached agreement with Iran prevented what could have become a global energy catastrophe.

Speaking in France during the Group of Seven summit, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring maritime traffic through the strategically vital waterway, saying the world was facing a looming shortage of available oil.

“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” Trump said while discussing the memorandum of understanding reached with Iran. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

Trump painted a dire picture of what could have happened had oil supplies continued to tighten, warning that widespread disruption would have followed.

He said it would be “bedlam” if the oil ran out.

Defending the agreement with Tehran, Trump argued that reopening the shipping lane was essential to stabilizing energy markets and ensuring the continued flow of crude oil around the globe.

“What this does is it allows the ships to go,” he said of the Iran deal. “If we keep bombing, those ships won’t be going.”

It was not immediately clear whether the president’s remarks referred specifically to American petroleum reserves or to worldwide oil stockpiles. White House officials declined to provide additional clarification, directing inquiries back to Trump’s public comments.

Concerns about shrinking inventories have been growing in recent weeks. The International Energy Agency, which represents many of the world’s major oil-consuming nations, has repeatedly cautioned that reserves have been declining as the conflict disrupted supplies.

Last month, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said emergency reserve releases had helped maintain market stability, while warning that those stockpiles could not support demand indefinitely.

At the time, Birol suggested that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the ongoing conflict had reduced available commercial inventories to only a few weeks’ worth of supply.

The agency also issued projections in May indicating that global oil consumption was expected to outpace production during the current year.

When the war began, the United States joined other IEA member nations in announcing coordinated releases from strategic petroleum reserves in an effort to offset supply disruptions. Combined, those measures added roughly 400 million barrels of oil to global markets.

As part of that effort, the Trump administration committed to releasing 172 million barrels from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve over a period of 120 days.

At the time of the announcement, America’s reserve contained approximately 415 million barrels. A release of 172 million barrels would ultimately reduce that total to roughly 243 million barrels, barring any additional purchases or withdrawals.

New figures released this week show the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has fallen to approximately 340 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983.

Before the conflict erupted, nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil consumption passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Its closure triggered sharp increases in oil prices over recent months, a surge that also translated into higher gasoline costs for consumers around the world.

{Matzav.com}

A new Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that American voters are increasingly skeptical of the U.S. military campaign against Iran, with more respondents viewing the war as unsuccessful than successful. The poll also found that nearly half of voters want military operations halted immediately, while only about one-third support continuing the conflict until Iran’s ruling regime is overthrown.

The findings come as the war appears to be approaching a diplomatic conclusion. President Donald Trump and Iranian officials have been advancing toward a memorandum of understanding that was electronically signed on Sunday and is scheduled to be formally signed in person Friday in Switzerland.

The survey, conducted among 1,032 likely voters on June 11, 14, and 15, showed that 44% of respondents regarded the conflict, which began in February, as successful. Of those, 19% described it as very successful.

At the same time, 48% said the military effort had failed to achieve its objectives, including 27% who characterized it as not successful at all.

When voters were asked whether the United States should stop military action now or continue fighting “until the Islamic regime in Iran is completely destroyed,” nearly half opted for ending the war immediately. Thirty-five percent favored continuing the campaign until regime change was achieved, while 16% remained undecided.

The latest numbers reflect a significant change in public opinion compared to earlier this year.

A Rasmussen survey conducted in mid-March found considerably stronger support for the conflict. At that time, 61% said the war had been successful, including 35% who called it very successful. Only 29% viewed the campaign as unsuccessful, while 12% said it was not successful at all.

The movement from 61% approval of the war’s success to just 44% represents a 17-point decline in support over roughly three months. The percentage of voters who viewed the campaign as very successful also dropped dramatically during that period.

Polling began after Trump terminated a previous ceasefire arrangement and authorized renewed military action against Iran, arguing that the country had “taken too long to negotiate a deal.” The survey was conducted before Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf formally completed the electronic signing of the MOU on Sunday.

Public opinion was closely divided regarding Trump’s decision to resume military operations. Forty-five percent approved of ending the ceasefire and restarting strikes, including 29% who strongly approved.

Meanwhile, 46% opposed the decision, with 33% expressing strong disapproval. Although overall support and opposition were nearly identical, stronger feelings were concentrated among those who opposed the move.

Political affiliation revealed much sharper differences than the overall results suggested.

Among Republican voters, three-quarters supported the renewed strikes. Support fell to 39% among independents and just 24% among Democrats. More than half of Democratic respondents, 53%, said they strongly disapproved of the decision.

Views on regime change followed a similar partisan pattern. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans favored continuing military action until the government in Tehran was eliminated. That position was supported by only 18% of Democrats and 31% of independent voters.

The survey also found a significant gap between supporters of the two major 2024 presidential candidates. Seventy-one percent of Trump voters considered the war successful, compared with only 20% of voters who backed Kamala Harris.

Differences also emerged across demographic categories.

Male voters were more likely than female voters to view the military campaign positively, with 49% of men calling it successful compared with 38% of women.

Voters age 65 and older produced one of the survey’s more unusual findings, as they were both the group most supportive of continuing the fight to achieve regime change and the group most likely to say the war had been unsuccessful.

Racial and ethnic responses showed somewhat narrower differences. Support for ending military operations immediately ranged from 47% among white voters to 58% among voters in other minority groups. Black voters registered 51% support for withdrawal, while 48% of Hispanic voters favored ending the conflict. Hispanic respondents were also the demographic group most likely to describe the war as successful.

The survey reported a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for individual demographic and political subgroups was higher.

{Matzav.com}

Blue and White chairman MK Benny Gantz issued a stark warning about rising tensions between Israel’s secular and chareidi communities during a wide-ranging interview with Yishai Cohen on Kikar HaShabbat’s studio program, while also sharply criticizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over the emerging U.S.-Iran agreement and addressing the recent clashes surrounding chareidi draft protests.

Gantz said the events of October 7 fundamentally changed Israel’s security outlook and argued that the country can no longer tolerate the emergence of threats on its borders.

“After October 7, there is a new reality,” Gantz said. “We are no longer prepared to allow a threat to be built up against us and wait for it to explode. That will not happen again.”

Addressing concerns in Israel over the developing agreement between the United States and Iran, Gantz said the deal should be judged primarily by its impact on Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s ability to defend itself.

“We need to examine what happens with the Iranian nuclear program, because that is the greatest threat,” he said. “Military action was taken, and now we need to see what the diplomatic component will be.”

Gantz stressed that any agreement must preserve Israel’s freedom to act against future threats.

“The next critical element is ensuring Israel’s freedom of action to defend itself—not only once a threat has developed, but to prevent it from developing in the first place,” he said.

He then placed responsibility for the agreement squarely on Netanyahu.

“This is Netanyahu’s failure,” Gantz declared. “He should have been sitting in rooms and holding discussions with President Trump over an extended period and not allowing this to take shape. This is not a matter of Right or Left. We all need to be working on this issue.”

Turning to the contentious debate over chareidi military service and the recent demonstrations on Highway 4, Gantz took a nuanced position, criticizing excessive police force while also expressing concern about growing societal divisions.

“I saw some footage and heard about the incident,” he said. “Unlike the military, which must use all necessary force against its enemies, the police, when dealing with its own citizens, should use the minimum amount of force possible—not the maximum.”

At the same time, Gantz emphasized that public demonstrations must comply with police instructions.

“The assumption is that when a police officer tells someone to move from one place to another, that person complies,” he said. “Public protests naturally create inconvenience and disruption, but at a certain point the police say, ‘That’s enough, clear the road.’ What we are seeing here is something entirely different. Extremists are threatening the majority from which they emerged.”

Gantz then directed a personal appeal to chareidi leadership, saying he is deeply concerned by what he sees developing in Israeli society.

“What worries me most—and I say this to the leaders of the chareidi community—is that hatred of chareidim is developing,” he said. “That is not good, and it should not be this way. We need to live together. You cannot separate a sector from society and at the same time not be part of the broader public.”

He stressed that his support for military service is not motivated by hostility toward the chareidi community.

“I discuss the issue of military service without incitement against chareidim,” Gantz said. “I am speaking in favor of service and enlistment not in order to incite, but because it is necessary for the country and beneficial for society. Ultimately, it is also what will help preserve the chareidi community.”

Addressing the arrest of yeshiva students who fail to comply with draft orders, Gantz said he is willing to show patience but not to abandon enforcement measures.

“I am prepared to be patient, but I am not willing to give up on sanctions,” he said. “When my son received a draft order, if he had failed to report, he could have been arrested. How is this any different? I am not saying every person should be arrested, but there must be consequences.”

Despite recent polls showing Blue and White hovering near the electoral threshold, Gantz expressed confidence that his party will remain politically relevant.

“I think our situation is not good, but it is better than people describe it,” he said. “I am convinced that we will pass the threshold and become stronger. We are focused on establishing a government of national unity.”

Gantz also made clear that he does not believe Netanyahu should continue serving as prime minister.

“Netanyahu must conclude his role,” he said. “He is responsible for what has happened here, for both the good and the bad. He has been prime minister for many years. This is a government, not an empire.”

Asked whether Gadi Eisenkot or Naftali Bennett would be better suited to serve as prime minister, Gantz declined to choose between them.

“I won’t answer that,” he said. “What matters even more than who serves as prime minister is what kind of government is formed. Israel needs a government of national unity.”

{Matzav.com}

A chareidi man who was arrested following a protest outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg says he and other detainees were subjected to difficult conditions, including lengthy confinement without basic necessities and repeated transfers between detention facilities.

The man, identified only as Shlomo, shared his account during an interview on the “News of Anash” program on Kol Chai, where he recounted the events that led to his arrest and the week he spent in custody.

According to Shlomo, he was unaware that the protest was being held outside the justice’s home until he arrived at the scene.

“There were notices in the shul and we went,” he said. “Only when I got there and heard that it was the home of Justice Sohlberg was I shocked. If I had known in advance that we were going there, I probably would not have come.”

Shlomo said the demonstration itself lasted only a few minutes and insisted that he played no active role in any disruptive behavior.

“I stood on the side. I wasn’t violent, I didn’t block any roads, and I didn’t do anything unusual,” he said. “After a few minutes we returned to the buses, and then the police closed off the bus and took us to the police station.”

He claimed that those detained were kept for extended periods without access to basic accommodations.

“We sat for a long time without air conditioning, without water, and without restrooms,” he said. “Only after we called for help did they agree to provide minimal conditions.”

Shlomo also described what he said were prolonged transfers between detention facilities.

“They put us on a transport vehicle, and we were there for many hours without knowing where they were taking us,” he said. “It was extremely hot and crowded, and people fainted. Only afterward were we transferred elsewhere.”

He further alleged that he witnessed other detainees being treated improperly during the course of their detention.

According to Shlomo, one detainee who lost consciousness in a holding cell did not initially receive adequate medical attention. In another incident, he said, a detainee suffering from a panic attack was forced to wait a significant amount of time before receiving treatment.

Shlomo said he fully cooperated with investigators and provided all requested personal information. Nevertheless, he claimed he remained in custody for approximately a week despite not being accused of any violent conduct.

“This was the first time I was ever arrested,” he said. “I told the investigators that I hadn’t done anything, but it didn’t change the situation.”

Reflecting on the experience, Shlomo said he remains deeply frustrated by what he and other detainees endured.

“I never believed we would reach a situation like this,” he said. “I’m considering filing a lawsuit over what we went through, but I don’t know whether it will change anything.”

During the interview, host Nati Kalish noted that he had spoken with other individuals arrested in the same incident and said they provided accounts that were broadly similar regarding both the circumstances of their arrests and the conditions under which they were held.

{Matzav.com}

As tensions between Israel’s chareidi community and the broader public continue to intensify, a series of dramatic developments—including mass protests, allegations of police brutality, and calls for an economic boycott of major consumer brands—are reshaping the public debate surrounding the arrest of bnei Torah and the ongoing draft controversy.

One of the most striking scenes unfolded today when more than 10,000 Gerer chassidim, led by the Gerrer Rebbe, gathered outside Military Prison No. 10 in a powerful show of solidarity following the arrest of a member of the chassidus.

At the same time, what began as a spontaneous protest movement among members of the Peleg Yerushalmi and the so-called “Ratzfanik” faction in support of imprisoned bnei Torah escalated into a confrontation with police that participants described as unprecedented in its severity. Protesters alleged that officers used excessive force, resulting in injuries, torn clothing, the use of stun grenades, and numerous physical altercations.

The images emerging from the demonstrations have fueled a broader discussion about the limits of police authority when dealing with ideological protests and have become a rallying point for critics of law enforcement’s handling of the events.

Leaders of the Peleg Yerushalmi argue that police conduct crossed every acceptable boundary and have reportedly begun considering legal action against authorities. Members of the movement say they are exploring a range of options for future demonstrations, amid growing fears that continued confrontations could eventually result in serious injuries or worse.

Among the ideas reportedly under discussion is a strategy aimed at disrupting major transportation routes while avoiding direct clashes with police. According to proposals circulating within activist circles, demonstrators would stage a series of rotating road blockages at different points along the Ayalon Highway. Under the plan, one group would temporarily shut down traffic before dispersing moments before police arrived, while another group would simultaneously launch a new blockade elsewhere, creating a continuous cycle of disruptions throughout the morning.

While protest activity continues on the streets, another campaign is emerging behind the scenes—one focused not on demonstrations, but on economic pressure.

Activists within the chareidi community have begun promoting a boycott targeting companies connected to businessman Dudi Wertheim, whom some blame for what they view as hostile media coverage of the chareidi public. The campaign specifically focuses on products manufactured by companies under the umbrella of the Central Bottling Company, which holds the Israeli franchise for Coca-Cola and owns a number of other major brands.

Supporters of the initiative argue that consumers should not financially support corporations linked to media outlets they believe are contributing to anti-chareidi sentiment.

“It is unacceptable that they incite against our community while continuing to profit from our purchases,” organizers of the effort have reportedly argued.

Wertheim’s business interests include Coca-Cola Israel, dairy producer Tara, beverage brands Carlsberg and Tuborg, fruit juice manufacturer Prigat, and bottled water company Neviot, among others.

Those promoting the boycott believe that economic pressure may prove more effective than public criticism in influencing media policy. Their goal, they say, is to send a clear message that negative portrayals of the chareidi community carry financial consequences.

The campaign has gained momentum in recent days, with boycott appeals spreading rapidly through chareidi email networks and messaging groups that serve as major sources of information for many avreichim and bnei Torah.

Meanwhile, prominent roshei yeshivah have continued addressing the growing anxiety surrounding arrests and military enforcement measures.

Rav Yehoshua Eichenstein, rosh yeshivah of Yad Aharon, recently delivered a strongly worded address to talmidim of Yeshivas Chayei Daas during the institution’s relocation to its new campus in Yerushalayim’s Beis Yisrael neighborhood. A central theme of his remarks was reassuring young avreichim and yeshivah bochurim who fear arrest due to their draft status, encouraging them not to allow anxiety to overwhelm them.

In another notable development, MK Yaakov Asher delivered an unusually sharp speech in the Knesset, condemning police conduct toward demonstrators. Observers noted that his remarks made him the first Lithuanian chareidi lawmaker associated with Degel HaTorah to publicly criticize police actions against protesters from the Ratzfanik camp.

The White House has secured an additional $351.6 million for security-related upgrades, raising fresh questions about whether any of the money could ultimately support President Trump’s controversial ballroom project, which is being planned on the former site of the East Wing.

The funding was authorized Friday by the Office of Management and Budget. According to federal records, $340.8 million was directed to a “Procurement, Construction, and Improvements” account, while another $10.75 million was allocated to an “Operations and Support” account maintained by the Secret Service.

The newly released funds originate from the One Big Beautiful Bill, approved through the budget reconciliation process last July. That legislation provided the Secret Service with $1.7 billion earmarked for staffing, training facilities, technology upgrades, operational programs, retention incentives, and recruitment bonuses.

Whether the latest $351.6 million allocation will be used in any way for the White House ballroom initiative remains uncertain. The project is currently the subject of ongoing legal challenges.

Responding to questions from Fox News Digital, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the East Wing redevelopment effort is closely linked to presidential protection requirements.

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets”

Ingle noted that security agencies have been involved in planning the facility from the outset.

“The press release announcing the construction of the ballroom highlighted coordination with the White House Military Office and the United States Secret Service regarding design features and planning,” he said. “President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come.”

He also pointed to recent security concerns as evidence that the project is necessary.

“The events over the weekend and the foiled attack on the historic UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House proves exactly why the East Wing Modernization Project is severely needed for large scale events, which include drone proof structures and drone ports among other critical security enhancements,” Ingle added.

The Secret Service did not immediately respond to requests seeking clarification about the funding.

Trump has described the planned development as far more than a ceremonial event space. According to the president, the ballroom will sit atop an extensive six-story underground complex housing a military hospital, research facilities, conference areas, and advanced systems designed to defend against drone and missile threats.

In remarks delivered in late May, Trump estimated the project’s price tag at roughly $400 million and reiterated that private donors—not taxpayers—would finance the construction.

That claim has been challenged by a report published Tuesday by The Washington Post, which cited a contractor’s estimate placing the total cost at approximately $600 million. According to the report, taxpayers could end up covering more than half of the final bill.

For years, Trump has argued that a White House ballroom would significantly improve security for major presidential events. His argument gained renewed attention after federal authorities announced Sunday that they had disrupted an alleged plan to launch explosive-equipped drones at buildings near the UFC Freedom 250 event held at the White House.

Construction plans required the demolition of the East Wing in October 2025, a move that sparked legal action from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The organization contended that the administration sidestepped required review procedures and lacked congressional approval for the project.

The legal battle intensified in March when U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded that the administration likely exceeded its authority and ordered all above-ground construction activity suspended.

That setback proved temporary. On April 17, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court put Leon’s ruling on hold, allowing work to continue while the appeal process moves forward.

Security concerns resurfaced only days later when a gunman opened fire at Secret Service personnel stationed at a security checkpoint outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton.

Following the arrest of the suspect, Cole Tomas Allen, Trump and his supporters renewed calls for construction of the ballroom, arguing that a secure White House venue would reduce vulnerabilities associated with off-site events.

Another violent incident occurred on May 23, when a shooting took place outside the White House, prompting Trump to again make the case for the project.

“This event is one month removed from the White House Correspondent’s Dinner shooting, and goes to show how important it is, for all future Presidents, to get, what will be, the most safe and secure space of its kind ever built in Washington, D.C. The National Security of our Country demands it!” he wrote on Truth Social on May 24.

{Matzav.com}