The Politics Surrounding U.S. Involvement In Iran

The latest FOX News poll results show 79% of Americans do believe Iran poses a serious threat, with 78% saying they are 'extremely worried about Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb.' President Trump has stressed that while he is not angling for U.S. involvement and he would have preferred they just signed a fair nuclear deal, he firmly believes we cannot allow Tehran to have a nuclear weapon. In two weeks' time, his administration will make a decision on U.S. involvement. FOX News Sunday anchor Shannon Bream joins to discuss the political repercussions of the President's decision in the Middle East.
The stock market has recovered from April's big tariff-related plunge, but now there is new uncertainty for Wall Street to focus on when it comes to the Iran-Israel conflict in the Middle East. President of Kaltbaum Capital Management and FOX Business contributor Gary Kaltbaum joins to break down the miraculous recovery made by American businesses in the wake of 'Liberation Day' tariffs and the market's resiliency so far in the face of escalations in the Middle East.
Don't miss the good news with Tonya J. Powers.
Plus, commentary from the host of 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless on Outkick,' Tomi Lahren.
Photo Credit: AP
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

15 minutes ago

• Newsweek

World Responds to Strikes on Iran's Nuclear Sites

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. After President Donald Trump confirmed that U.S. B-2 bombers hit three of Iran's nuclear complexes on Saturday, pulling America into the Middle Eastern conflict, world leaders across the globe have reacted to the escalation. Late on Saturday night, Trump said the sites were "fully obliterated," calling the raids essential to halt Iran's push for a nuclear bomb. Tehran condemned what it called a "criminal" act and said the U.S. had "launched a dangerous war." In a post shared on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, part of Iran's Armed Forces, wrote in Farsi, "Now the war has begun for us." Why It Matters After Saturday's development, concern over an international expansion on the Israel-Iran conflict has ramped up. The strikes follow weeks of rising tensions between Iran and Israel, after an Israeli attack earlier this month on Iranian nuclear and military sites. While the U.S. had previously held back, its direct involvement marks a new phase in the conflict. President Donald Trump speaks from the East Room of the White House in Washington D.C. on June 21, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks from the East Room of the White House in Washington D.C. on June 21, 2025. Carlos Barria/Pool via AP What To Know Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas have condemned the U.S. strikes, vowing to support Iran in its fight against "the Zionist and American aggression." The Iraqi government, which has close relations with both Washington and Tehran, condemned the strikes, saying the military development threatened peace and security in the Middle East. "The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world," government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in a statement. While it did not condemn the move, Saudi Arabia expressed "deep concern" about the U.S. attacks. "The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation," the kingdom's Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Qatar also refraining from condemning the attacks, but said it "regrets" escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war. Doha's Foreign Ministry urged the countries involved to "avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate." Condemning the airstrikes, Oman said they threatened "to expand the scope of the conflict and constitute a serious violation of international law and the United Nations charter." Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations. "Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region," Aoun said in a statement on X. "It is unwilling to pay more, and there is no national interest in doing so, especially since the cost of these wars was and will be greater than its ability to bear." Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said Iran's nuclear facilities "represented a danger for the entire area," adding he would speak with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi, on Sunday, "to understand the consequences that there may be from a security point of view." British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called for Iran to return to the negotiating table to diplomatically end the crisis—the U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to find a solution in Switzerland last week with Iran. Winston Peters, New Zealand's foreign minister, also called for peace talks, saying the crisis is "the most serious I've ever dealt with." South Korea's presidential office held an emergency meeting on Sunday to discuss the economic and political impacts of the strikes, while Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible. Australia's government, which closed its embassy in Tehran and evacuated staff on Friday, said in a statement: "We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security. We note the U.S. President's statement that now is the time for peace." What People Are Saying European Union Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media: "I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation." U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, wrote on X: "I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge—and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control—with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on member states to de-escalate." Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X: "Last week, we were in negotiations with the U.S. when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/EU when the | decided to blow up that diplomacy. What conclusion would you draw?" The E3 refers to member states Germany, France and Italy. What Happens Next While a number of leaders have called for Iran to return to the negotiating table, the country's foreign minister has suggested it is unlikely that it will. "To Britain and the EU High Rep, it is Iran which must 'return' to the table. But how can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up?" Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X. This story contains reporting from The Associated Press.

Fox News

16 minutes ago

• Fox News

Iran attacks Israel despite US strikes on nuclear sites, Trump calls for 'peace'

incoming update… Ellie Cohanim, former Deputy Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism during the first Trump administration, says the president deserves a peace prize for his decision to destroy three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday. Cohanim, who is also an Iranian refugee, joined "Fox & Friends Weekend" on Sunday to discuss her thoughts on the strikes. "President Trump has truly saved the world and I certainly hope that we will see recognition for what he has accomplished for the entire world. He deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for this," she said, in part. She also said that destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities gives "a new hope" for the Middle East and she hopes to see peace between Israel and its neighbors one day. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., pushed for lawmakers to return to Washington, D.C., to sign the War Powers Resolution following President Donald Trump's strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday. 'Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. The bipartisan War Powers Resolution, introduced by Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., in the House of Representatives seeks to "remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic State of Iran." It also directs Trump to "terminate" the deployment of American troops against Iran without an "authorized declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military forces against Iran." The legislation was introduced this past week as strikes between Israel and Iran raged on. Khanna said lawmakers need to return to the capital immediately to "ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace,' he said. Live Coverage begins here

Yahoo

17 minutes ago

• Yahoo

The board decision that sent the MLB, NFL unions into controversy

Last June, eight members of the board of directors for a licensing group called OneTeam Partners, which is co-owned by the players unions for five major sports leagues, signed a resolution that would have included the member unions in a plan to receive 'profits units.' Those units, like traditional equity, could be turned into cash if the company did well. It was a move that raised alarms within at least one of the unions. Advertisement By late 2024, an official at the National Football League Players Association had repeatedly raised concerns that implementing the plan could mean that labor officials serving on OneTeam's board of directors — including the head of the NFL players union, Lloyd Howell Jr., and the leader of the Major League Baseball players union, Tony Clark — were attempting to make a change that could lead to their own financial gain, potentially at the expense of union members. The resolution, which was obtained by The Athletic, called for any eventual payouts — made through what is known as a senior employee incentive plan (SEIP) — to go to the unions the board members hail from. The resolution also directly acknowledged the possibility that the unions could then grant that money to their board members. 'The explicit goal throughout the process was to financially enrich the individuals who serve on the OTP Board as labor organization representatives,' the NFLPA official wrote to lawyers in a communication criticizing the plan, which was reviewed by The Athletic. '… the idea was to pay the money into the unions, then the individuals.' In a statement to The Athletic, OneTeam said that though the plan was considered, it was ultimately abandoned. Advertisement 'In early 2024, OneTeam initiated an exploratory review to determine whether the company could lawfully offer incentive-based compensation to current and prospective Board members,' OneTeam Partners said. 'This exploratory effort was part of a broader initiative to assess strategies for attracting high-caliber, independent talent. 'Following the legal advice of a labor law expert, it was determined that the best practice, if implemented, was to make grants to the respective players associations. In so doing, any future payments would be governed by each union's player-approved bylaws, policy, and governance frameworks. It added: 'To be unequivocally clear: no OneTeam board member, nor any union employee, was directly or indirectly granted equity in OneTeam, holds equity in OneTeam or is a participant in its SEIP and any claim to the contrary is simply misinformed and false.' Federal authorities are conducting an investigation related to OneTeam Partners and union officials. The full scope of the probe, which is being run out of the Eastern District of New York, is unclear. The Eastern District of New York declined to comment. Advertisement Five major sports unions hold stakes in OneTeam, the two largest belonging to the NFLPA and the Major League Baseball Players Association, which together own two-thirds of the company, according to people briefed on the business structure who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The NFLPA has 44 percent, the MLBPA 22 percent. The unions representing players in Major League Soccer, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team and the Women's National Basketball Association own much smaller shares in OneTeam: 3.3 percent for MLS, .3 percent for the USWNTPA, and .2 percent for the WNBA, according to one of the people briefed on the structure. Early this month, the FBI started calling MLB and NFL players or their representatives. Prosecutor David Berman is heading the federal investigation, said people briefed on its process who were not authorized to speak publicly. With a federal investigation underway, the NFLPA has retained outside counsel separate from the outside lawyers retained by its executive director, Howell. Howell's lawyer did not reply to requests for comment. 'We're guided by our responsibility to our members in everything we do and we will continue to fully cooperate with the investigation,' the NFLPA said in a statement to The Athletic. Advertisement The MLBPA declined to comment Friday. That union too has retained outside counsel separate from its leader, Clark. His attorney did not return requests for comment. The NFLPA official who voiced concern about the incentive plan wrote that they were concerned about the potential for various conflicts of interest. The official argued internally that the change to the plan could dilute the players' existing stakes, which they held via their unions. The official also questioned whether the players were informed of how their financial interests might be affected. The NFLPA official's email with lawyers shows talk of changing OneTeam's SEIP dated to 2023, when a new CEO took over. In March 2024, OneTeam asked outside counsel whether there would be any issues granting union officials on its board participation in a SEIP, according to the same email. In response, the official wrote, the law firm flagged concerns regarding the National Labor Relations Act were any units to be granted directly to union board members. Plans like SEIP are common in the business world. Companies use them to reward and lure top leaders, and the programs often grant traditional shares in a company. Private companies in particular will often grant something that operates similarly to shares but is not traditional equity, according to Chris Crawford, managing director for the executive compensation practice at the firm Gallagher. Advertisement 'It's not a publicly traded, readily tradable environment,' Crawford said. 'It gets into these third-party transactions that get a little bit messy. The most common is by a generic term called 'phantom stock.'' Hence OneTeam's use of 'profits units.' But ultimately, OneTeam is not a common business because it is largely owned by unions. Union officials have legal obligations to their members and their members' interests, and most unions don't have for-profit arms with the overlay of those governance concerns. 'The labor organizations' representatives on the OTP Board are there as FIDUCIARIES representing their union members' direct ownership interests in the Company — their legal duties are not to the Company generally, but rather their union members' ownership in the company,' the NFLPA official wrote in the email to lawyers. Advertisement The union officials have their positions on OneTeam's board because of their union roles, positions for which they are already compensated. Howell was paid $3.6 million by the NFLPA for the 12 months from March 2024 through February 2025, according to the union's annual disclosure filed with the Department of Labor. Clark was paid $3.5 million for the 2024 calendar year, per the baseball union's filing. The NFLPA has four seats on OneTeam's board, and the MLBPA has three seats. Both Howell's and Clark's signatures appear on the resolution to change OneTeam's senior employee incentive plan. The unions representing players in MLS, the USWNT and the WNBA share one seat on the board that rotates. Only the signature of Becca Roux, the head of the USWNTPA, appears on the resolution from last year. Roux, as well as Bob Foose, head of the MLSPA, and Terri Jackson, head of the WNBPA, have hired Steve McCool of McGuireWoods as outside counsel. Advertisement 'I notified the prosecutor in New York that I represent a number of OTP board members,' McCool said by phone Friday. 'My clients have no cause for concern and they are available to answer any questions the government may have about this matter.' Outside investors own the remaining 30 percent of OneTeam that is not owned by unions. The SEIP resolution called for the NFLPA to receive 44 percent of the new plan units available to the board, and the MLBPA 33 percent. The other three unions were in line to receive 3.7 percent each. The outside investors on the board were not going to receive any new incentive units, the resolution said. Such an arrangement has the potential to create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, according to Lee Adler, a labor lawyer with no involvement in the matter who has long worked as counsel to unions. Advertisement 'Is there something in that set of criteria for the incentive that might have some influence on how or what the union officials who sit on the board actually end up … legislating (at OneTeam)?' asked Adler, a lecturer at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. NFLPA employees said at a meeting in November 2024 that they expected payments via SEIP would be $200,000 to $300,000, the NFLPA official wrote in the email. Sports unions have moved aggressively to capitalize on their players' branding rights. The MLBPA and NFLPA were among the founders of OneTeam in 2019. Both unions already had for-profit arms that handled licensing business, and those arms still exist today. But they were betting that a company with aggregated rights would have greater leverage. The venture has been a boon not only for the unions but also for the private equity investors who partnered with them. RedBird Capital cashed out its 40 percent stake in 2022, when the company had a $1.9 billion valuation. The windfalls from name, image and licensing rights carry a slew of gains for athletes, including bolstering traditional labor objectives like collective bargaining. The NFLPA reported about $101 million in revenue from OneTeam from early 2024 into 2025, and the MLBPA about $45 million for 2024. But both the baseball and football unions have been wrapped up in public controversy this year over, in part, OneTeam. Advertisement Late last year, an anonymous complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board levied allegations at Clark, including concerns over equity from OneTeam. The football union, where internal complaints had already been lodged, then brought on an outside firm, Linklaters, to conduct a review. The NFLPA has not publicized that firm's findings. But in March, in an email reviewed by , Howell notified OneTeam's board of directors that Linklaters found the NFLPA and OneTeam had been in compliance. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. NFL, MLB, MLS, WNBA, Sports Business 2025 The Athletic Media Company