Top World News

Mar 2, 2026 - World

Now that President Donald Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off-ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.This has been very clear in internal conversations: no one wants to take responsibility for the aftermath. This is essentially the difference between regime change and regime collapse.That’s why they didn’t want to do an Iraq War-style regime change where you are actively trying to install a new government. If you do that, its track record becomes your track record.Indeed, if the US manages to kill a lot of the different leaders of the current system, there could be some sort of an implosion. Trump could declare victory even though you would likely have in that case severe instability, or potentially civil war.Another scenario is that the Iranians continue to strike back and outlast Trump. The Iranian onslaught would start to become too costly for the United States with casualty rates increasing (possibly even on the American side), inflation worsens, and global markets become destabilized.And then the pressure on Trump internationally, from the American public, and from his own base would start to become so strong that he would have to look for an exit.At that point, he may actually take the deal that was on the table: a deal that is better than what Barack Obama managed to secure, and that Trump nevertheless rejected. He may take that and suddenly declare it a victory, saying: “Thanks to my bombing campaign, we achieved this.”There is also a third scenario, that is the least likely, in which after a couple of rounds of attacks, both sides may feel they can go back to the negotiating table.They might even go back to the same agreement that was on the table during the most recent talks. And both sides could frame that as a win. Trump can claim he bombed Iran and was very successful. The Iranians can claim they struck back and were very successful. And then they come to some sort of agreement.However that would be difficult because there’s now absolutely no trust between the US and Iran.But even if they did come to some form of agreement, it would be extremely difficult to implement, it would likely not endure, and it wouldn’t be anything more than essentially a ceasefire with a pretense of having a deal beyond that.Meanwhile, Israel’s interest is in pushing the narrative that the negotiations were a ruse from the outset, and that this attack was already planned — because that narrative destroys America’s credibility as a diplomatic force, as a negotiator.And the more you push the narrative that diplomacy was a lie from the outset, the more easily you can avoid any future negotiations.I’m not convinced it really was a ruse from the beginning. There were elements in the US government who were sincere about the diplomatic path, but ultimately Trump fell for the type of pressure that he has proven himself to be far too susceptible to.None of that makes what happened forgivable. It doesn’t make it legal. It doesn’t make it strategic. But we do have to recognize this: nothing would serve Israeli interests more than to completely destroy America’s credibility as a negotiating partner.Trita Parsi is Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute and an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is author of "Losing an Enemy — Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy"; "A Single Roll of the Dice — Obama's Diplomacy with Iran"; and "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." This article was adapted from Trita Parsi’s remarks during an appearance on Breaking Points

Mar 2, 2026 - World

A historian and national security specialist was skeptical Monday of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's first public comments defending the Trump administration's decision to launch strikes against Iran. CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen expressed doubt about Rubio's argument of an "imminent threat" and what could happen next in the war with Iran, which has left six American service members dead. "Casey, I'm extremely skeptical," Bergen told CNN anchor Kasie Hunt. "I mean, the Israelis and the United States are very closely allied. And their operations, as we've seen just now, are very closely integrated," Bergen added. "And Netanyahu has been in D.C., repeatedly. We've been moving massive amounts of military assets into the region since January, so I just find that kind of an implausible rationale."

Mar 2, 2026 - World

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said he was "baffled" Monday that his Senate colleagues weren't supporting President Donald Trump's decision to begin military strikes in Iran — and Democrats were furious at his comments. The Pennsylvania Democrat's loyalty has increasingly been called into question as he has shown he was breaking with Democrats over the war in Iran, Politico reported."Every member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that. Empty sloganeering vs. commitment to global security — which is it?" Fetterman wrote on X. Other Democrats and commentators had strong responses to Fetterman's statement. “Well, John Fetterman knows better,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNN. “Article I of the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the authority to declare war. Period, full stop.”"A man who has never seen war and never will, cheering this on from a comfortable perch in Washington. Every Senator who fails to stop this war should lose their seat, starting with @SenSusanCollins and @SenFettermanPA," Democratic Senate candidate and veteran Graham Platner wrote on X."Any politician who votes to start another endless war in the Middle East should lose their seat in 2026," California state congressional candidate and co-founder of Justice Democrats Saikat Chakrabarti wrote on X."'The only action?' Bombing a school and slaughtering young children is 'the only action?' The President committing acts of war without Congressional approval and lying to the American people is 'the only action?' Deploying our loved ones into another forever war is 'the only action?' Resign," Charles Booker, Kentucky Senate candidate and former Kentucky state representative, wrote on X."You sure did fool us all," media and communications specialist Louw Breytenbach wrote on X."The only action? 1) Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon, as confirmed by US intelligence. 2) There was a nuclear agreement with Iran that was keeping its enrichment levels low. Trump left that agreement, and then Iran responded by increasing enrichment. Every sabotage and attack since has caused Iran to increase enrichment further. 3) Military strikes to stop the program worked so well that after 'obliterating' their nuclear program eight months ago, we are already concerned about it again. You are a warmonger. It is that simple," Navy veteran and independent writer Jared Ryan Sears wrote on X.

Mar 2, 2026 - World

The United States Central Command announced that the death toll of service members in Operation Epic Fury had risen to six as of Monday afternoon."As of 4 pm ET, March 2, six U.S. service members have been killed in action. U.S. forces recently recovered the remains of two previously unaccounted for service members from a facility that was struck during Iran's initial attacks in the region," CENTCOM said in a statement. "Major combat operations continue. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification."On Sunday, President Donald Trump addressed the first three deaths in the operation, noting that more were expected."We expect casualties with something like this," Trump told NBC at the time. "We have three, but we expect casualties - but in the end it's going to be a great deal for the world."

Mar 2, 2026 - World

Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued Monday that the U.S. faced a significant and "imminent threat" that prompted strikes in Iran. Reporters asked Rubio in Washington, D.C., whether Congress was notified about the national security threats, and Rubio said he told the "gang of eight" leaders that strikes were coming. "There absolutely was an imminent threat," Rubio said Monday afternoon. He claimed that the Iranian military was growing its nuclear weapons program and planning to launch attacks against America and its allies in the region. In the days since, Rubio said Iran has attacked civilian areas in the Middle East in retaliatory strikes since the attacks started Saturday. "We would love to see this regime be replaced. And ultimately, as the president has said, he would love for the people of Iran to use this as an opportunity to rise up and remove these leaders," Rubio said. "They've been wanting to remove them for a long time, we've seen successive waves of protests and we've seen them slaughter people. But the objective of this mission is to make sure they don't have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region. That's why we're doing what we're doing now.""And while we would love to see a new regime. The bottom line is no matter who governs that country, a year from now, they're not going to have these ballistic missiles and they're not going to have these drones to threaten us. Rubio said he knew that oil prices would be impacted as a result of the strikes and that the Trump administration was aiming to mitigate against that. "They are a terroristic regime," Rubio said. "They sponsor terrorism and they participate in terrorism." He did not know how long the conflict would last. "The hardest hits are yet to come from the US military," Rubio said. "The next phase will be even more punishing than it is right now." Rubio: “No presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional…We've complied with the law 100%.” pic.twitter.com/ewfIuHBKod— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) March 2, 2026