Trump Says Iran Conflict Nearing End As U.S. Military Objectives Are Met
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump declared Friday that the high-stakes conflict with Iran is nearing its final chapter. In a series of defiant posts on Truth Social and a subsequent briefing at the White House, the President signaled that the "decisive and devastating" objectives of Operation Epic Fury have been largely achieved, paving the way for a U.S. withdrawal and a shift in regional responsibility.
Since the operation was launched on February 28, 2026, joint U.S. and Israeli forces have systematically dismantled the Iranian regime's conventional and strategic capabilities.
The End of the Regime's Military Might
President Trump provided a "ruthless and precise" assessment of the damage inflicted on Tehran over the last 23 days. According to the President, the regime’s ability to project power or threaten its neighbors has been effectively neutralized.
Navy and Air Force Eradicated: “They have no Navy anymore,” Trump told reporters. “And we have the greatest Navy anywhere in the world, and it’s not even close.”
Leadership Vacuum: The President claimed that multiple "sets of leaders" within the Iranian government have been eliminated, leaving the country in a state of administrative paralysis. “Now nobody wants to be a leader over there anymore,” he noted.
Nuclear and Missile Shutdown: The primary goals of degrading Iran’s missile systems and permanently blocking the path to a nuclear weapon are reportedly "getting very close" to completion.
The Hormuz Mandate: Allies Must Step Up
As the U.S. prepares to "wind down" its great military efforts, President Trump issued a blunt ultimatum regarding the Strait of Hormuz. While acknowledging the waterway’s critical role in the global economy, Trump insisted that the burden of security must now shift to the nations that depend on it most.
Policed by Users: “The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not!” Trump wrote.
An "Easy" Operation: The President described the continued security of the strait as a "simple military maneuver" once the primary Iranian threat is eradicated.
-
Global Support: In response to Trump’s call, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, and Canada have all indicated they are prepared to assist in ensuring safe passage for commercial traffic.
The Energy Crisis: $112 Oil and South Pars
Despite the military successes, the conflict has taken a significant toll on global energy markets. The targeting of Iran’s South Pars gas field—the largest in the world—sparked a wave of retaliatory strikes from Tehran against oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.
Skyrocketing Prices: Brent crude has surged to $112 per barrel, driving U.S. gas prices to a national average of nearly $4 per gallon.
The Qatar Red Line: Trump issued a massive warning on Friday, stating that while Israel would pause strikes on gas fields for now, any further Iranian attacks on Qatar would result in the U.S. "massively blowing up the entirety" of the South Pars field.
Economic Impact: Economists warn that the continued disruption in the Gulf could trigger broader supply shortages and persistent inflation affecting consumers globally.
May you like
HE'S DOWN: Shock in the White House as 3 U.S. Jets Lost in Friendly Fire Tragedy!
MOSCOW EXFIL: Wounded Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei Flown to Russia!
$2,000 DIVIDEND: Trump Gives Update on When Americans May Expect Bonuses!
The Legacy of 2026
As the 2026 Midterm cycle gains momentum, the "Victory in the Gulf" narrative is expected to be a central pillar of the America First platform. By achieving a "decisive and devastating" result without getting bogged down in "dumb nation-building wars," the Trump administration is aiming to redefine American foreign policy for the next century.
With the Iranian military "finished" and the path to 2028 clear, the President is focusing on restoring "simple, secure, and transparent" order both at home and abroad.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
