Opinion - Leland Vittert's War Notes: Ring Side Seats
NewsNation Chief Washington Anchor and On Balance host Leland Vittert was a foreign correspondent for four years in Jerusalem. He gives you an early look at tonight's 9 pm ET show. Subscribe to War Notes here. Altar bound: This weekend I get to do something I always hoped would happen but wasn't sure would – marry my best friend.
At 42, I have lived enough to know I am so lucky to have found the woman perfect for me.
I am so lucky to be joining Rachel's family and happier still that her parents and mine have become such great friends.
My parents have been married for 53 years.
Rachel's parents are about a decade behind.
It's quite the legacy to live up to – but I couldn't imagine better examples.
Silly me: I didn't think this weekend would have many emotions – Rachel and I have dated for four years, and we do everything together – boy, was I wrong.
The weight of the journey and responsibility ahead has become profoundly real.
Yet, the excitement and dreams of a life together beckon with a far louder voice.
We'll share more of the marriage advice you sent in on the show tonight.
By far, the most popular advice was, 'Rachel is always right.'
Thanks, but I figured that out a LONG time ago.
'War Notes' is off until Tuesday, June 10 — I'll be sure to post some pictures of the wedding on Instagram @lelandvittert.
Big sale: The audiobook version of 'Born Lucky,' narrated by me, is 55% off now through Saturday on Audible.
You can preorder the actual hardcover book on Amazon here.
For you: 'War Notes' subscribers who purchase the book – audio or hardcover – will get invited to a private Q&A session with me plus receive a signed bookmark.
More on both of those closer to the Sept. 30 release date — but PLEASE preorder now — save your receipt!
Must watch: Click here to watch one of the prison escapees in New Orleans ask President Trump and rapper Lil Wayne for help.
When running from the cops after a prison escape, aren't you supposed to disappear?!
During the first 130 days of his second term, President Trump rained punches on his enemies – now, he's oddly silent – and let his enemies fight amongst themselves.
Give it another day or so, and the White House press corps will complain that President Donald Trump is hiding.
Be fair: When compared to the multiple Oval Office press conferences each week he usually does, he's relatively distant.
He last talked to the press Friday night in a driving rainstorm at Joint Base Andrews.
We caught it during our segment with Corey Lewandowski. Click here to watch Trump's brief presser and the full interview.
Trump had no public appearances Saturday.
On Sunday, the president golfed with Bryson DeChambeau at Trump National Club in D.C. and then returned to the White House.
On Monday, the president's schedule included lunch with the vice president.
Today, he had no public appearances.
Political reality: Nobody knows the media better than Trump – if he doesn't want to be the story and dominate the coverage, there is a reason.
The Boulder attack puts Democrats in a terrible position.
Trump has been notably silent on Ukraine's spy novel-worthy one-two punch against Putin.
Good news for Ukraine is good news for Trump domestically.
The Biden health scandal continues to ferment.
Elon Musk is fighting Trump over the 'big, beautiful bill.'
'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk wrote in a post on X.
It's amazing how the press now views Musk as an honest broker because he's criticizing Trump.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also came out against the bill in a post on X:
'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this … This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.'
Yet Trump is still silent.
Winning: President Trump is not back above water in polling, but he is closer to a positive approval rating than anytime since early April.
Trump's average approval rating today is 47.5%, with 49.7% of Americans disapproving.
Watch tonight: The great Mark Halperin on Trump's 'new' media strategy.
For true political junkies: Always join Halperin's 'The Morning Meeting' show on 2 Way.
The illegal immigrant and pro-Hamas terrorist who allegedly attacked Jews in Boulder, Colorado, completely changed the American political conversation – Democrats haven't figured that out yet.
It's all the Democrats' problems in one:
Illegal immigration: As Mark Halperin explains:
'Republicans are seizing on the fact that the accused appears to have come to this country illegally and been allowed to stay because of the policies and practices of the Biden administration… I'm already hearing from Democrats who say, if we don't get ahead of this, we are morons. We cannot be on the wrong side of denouncing this man's presence in the United States.'
Have you seen any Democrats get ahead of it?
Antisemitism: Those who make the argument that the 'Free Palestine' folks are really just concerned about starving kids in Gaza have been exposed.
Islamic extremist terrorism – it's still alive and well.
Politically correct wokeism – Democrats still can't bring themselves to harshly condemn the anti-Israel rhetoric.
They must protect the pro-Palestinian cause because they are afraid of losing their progressive base.
Then Trump doubled down today and arrested the alleged terrorist's family members, who may also be here illegally.
Who will be the first Democrat to come out and complain about the family's due process rights?
NBC News hasn't gone that far, but they don't understand how the rest of America feels about terrorism.
'Lone wolf attacks on Jewish Americans in Boulder and D.C. highlight the difficulties in securing public spaces,' NBC writes in a post on X.
Zoom out: America is divided by values, not by party.
Right vs. wrong
Rural vs. urban
Traditional vs. progressive
The Boulder attack puts Democrats in the latter camp: Wrong, urban and progressive.
Supporting boys in girls sports is the same thing.
It's exactly why Democrats have lost the middle class of America.
New polling by CNN/SSRS shows the Republican Party seven points ahead of Democrats in terms of which party is closer to respondents' economic views.
When asked about party perceptions of the middle class, Democrats only lead Republicans by 2 points – their lead was 17 points above the GOP in 2016.
Watch tonight: Ana Kasparian of 'The Young Turks' on Democrats' refusal to stand up to the wokest within their party.
In the past 72 hours, Ukraine has totally changed its three-year war with Russia – and Donald Trump is totally silent.
Is World War III closer – yes, or maybe not.
Weakness is provocative – Ukraine just showed itself not to be weak.
'Ukraine hits bridge linking Crimea to Russia with underwater explosives,' The Guardian headlines.
Books will be written about Ukraine's drone attack on Russia's strategic bomber bases over a thousand miles from its border.
Putin's puzzle: Can Putin find a way out of the war?
According to a new study, 'Russia will likely hit the 1 million casualty mark in the summer of 2025' from the war with Ukraine.
Putin loves Stalin: Remember what Stalin said about 1 million deaths: 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.'
Putin cornered: Those wanting to put Putin in a humiliating corner miss the point.
Put him in a corner and he fights his way out – maybe with nuclear weapons.
Put him in a position where he fears a corner but is offered a face-saving off-ramp: He just might take it.
The challenge for Trump will come next – he has to convince Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to offer peace terms Putin may not like but can live with.
Tune into 'On Balance with Leland Vittert' weeknights at 9/8 CT on NewsNation. Find your channel here.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily of NewsNation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil tanks 6% as Iranian retaliation against US spares energy supply
Oil futures slid 6% on Monday as Iran appeared to spare the energy market while the country launched missiles targeted at a US air base in Qatar in retaliation for US bombings on Iranian nuclear sites. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, dropped to $72 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also fell roughly 6% to trade below $70 per barrel. The declines came after Iranian state media said it launched missile attacks against a US air base in Qatar, matching the number of bombs dropped by the US over the weekend, in a move the Associated Press said signaled "a likely desire to deescalate." Prior to the retaliatory move, Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday that the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. On Monday morning, President Trump posted on social media: "To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!" "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday, futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva wrote. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping, or going after energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. "Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon — closer to $6.00 if you're in California," Lipow Oil Associates president Andy Lipow said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. "If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains," she said. "But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher." Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers, such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003 and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018, have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. "During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period," JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from "regime changes" in oil-producing countries, whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. "While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak," Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed officials are starting to break rank and join Trump
Some Federal Reserve officials are joining President Donald Trump in calling for lower interest rates as soon as July. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman on Monday downplayed the potential impacts of Trump's tariffs on prices and said the US central bank should swiftly lower rates to preserve the labor market's health. 'It is time to consider adjusting the policy rate,' Bowman said. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labor market.' Bowman is the second Fed official to join Trump in calling for lower borrowing costs. On Friday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said tariffs will likely only result in a 'one-off' increase in inflation. Both Bowman and Waller are Trump appointees. For months, Fed officials have said they prefer to wait to see how Trump's major policy shifts affect the US economy first before considering further rate cuts. At its policy meeting earlier this month, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time. But that strategy hasn't sat well with Trump, who has relentlessly lashed out at the central bank and its leader, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, for not lowering rates. Trump has hurled various insults at Powell, describing him as a 'fool' and a 'numbskull.' Now, the Fed's wait-and-see posture is slowly crumbling, even as tensions in the Middle East heat up, which raises the risk of higher global energy prices. And the jury is still out on the ultimate impact of Trump's tariffs. Bowman said it's possible the Israel-Iran conflict — which escalated over the weekend with the US striking at three Iranian nuclear sites — results in higher commodity prices. And there's still the lingering possibility of Trump's trade war also pushing up prices, she said. Still, that may not even result in higher consumer prices because businesses don't have much leverage to hike prices this time around, Bowman said. 'I am certainly attentive to these inflation risks, but I am not yet seeing a major concern, as some retailers seem unwilling to raise prices for essentials due to high price sensitivity among low-income consumers and as supply chains appear to be largely unaffected so far,' Bowman said. Bowman isn't the only Fed official seemingly not worried about the potential economic impact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Powell has said higher energy prices spurred by the conflict will likely be short lived. 'When there's turmoil in the Middle East, you may see a spike in energy prices, but it tends to come down. Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation, although of course in the 1970s, they famously did,' Powell said in a news conference following the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. 'But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s,' he added. Economists have said the economic impact of the current conflict largely depends on how out of hand it gets. A forecast from analysts at EY-Parthenon shows that the US economy could contract by a massive 1.9% annualized rate if the Middle East plunges into an all-out regional war. But in a 'contained' scenario, the US economy could contract only slightly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us.
Last week, we asked you if the US should go to war with Iran. It looks like President Trump decided for us. We want to know how you feel about that. Last Thursday, on June 19, President Donald Trump said he would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether the United States would engage directly in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Two days later, Trump announced the completion of a 'successful' attack on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. On Monday, June 23, Iran responded by striking a U.S. military base in Qatar. And thus begins, perhaps, another U.S. 'forever war' in the Middle East. If you, like me, spent your entire life with America entrenched in Middle East conflicts – where friends and community members have laid down their lives for wars based on lies – then perhaps you, like me, are less than thrilled at this prospect. (Scroll down or click here to share your opinion with us.) And we're not alone. Do you think the US should have bombed Iran? In an Economist/YouGov poll released before the bombing, 60% of respondents said the U.S. military should not get directly involved. A majority – 56% – said that negotiations should continue. A Washington Post poll conducted June 18 found a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents opposing air strikes. And when USA TODAY conducted our own reader survey, we received an overwhelming response saying the United States should not get involved and America should refrain from official intervention. Previously: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? Take our poll. | Opinion In the aftermath of the bombing, Americans – and the world – seem as divided as ever on the decision. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, applauded the move and even encouraged it, telling The Wall Street Journal that he told the president, 'This will reset our relationship with the rest of the world.' Meanwhile MAGA faithful Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took to X on Monday to break with Trump, writing, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch.' Less than a week later, we want to know if that feeling has changed. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? What do you think Iran – and America – will do next? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Why did Trump strike Iran? Will it change anything? Questions have swirled in the immediate fallout from the June 21 bombing. In a speech that evening, Trump claimed Iran's three major sites had been 'obliterated.' But less than a day later, the picture was much less certain, with weapons experts, Iranian officials and even Russia contesting the true impact of the attack. These new developments beg the question: Was it worth it? And, with countries pledging to arm Iran with nuclear weapons anyway, did it even change anything? We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum US Iran war" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Janessa Hilliard is the director of audience for USA TODAY Opinion and Opinion at Gannett.
