RSS Feeds

Four years ago, Democrats were falling over themselves in delight. Republicans in Georgia knowingly nominated Herschel Walker, a political newcomer with mental health issues, accusations of domestic violence and stalking, and a no-exceptions opposition to abortion rights despite his alleged history of partners availing themselves of them.

Well, karma shows no grace.

Maine Democrats on Tuesday nominated their own version of Walker in Graham Platner, an oyster farmer with a thick and messy oppo file that includes Nazi imagery, sexting with women other than his wife, and allegations of domestic abuse. The 41-year-old harbormaster and combat veteran coasted to the nomination against five-term Sen. Susan Collins, age 73, in an election cycle in which Platner’s fiery spirit matches the mood and Collins’ cautious brand very much doesn’t.

But, boy, if this isn’t a potential self-own, I don’t know what is. 

In my conversations around Washington, the mood among Democrats is something close to a hostage situation. In a crucial race, they feel handcuffed to an untested candidate, one who they wish would step aside for the good of the party. The mood is different in Maine, where my colleague Julia Terruso found Democrats far more unfazed by the latest Platner revelations, including accusations from an ex-girlfriend that he was physically threatening.

In claiming the nomination Tuesday evening, Platner struck a tone of defiance about his skeptics. He said pundits, reporters, and Democrats in the the political establishment “keep looking for that one story, that one headline, that one moment in my life that they can define the campaign by.” Instead, he said they missed the bigger message he brought to the trail, one of second chances. “It is my job to earn your trust, faith, and support,” Platner said. It may prove a heavy lift.

Nevertheless, Platner is now the nominee, which means Maine is about to engage in an expensive experiment to answer several thorny questions: What are voters willing to overlook? How much weight does incumbency carry? Will voters fed up with Donald Trump give Susan Collins points for having held him at arms length, or punish her for so often backing his agenda?

When I was on the ground in Georgia heading into that early-summer primary in 2022, I spoke to voters all over the state expressing reservations about Walker. So, too, did party bosses, who saw the incumbent, Democrat Raphael Warnock, as beatable. Primary Day brought with it dread for Republicans. And it’s all happening again, neatly flipped

Maine Democrats had another option—sort of. Gov. Janet Mills suspended her campaign in April as she struggled to match Platner’s shine. Yet the term-limited Governor remained on the ballot. In recent days, she low-key reminded her supporters that she was still eligible to take the nomination if offered, but no one really took her up on that fact—in no small measure because the 78-year-old Mills would have been the oldest first-term Senator in history.

Barring Platner bowing out in time—which seems unlikely—Democrats are hunkering down, desperately hoping there aren’t more Platner revelations left to come out before Election Day. 

Republicans, meanwhile, are whispering that Democrats' fears of unused Platner oppo are well-founded. They’re also hinting that, when it comes to Platner, there's more than one shoe left to drop.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to pass a sweeping housing bill on Monday—with only five lawmakers voting against the legislation. Ten other Senators did not vote.

All five of the lawmakers who voted against the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act are Republicans: Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rick Scott of Florida, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama. 

The bill seeks to increase the U.S. housing supply by easing regulations and encouraging building, lower housing costs, restrict the presence of institutional investors in the single-family housing market, and give more control over housing to local jurisdictions, among a host of other provisions. 

Read More: What to Know About the Landmark Housing Bill Congress Is Poised to Pass

The legislation now heads to the House, where it is similarly expected to pass with broad support from both sides of the aisle, and could reach President Donald Trump’s desk as soon as this week. 

Here’s what each of the five Senators who voted against the bill have said about it.

Tommy Tuberville

Tuberville said in a written statement to TIME that he’s “looking for ways to bring down housing costs for American families. But giving the federal government more control over housing is not the answer.”

“We have seen time and time again that writing a blank check to blue cities means that federal tax dollars will end up in the hands of illegals instead of going to the American citizens it was intended to help,” Tuberville said. “This bill also expands the already bloated Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is the opposite of what we need to be doing. We should be focused on getting government out of the way and allowing the free market to drive down costs through competition and a booming economy.”

Tuberville also voted against an earlier Senate version of the bill in March. At the time, a spokesperson for the Senator told the Alabama Daily News that “like President Trump,” Tuberville “thinks the Save America Act is our No. 1 priority and doesn’t think we should be wasting our time on anything else.”  

Trump that month vowed not to sign any legislation until Congress passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, a bill that would impose stricter voter identification requirements. Months later, the President is continuing to press congressional Republicans to push the legislation through.

The White House has, however, expressed support for the final version of the housing bill.  

Mike Lee

In a statement following his nay vote, Lee contended that the legislation fails to adequately address the housing affordability issue

“Americans need more affordable housing. Unfortunately, this bill doesn’t do enough to provide it, instead increasing the federal government’s long-running and failed involvement in the U.S. housing market,” Lee said. 

The Utah Senator further critiqued the bill for only temporarily banning the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, a form of U.S. currency issued by the government, rather than prohibiting it from doing so permanently. Lee earlier this year reintroduced legislation seeking to implement a permanent ban; at the time, his office contended in a press release that the Fed creating such a currency would restrict financial institutions’ ability to offer loans and that “the Federal Reserve would have knowledge of every transaction involving” the currency.

In his statement on his opposition to the housing bill, Lee also argued that the legislation “does not do nearly enough to safeguard housing programs for American citizens only.” He went on to detail several measures he believes need to be taken “to truly improve housing affordability,” among them continuing “mass deportations” of undocumented immigrants who he claimed are “placing a significant burden on housing availability and affordability for American citizens.”

Rick Scott

Scott highlighted an amendment he offered to the housing bill that he said was not entertained in a post on X ahead of the final Senate vote on the measure.

“If we’re passing the ROAD to Housing Act, I think it’s only fair to make sure it actually works,” the Florida Senator said.

“I offered an Amendment to make sure Congress gets an annual report on how this bill directly impacts housing affordability for middle income homeowners. But, I never got the chance to bring it up. This should have been a no-brainer. It proves that what we’re doing HELPS the American people.”

Last week, Scott wrote on X that “home prices are going through the roof in America and Congress is playing around with solutions that will only make things worse — not better,” in response to another post sharing Zillow’s recent finding that “starter homes” cost at least $1 million in 242 cities. “Point me to the section of the ‘ROAD to Housing’ bill that actually makes housing more affordable for middle class families,” Scott said at the time.

In another post last week, Scott said that “Homes now cost FIVE TIMES more than a family’s median income. The REAL reason? Congress. Congress just spends, spends, and spends with no end in sight and Americans are left with higher interest rates and rampant inflation.”

Ron Johnson

Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his vote against the housing bill.

The Wisconsin Senator also voted against the Senate version of the legislation in March. A spokesperson for Johnson told the outlet The Center Square at the time that “he voted against the bill for several reasons – many of them laid out” in a column from The Wall Street Journal editorial board that opined that the bill would result in the creation of less housing due to the restrictions it would place on large, institutional investors buying single-family homes. The final version of the bill also includes such restrictions.

“The Senator does not like the government imposing itself into the marketplace and artificially reducing the demand, the number of buyers, and the price homeowners can obtain when they sell their homes,” the spokesperson said. 

Rand Paul 

Paul’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his nay vote. 

The Kentucky Senator, too, was among those who voted against the Senate version of the bill in March, and made comments about his opposition to the legislation at the time.

In a March post on X, Paul called the bill the “Path Toward the Destruction of Property Rights Act,” and expressed his opposition to the limits it would put on institutional investors—at length.

Among other criticisms of the restrictions, he wrote that “Since there are two sides to every transaction, the provision also acts as a prohibition on property owners from selling their property to the highest bidder“ and “Since many of the houses owned by institutional investors are rented, banning this class of investors may decrease the number of rental houses thus raising rents.”

Paul also cited data showing that institutional investors’ share of the single-family home market is extremely low––something housing experts have previously highlighted to TIME. 

“With such a miniscule amount of the housing stock owned by large investors, the proposed ban could well have little to no effect on housing affordability or rent,” Paul wrote. 

FIFA is considering selling a minority stake in the World Cup’s commercial rights, a plan that critics say would turn soccer’s biggest tournament into an investment asset and threaten to upend the sport.

FIFA said Tuesday that it will create a $20 billion subsidiary to house its commercial and event operations and offer external investors the opportunity to buy shares of up to 20% of the subsidiary. FIFA claims that offering minority interests to private investors would allow it to raise up to $4.2 billion that can be used to fund soccer development programs worldwide. FIFA says it would retain sole control of the enterprise and “exclusive authority” over its competitions, governance, and all regulatory and sporting decisions.

“Football is the world’s most popular sport and an extraordinary engine of human and social development,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement. “Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value—and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.”

But the move has faced backlash from soccer officials, fans, and political leaders, who say it would overly commercialize the sport. Critics also fear that it could deepen FIFA’s already-controversial ties with U.S. President Donald Trump through potential investors linked to his family. The proposal comes on the heels of the 2026 men’s World Cup, which was co-hosted by the U.S. and brought in a record $12 billion in revenue for the organization.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade—especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially,” European soccer body UEFA said in a statement. The organization is reportedly planning to hold an emergency meeting this week to discuss plans to oppose the proposal, including a potential World Cup boycott.

“The close relationship between the FIFA President and the US President  has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football,” posted Infantino’s predecessor, former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who was dogged by accusations of corruption and financial mismanagement during his tenure but has since become a vocal critic of his successor. “No one has the right to sell our game.”

Plan to bring in private investors

The commercial subsidiary, “FIFA Forward Enterprise” (FFE), would consolidate FIFA’s commercial rights, including broadcast, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing, with the operational delivery of FIFA tournaments. The enterprise would raise capital from investors and significantly increase funding for FIFA’s 211 member associations, according to FIFA’s announcement. Revenue generated through FFE would also help finance increased development funding for its member associations, FIFA said. FFE has an initial implied equity valuation of $20 billion, estimated by J.P. Morgan.

The existing FIFA Forward program is budgeted to provide $8 million in development funds to each member association during the 2027-30 World Cup cycle. Under the proposal, the program would increase funding to $20 million each during the upcoming cycle, and to $22 million and $24 million each for the following four-year cycles through 2038.

Each member association would also be able to access an optional $20 million in one-off, immediate funding for special development projects through a new “FIFA Fast Forward Program.” The funding could go toward infrastructure, coaching, national teams, competitions, grassroots football, and the women’s game. That means, if the proposal is approved, member associations that opt into the voluntary program could get up to a total $40 million in funding for the upcoming cycle.

In its proposal to member associations, FIFA argued that the World Cup has been under-monetized compared to other sporting competitions, and that FFE would allow FIFA to separate its commercial operations from governance of the sport. FFE would remain a FIFA-controlled entity.

FFE would be managed by a dedicated team and board of directors, none of whom have been appointed yet, according to FIFA’s website. “The proposal does not establish a future role or compensation package for any specific individual,” FIFA said.

Bloomberg reported that the idea for FFE first arose last year during private discussions between Infantino and Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. J.P. Morgan was reportedly brought in early this year to develop a way for FIFA to monetize its media rights and pitch it to potential investors.

Thrive Eternal, a company launched by Kushner, is expected to lead the investor group for FFE. Thrive is a permanent capital investment firm created earlier this year to buy and hold minority stakes in sports teams and other iconic brands.

Kushner does not have political ties to the Trump Administration. His most recent political donation was to the Obama Foundation, according to public records.

Investors in FFE would not have a seat on FIFA’s Council or be able to vote in FIFA’s congress. The Guardian also reported that investors would not receive dividends from the scheme. Instead, they would potentially realise a return if they sell their stake in future, the organization said.

“Outside investors will have only a minority stake in FFE and will not play any operational role,” FIFA said in its announcement. “Equally, they ​are investing in a subsidiary of FIFA, and not in FIFA itself. For FIFA, nothing changes.”

TIME has reached out to FIFA for comment. Thrive Capital, a venture capital firm founded by Kushner, said it did not have a comment to provide at this time.

Soccer confederations, lawmakers criticize proposal

The outline of the proposed project was shared with FIFA’s member associations in Manhattan on July 18, FIFA told the Associated Press. The final decision on the proposal will require majority support from FIFA’s member associations and approval by the FIFA council.

FIFA began the official consultation process on Tuesday, and member associations will have until Sept. 19 to decide on the proposal. FFE is “part of a democratic process, a consultation process,” Infantino said on Wednesday. “Above all, it is an opportunity but not an obligation.”

“If, and only if, it is approved by the majority of our 211 member associations and the FIFA council, it would be a FIFA-owned and controlled subsidiary,” he added.

If the proposal is approved, FFE would begin operating next year, according to FIFA.

But several of FIFA’s confederations have criticized the fact that the proposal was announced publicly before the consultation process was launched.

Some critics have also argued that the proposed financial benefit through the voluntary program to member associations creates an incentive for them to accept the broader proposal.

“Today we have learned of FIFA’s deadline to associations to support their proposals or have the one-off payout offer withdrawn. This says everything you need to know about this plan,” UEFA, which represents 55 FIFA member associations, said in a Wednesday statement. FIFA said that member associations will not receive ownership stakes in FFE and that the proposed funding is not an equity allocation.

UEFA was not the only soccer body to express concern about the proposal. The European soccer confederation said that it has had “discussions with many stakeholders across the game” and that there is “significant and growing opposition to FIFA’s scheme.”

CONCACAF, the confederation that governs soccer in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean and that represents 35 of FIFA’s member associations, said it was “deeply concerned by the lack of due process,” including the fact that plans had been announced “before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place.”

The Football Association, England’s national football governing body, also said it was “deeply concerned about the lack of process and governance to get to this point, and the apparent substance and principles involved.” FA Chair Debbie Hewitt is one of FIFA’s eight vice-presidents.

The Asian Football Confederation also expressed concern about the proposal and said it was not consulted on it. The body, which represents 46 FIFA member associations, said it “is disappointed that a matter of such significance entered the public domain” before it was discussed “through the appropriate and established governance channels.”

It’s also not the first time that FIFA has faced backlash over a proposed commercial deal. In 2018, Infantino pursued a $25 billion deal with a consortium led by Japanese firm SoftBank that would finance an expanded Club World Cup and a new global Nations League. But the commercial package ultimately failed due to opposition. UEFA had raised concerns about transparency and said that the new competitions would threaten European tournaments.

Other sports organizations have also created separate commercial entities, including UEFA which has a joint venture with European Football Clubs to sell commercial rights to certain competitions.

 “Establishing subsidiaries is nothing new for FIFA,” the organization said on its website.

The proposal comes as relations between UEFA and FIFA have strained. UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin skipped the World Cup final after disputes with FIFA over disciplinary procedures and match operations. UEFA said FIFA had “crossed a red line” when FIFA suspended the implementation of an automatic one-match ban for U.S. forward Folarin Balogun, who had received a red card, after Trump’s reported intervention.

Infantino, who is up for reelection as head of FIFA next year, has faced criticism from UEFA over his close ties to Trump and what critics say is a lack of transparency in FIFA’s decision-making. Infantino was scrutinized after accompanying Trump on a Gulf tour instead of attending the start of the FIFA Congress in 2025, prompting a UEFA-led walkout.

Ahead of this year’s World Cup, some European soccer officials and politicians called for fans to boycott the U.S. games, citing both Infantino’s friendship with Trump and the Trump Administration’s immigration and foreign policies. Infantino was also criticized for presenting Trump with a newly-created FIFA Peace Prize, and for opening a FIFA office in New York’s Trump Tower, a property owned by the Trump Organization.

“FIFA, Donald Trump’s favorite corrupt racketeering enterprise in world sports, is now going directly into business with the Trump family!” the House Judiciary Democrats posted on X. “Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough—now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner’s brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors.”

The Democratic committee members said the proposal was an example of “more oligarch corruption” after FIFA’s use of dynamic pricing helped push World Cup ticket prices to unprecedented levels. Earlier this week, the group of lawmakers called on Infantino to sit for an interview about “deceptive” ticket practices and alleged corruption between him and Trump. 

Andy Burnham, who became British Prime Minister earlier this month after Keir Starmer resigned, also criticized the proposal.

“Let me say this very directly. Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands and who stand on the touchline week in, week out, rain or shine,” Burnham posted on X. “The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.

“Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”

Most companies treat anxiety as a problem to solve. When employees feel stressed, they are offered meditation apps, mental-health days, and employee-assistance programs. These can be valuable resources. But they carry an underlying message: Anxiety is an obstacle to performance, and the goal is to make it disappear.

I saw this mindset clearly during a recent consultation with the CEO of a midsize company. I asked what comes to mind when an employee says they are experiencing anxiety. Her discomfort was immediate, as though merely hearing the word “anxiety” activated her own.

She then named three concerns: the employee might need accommodations, benefits costs may rise, and the company could face legal exposure. Her managers, she explained, were trained not to ask too many questions about anxiety. Instead, they were supposed to document the interaction, direct employees toward support, and avoid saying anything that could create additional risk.

That may be prudent from a legal perspective, but it also reveals a problem. Corporate America is getting anxiety all wrong.

I don’t fault the C-suite for thinking this way. For much of my career as a clinical psychologist, I made a similar mistake. I was trained to regard all anxiety as a symptom to reduce, manage, or eliminate.

In reality, the word “anxiety” is used to describe two very different experiences.

On the one hand, clinical anxiety is persistent, excessive, and disruptive. In professional nomenclature, these conditions are known as anxiety disorders. They interfere with work, sleep, relationships, and everyday functioning. Clinical anxiety typically requires professional treatment, workplace accommodations, or other meaningful support.

On the other hand, most anxiety is not a disorder at all. It is an ordinary and healthy human emotion involving apprehension we feel when an important matter is uncertain. The emotion of anxiety shows up before difficult conversations, major presentations, high-stakes decisions, and periods of change. Yes, it tends to be uncomfortable, but discomfort is not the same as a dysfunction or disorder. Fundamentally, anxiety is simply evidence that we care about what happens next.

We readily distinguish between depression, a clinical disorder, and sadness, which is a normal human emotion. Yet when it comes to anxiety, that nuance often disappears. We use the same word for everything from fleeting nerves to debilitating psychiatric conditions.

When companies pathologize ordinary anxiety, a self-reinforcing cycle develops. Employees become reluctant to admit they feel anxious because they fear being seen as unwell, unable to cope, or a professional liability. Managers, worried about saying the wrong thing, avoid honest conversations about emotions altogether. Leaders lose access to important information, psychological safety erodes, productivity suffers, and tensions tend to rise for all parties.

Companies have long treated emotional wellness and performance as separate agendas: one soft, the other serious. That is a false divide. When people know how to use anxious feelings well, they become both healthier and more productive.

Corporate America needs a different approach. Instead of trying to eliminate anxiety, business leaders and managers should help employees to use it constructively. 

Here are four steps that can help.

First, identify anxiety as information. When anxiety occurs, resist the instinct to dismiss it or make it disappear. Get curious. What specifically feels concerning? Is there a risk being overlooked? What does anxiety suggest is at stake?

The emotion of anxiety is not always accurate, but it is often informative. It can sharpen attention, improve preparation, and expose blind spots. The most anxious person in a meeting is often voicing questions everyone else is avoiding.

Second, employees and leaders alike should feel freer to share their anxiety with others. Of course, work should not become group therapy, and thoughtful disclosure is not the same as oversharing. But work colleagues should be able to acknowledge pressure in a grounded, professional way.

When appropriate, managers should respond to anxiety with validation: “I’m concerned about this, too. Here is what we know, what we don’t know, and how I think we should proceed.” That kind of honesty does not weaken authority or credibility. It builds trust, invites candor, and allows anxiety to move from a private burden to shared experience.

Third, embrace anxiety instead of avoiding it. Many of the best employees are anxious. I’m not talking about clinical impairment or paralysis due to fear. I mean team members who care enough to worry about quality, consequences, deadlines, and the people affected by their work. Managers should view anxiety as evidence of investment, not inadequacy.

Human Resources teams should treat healthy anxiety as a positive criterion in hiring and promotion. Constructive anxiety often signals foresight, conscientiousness, and genuine commitment when outcomes are uncertain. Those are qualities companies claim to value, but tend to overlook when they favor polished confidence over thoughtful concern.

Finally, let go of the illusion of control. This is the most important step in the age of AI. Jobs will change. Industries will be disrupted. Employees and leaders alike will have to make decisions without complete information.

Leaders who pretend to know exactly what will happen may look confident at first, but this quickly becomes hubris. A healthier response is to acknowledge uncertainty, identify what can be controlled, and accept what cannot. Letting go is not resignation. It is doing our best without pretending that effort guarantees the outcome.

In a recent keynote for business managers and executives, I asked audience members to raise their hands if they had felt any anxiety during the previous two weeks. Nearly every hand went up. “Thank God,” I said, and the room burst out laughing.

The joke landed because the alternative was alarming. In this era of uncertainty, a room full of business leaders who felt no anxiety would not be a picture of perfect mental health or corporate excellence. It would have signaled disengagement, denial, or even worse, emotional numbness.

Anxiety means you are human. It means you care. And it means you are living and working in a world no one can fully predict or control.

The future of work will not belong to the people who feel no anxiety. It will belong to the people who know how to use it.

The United States and Iran are again at war. The renewed conflict is not about Iran's nuclear program or regime change, but over the Strait of Hormuz through which a fifth of the world's oil must pass.

For two weeks, American missiles have struck Iran. In turn, Iran has retaliated against American allies: Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. Four U.S. soldiers have been killed and 142 wounded; at least 53 Iranians have been killed and 592 injured since July 6. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) claimed to have destroyed an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Traffic in the strait has slowed to a trickle and oil prices have jumped again.

The ceasefire and the initial agreement signed on Jun. 17 lasted barely three weeks, undone by rival readings of a deliberately vague text. Washington wanted free navigation in Hormuz restored; Tehran insisted that it was the master of the strait. When traffic resumed, ships and tankers avoided the mined central route of the strait and hugged its southern coast close to Oman under American protection or sailed along the northern coast of Hormuz close to Iran, where it levied a “toll” for safe passage.

On July 7, the IRGC fired on ships defying routes designated by Iran; American airstrikes followed. Three days later, on July 10, President Donald Trump notified Congress that the war between the U.S. and Iran had resumed. Iran formally suspended the agreement, citing strikes, sanctions and Israel's operations in Lebanon.

The costs are mounting. For decades, maritime traffic from Saudi Arabia, whose eastern border sits on the Persian Gulf, has passed through Hormuz to reach the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. Since the closure of Hormuz, the Kingdom has been moving roughly four million barrels a day—around four times its pre-war volume—through the port of Yanbu on the Red Sea, along its western border.

But the Red Sea has a chokepoint of its own: the Strait of Bab al-Mandab, at its southern end, off the coast of Yemen, which connects it to the Gulf of Aden and the broader Arabian Sea. On July 20, the Houthis, Iran’s allies in Yemen, declared a maritime embargo on Saudi Arabia at Bab al-Mandab, invoking “an eye for an eye.” They have already struck two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. With the chokepoints of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab now contested simultaneously, the Gulf's energy systems face an unprecedented strain.

American strikes have targeted Iran’s southern coastline and the approaches to Hormuz, with inland strikes largely reserved for the missile bases that allow Iran to reach the U.S. bases across the region. Its intensity is lower than the 40-day military campaign that preceded it, and it is an open-ended campaign: a war of attrition fought over a waterway. This is, for now, a bilateral contest, with Washington keeping Israel outside the frame for as long as Iran refrains from striking Israeli territory directly.

American objectives have contracted to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Having survived the war and denied the U.S. and Israel their stated aims, Iran now regards the outcome as a victory and is working to shape and cement its terms. 

Why Iran thinks it has won

Iran has managed to impose significant human and material costs. The war has already cost the U.S. more than $37.5 billion, 18 U.S. service members have been killed and 624 have been injured. Wartime learning, intelligence and technological cooperation with Russia and China, and better access to satellite imagery have markedly improved Iran’s missile and drone strike accuracy. And Iran has been able to rattle the global energy markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz, weaponizing a chokepoint that offers continuous leverage over the global economy.

Iranian strategists are aiming for something more ambitious: raising the cost of hosting American forces until the U.S. thins out its regional military presence. The U.S. has indeed moved some military assets away from the Persian Gulf toward Jordan and Israel. American radars, bases and surveillance systems across the Arab states also function as early-warning systems for Israel. Iran’s concentrated attacks on those systems in March and April likely improved its ability to attack Israel with its long-range missiles.

Tehran seems to hope that a combination of its control of Hormuz and the coercive power of its drones and missiles would make the Gulf states reluctant to host U.S. forces and facilitate military operations against Iran. That instead, the Gulf states would seek security arrangements with the Islamic Republic.

Iran is also tailoring its approach to different Gulf countries: it has no appetite for a direct war with Saudi Arabia, so the Houthis in Yemen carry the Saudi file. The Houthis imposed their embargo on the Bab al-Mandab Strait on July 20, days after Iranian officials signaled that the strait would close if American strikes on Iran’s infrastructure continued. The Houthis had their own reasons to move, especially Riyadh’s siege of Yemeni ports and a military strike on Sanaa airport. But either way, Tehran gained a second strategic chokepoint.

Intense Iranian attacks on Kuwait are the lesson intended for every Gulf state hosting U.S. forces. Kuwait facilitated American strikes on Iran from its territory, and Iranian drones have answered by striking the power and desalination plants that Kuwait depends on for roughly 90% of its drinking water. The strikes on Kuwait are also aimed at degrading a potential staging ground for a potential U.S. ground operation in southern Iran.

What this strategy lacks is a clear account of how Iran would convert wartime leverage into a durable political settlement. Tehran has shown how it can disrupt global energy supplies and impose costs on the U.S. and its allies, but it is not clear how it can remain in a permanent state of confrontation with America and the Gulf states.

Iran, America, and the limits of force

The first challenge Iran faces is the asymmetry of pain thresholds. American credibility is on the line, but Iranian territory is being hit hard. Year-on-year inflation in Iran reached an astonishing 88.6% by late June. In southern provinces, which are facing the brunt of the renewed conflict, inflation has crossed 101% in Hormozgan, 99% in Khuzestan, and 96.5% in Bushehr. Iran’s energy ministry has asked the citizens to ration electricity in extreme heat as American strikes strain the electricity grid. The Islamic Republic crushed a nationwide uprising in January, has an economy in free fall, and is fighting a war with America. Its most dangerous front may prove to be the domestic one.

Iran’s coercion of the Gulf states may produce the very coalition it fears. Attacks on Kuwaiti power and desalination plants are pushing Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates toward closer security cooperation with each other, with Washington, and eventually, with Israel. Given the disparity in economic resources between Iran on one side of the Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar on the other side, a counterbalancing bloc would hold the stronger hand over time.

The biggest challenge Iran faces: Israel’s secretive nuclear powers. Iran has been trying to destroy the U.S. surveillance and radar systems in the Gulf that serve as early warning systems for Israel. If Iran continues succeeding in degrading those early warning systems, Israel would have to confront its missiles with less warning and thinner interception depth. A more vulnerable Israel could lean harder on its nuclear deterrent. Iran’s success could turn out to be extremely dangerous.

Washington’s options are no better. Trump has promised to destroy “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran fires on. A war on infrastructure would amount to war crimes by Washington, and it would not change Tehran’s calculations. Iran would retaliate against Gulf infrastructure, and the destruction would spread across states that are party to none of this.

Airstrikes on Iran’s most sensitive nuclear facilities would also yield little. Trump has threatened to “very heavily” hit the area around Pickaxe Mountain, a fortified underground site near Natanz, one of Iran's primary nuclear enrichment facilities. Such an attack would produce symbolic effects and trigger Iranian retaliation against energy and other critical infrastructure in the Gulf.

With the International Atomic Energy Agency locked out of Iran since June 2025 and the fate of nearly 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium unverified, fresh air strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran would make it even harder to determine what nuclear material and capabilities remain, where they are located, and how quickly the program could be rebuilt. Subsequently, greater ambiguity around Iran’s nuclear capabilities would make any settlement harder to negotiate and verify.

That leaves ground operations. On July 15, Trump reportedly convened a meeting to weigh seizing Kharg Island, through which some 90% of Iran’s crude exports pass, and other territory along the strait. U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal that Trump remained reluctant to commit ground forces. The threat of a ground invasion is only a threat as long as it stays a threat. Kharg and other such Iranian islands are hard to take and harder to hold. Their occupation would sharply reduce Iran’s oil revenue, but it would not necessarily compel Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or accept American terms. Iran could respond by intensifying attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and shipping, while presenting the seizure of its territory as proof that the war had become one of national defense.

Neither Iran nor America has a credible military path to a durable settlement that ends the fighting, restores freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and prevents another rapid return to war. Iran’s problem is the long-term cost of its current strategy; Washington’s problem is the diminishing returns on each additional night of bombing.

The choice Tehran and Washington have to make

The way out runs through the initial agreement. Its basic bargain remains workable: Iran would restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and halt attacks on U.S. forces, while Washington would lift its naval blockade of Iran, end its air campaign and suspend the punitive measures imposed after the agreement collapsed.

Pakistani and Qatari mediators are still working. What sank the previous deal was ambiguity: obligations without sequencing, commitments without monitoring, and no mechanism for containing an incident at sea before it became a campaign. Any new agreement will have to specify who verifies what, in what order, and what happens when a ship is hit.

Iran faces a larger decision. It cannot strike American assets in Gulf states indefinitely while expecting those states to put up with the attacks. Tehran must choose between a region organized around coexistence and one it hopes to dominate. Bids for hegemony summon their own opposition: the counter-coalition Iran could provoke, backed by Washington and Israel, would leave it more encircled than the war that began in February ever did. That is the calculation Tehran has yet to make, and the one on which everything else now depends.