Trump Says He’ll Have the “Honor” of “Taking Cuba” – “Whether I Free it, Take it, I Think I Can Do Anything I Want with It”

President Trump on Monday again floated “taking Cuba,” saying he believes he will have the “honor” of doing so. 

During a press conference in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters that Cuba is “very weakened,” noting that its “very violent” regime has destroyed the country.

“All my life, I’ve been hearing about the United States and Cuba. You know, when will the United States do it?”

This comes as the Department of Justice is preparing to charge Communist Cuban leaders in cases related to drugs or violence.

Cuba also faced a nationwide blackout after Trump cut off the flow of oil by threatening tariffs on any country that provides oil to Cuba through an Executive Order.

Meanwhile,  as The Gateway Pundit recently reported, U.S. Southern Command announced new operations with the Ecuadorian military against narco-terrorists in South America and is still surging troops to the region.

Trump told Fox’s Peter Doocy that Cuba is “talking to us” but declined to say whether he plans to use the military to invade Cuba as he did in Venezuela in January.

“I mean, whether I free it, take it, I think I can do anything I want with it, you want to know the truth. They’re a very weakened nation right now,” he said.

Keep reading

Israel Claims Killing Of Iran’s Top Security Official Ali Larijani In Overnight Strike

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced Tuesday that the Israeli military successfully eliminated Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and one of Tehran’s most senior security figures, during airstrikes overnight.

In a statement, Katz confirmed that Larijani was killed alongside Gholamreza Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Basij militia, a paramilitary force under the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The strikes represent a major escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, which has intensified since late February following U.S.-Israeli actions that reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking officials.

“The prime minister and I have instructed the IDF to continue hunting down the leadership of the regime of terror and oppression in Iran,” Katz said, adding that Larijani and Soleimani had now “joined Khamenei… in the depths of hell.” He described the operation as part of an accelerating effort to dismantle Iran’s remaining top leadership, wrote Clash Report.

Larijani, appointed SNSC secretary in August 2025 by President Masoud Pezeshkian, also served as the representative of the late Supreme Leader Khamenei on the council. A veteran politician, he previously held the position of speaker of Iran’s parliament (Majles) from 2008 to 2020 and was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator from 2005 to 2007. Often described as a “moderate conservative,” Larijani came from a prominent political family; his brother Sadegh Larijani chairs the Expediency Council, a key body arbitrating disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council.

The killing of such a central figure in Iran’s strategic decision-making could significantly impact Tehran’s regional policies, military operations, and any potential nuclear negotiations amid the broader war.

Keep reading

Cuba’s Electrical Grid Suffers Complete Collapse

Cuba’s electrical grid has suffered a complete collapse as the Trump Administration prepares to take action on the island country.

“Cuba’s electrical grid has suffered a complete and total collapse. This is according to the country’s power operator,” CNN’s Brianna Keilar.

“It’s the 1st nationwide blackout since the US effectively shut off the flow of oil to Cuba,” she said.

“A total disconnection of the National Electric Power System has occurred. Restoration protocols are beginning to be implemented,” Cuba’s electrical grid provider said on Monday.

President Trump told reporters on Sunday evening that he will finish dealing with Cuba “soon.”

“Cuba’s a failed nation. Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon, either make a deal or do whatever we have to do,” Trump told Bloomberg’s Jeff Mason during a gaggle on Air Force One.

“We’re talking to Cuba, but we’re going to do Iran before Cuba,” he said.

“They’ve been waiting 50 years for what’s happening with Cuba. So, I think something will happen with Cuba pretty quickly,” Trump added.

“You know, people have been waiting 50 years to hear this story with Cuba, and when I left Palm Beach today, there were thousands of people in the road. I’m sure you saw them, and they were from Cuba and from Venezuela, all friendly, all friendly, waving the flag and waving the American flag,” he said.

“They’ve been waiting 50 years for what’s happening with Cuba. So, I think something will happen with Cuba pretty quickly,” Trump said.

Keep reading

Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of killing 400 in hospital strike

Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of conducting an airstrike on a drug rehabilitation facility in Kabul, which Taliban officials say killed at least 400 people.

Pakistan has been striking alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan since February, accusing the Taliban government of supporting attacks on Pakistani soil. The Taliban has denied any involvement in the string of terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

Taliban government spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat said the strike on Monday evening destroyed large sections of the Omid Addiction Treatment Hospital.

“Unfortunately, the death toll has so far reached 400, while around 250 others have been reported injured,” Fitrat wrote on X.

Afghan media published a video showing a building engulfed in flames.

Keep reading

Trump Administration Goes After the Media for Negative Coverage of the Iran War

In recent days, senior Trump administration officials have increased their criticism and complaints about negative coverage of the US-Israeli war against Iran, with President Trump even suggesting certain media outlets could face “charges for treason.”

Trump made the comments in a long post on Truth Social put out on Sunday night, where he claimed that Iran has been feeding “false information” to the “Fake News media” and said fake AI videos were being circulated.

The president said there was a fake video that showed the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on fire. “The story was knowingly FAKE and, in a certain way, you can say that those Media Outlets that generated it should be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information!” Trump wrote.

While a fake video of Abraham Lincoln was circulated on social media, there’s no indication that it was picked up by any major media outlets. The only media outlet President Trump named in his post was The Wall Street Journal, which he accused of “false reporting” over a report on five US Air Force refueling tankers being damaged by an Iranian missile strike in Saudi Arabia.

However, Trump also acknowledged that one tanker was damaged and that the other four were back in service, which doesn’t refute the Journal report since it said the aircraft were not fully destroyed and were being repaired.

“The five US Refueling Planes that were supposedly struck down and badly damaged, according to The Wall Street Journal’s false reporting, and others, are all in service, with the exception of one, which will soon be flying the skies,” Trump said.

The president also pointed to comments from Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, who is threatening to revoke the licenses of news broadcasters for their coverage of the war in Iran. “I am so thrilled to see Brendan Carr … looking at the licenses of some of these Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations,” he added.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has also complained that media outlets haven’t been “patriotic” enough in their coverage. “We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth said at a press conference on Friday. “Yet some in this crew, in the press, just can’t stop. Allow me to make a few suggestions. People look up at the TV, and they see banners, they see headlines. I used to be in that business. And I know that everything is written intentionally.”

The US war chief continued, “For example, a banner or a headline: ‘Mideast war intensifies,’ splashing on the screen the last couple of days, alongside visuals of civilian or energy targets that Iran has hit, because that’s what they do. What should the banner read instead? How about, ‘Iran increasingly desperate,’ because they are. They know it and so do you, if it can be admitted.”

Hegseth described a headline that said the “war is widening” as fake despite the conflict spreading across the region. He suggested a “real headline” for an “actually patriotic press” could say “Iran shrinking, going underground,” though senior Iranian officials attended a public Quds Day march in Tehran that same day.

Keep reading

Trump threatens media with treason charges over Iran war coverage

US President Donald Trump has threatened media organizations with treason charges, accusing them of knowingly colluding with Iran to cast doubt on Washington’s decisive “victory.”

In a lengthy Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump alleged that “fake news” outlets had been spreading false information supposedly fabricated by Iran using artificial intelligence.

“The fact is, Iran is being decimated, and the only battles they ‘win’ are those that they create through AI, and are distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets,” Trump wrote.

Trump claimed that Tehran has circulated fabricated footage showing attacks on US military assets, including alleged strikes on refueling aircraft and naval vessels.

Keep reading

Israel systematically destroyed over 93 per cent of Gaza Strip cemeteries amid ongoing genocide

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has documented that the Israeli army has destroyed 93.5 per cent of cemeteries in the Gaza Strip, either completely or partially, in the context of the ongoing genocide since October 2023.

The systematic targeting of graves through demolition and bulldozing constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and reflects a deliberate pattern of erasure. These actions violate the sanctity of the dead, erase physical traces, inflict severe psychological and spiritual harm on the living, and ultimately undermine collective memory, severing historical ties between the population, their ancestors, and their land.

The Euro-Med Monitor team analyzed data from 62 official cemeteries across the Gaza Strip’s five governorates. It found that the Israeli army completely bulldozed and destroyed graves in 39 cemeteries (approximately 62.9 per cent of the total) and partially damaged 19 others (approximately 30.6 per cent). Only four cemeteries, or 6.4 per cent, remain intact.

These findings show that the widespread, direct destruction of cemeteries in the Gaza Strip was neither incidental to military operations nor justified by “military necessity.” Rather, it was a deliberate, planned effort to obstruct the identification and documentation of remains and to disrupt any subsequent procedures for identification, examination, or lawful exhumation. This constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law, which requires the respectful treatment of the dead, the protection and maintenance of graves, the recording of identity data, and the clear marking of burial sites to enable later identification.

The bulldozing and vandalism have led to the mixing of remains and the destruction of graves, markers, and headstones, making identification of the deceased nearly impossible, given Gaza’s limited resources. This deliberately deprives families of their humanitarian and religious right to know the fate and burial sites of their loved ones and to visit them, causing profound and lasting psychological and spiritual harm.

These acts, beyond constituting grave violations of the rules protecting the dead and cemeteries, fall within the scope of international criminalization when committed as outrages upon human dignity. This includes “outrages upon personal dignity,” a term which extends to the treatment of the deceased.

This pattern goes beyond violating the sanctity of the dead; it strikes at the foundations of collective memory, historical continuity, and connection to the land by removing the physical markers of Palestinian generational continuity, in line with systematic policies of erasure and removal.

The geographical distribution of the attacks indicates a widespread strategy of spatial erasure. In Rafah governorate, all official cemeteries have been completely destroyed. In Khan Yunis, all 24 official cemeteries were targeted, with 83.3 per cent completely destroyed and 16.7 per cent partially destroyed. In North Gaza, all ten cemeteries have been destroyed, with half completely and half partially affected.

Similarly, all 11 cemeteries in the Gaza governorate were damaged, with 45.5 per cent completely destroyed and 54.5 per cent partially destroyed. In Central Gaza, four of the eight cemeteries were partially damaged, while the other four remained undamaged.

In many cases, the Israeli army deliberately exhumed graves and converted cemeteries into military barracks under the pretext of searching for the bodies of Israeli detainees. These actions were carried out without documented, verifiable procedures, independent oversight, or a clear chain of custody and handover process. Israeli forces removed hundreds of bodies from their burial sites, mixed remains, failed to return them to their original locations, and provided no identifying or biological data to enable verification or documentation, making the recovery and identification of remains extremely difficult.

In addition to violating the sanctity of the dead, this conduct reflects a pattern of dehumanization, treating Palestinian bodies as objects to be confiscated, mixed, and concealed rather than as remains of human beings with names, dignity, and rights. It constitutes a compounded violation that strips the dead of dignity, reduces them to unidentified corpses, deprives families of their humanitarian and religious right to know the fate of their loved ones and perform mourning and burial rites, and undermines the preservation of historical and civil records linked to identity and burial.

Keep reading

Hegseth’s call for ‘no mercy’ to Iranians deemed war crime

US War Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing accusations of violating domestic and international laws prohibiting war crimes by declaring that “no quarter” or mercy would be given to Iranian forces.

The legal definition of the term means surrendering Iranian soldiers would be executed by American troops rather than taken prisoner. US officials and legal experts have responded by accusing Hegseth of encouraging war crimes.

”We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth said at a press briefing on Iran on Friday.

Some US officials and legal scholars have argued that the remarks went beyond tough rhetoric and strayed into criminality.

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona blasted Hegseth, saying his comment “isn’t some wannabe tough guy line” but rather an illegal order that jeopardizes US military service members. It also shows “there was never a clear strategy for this war,” the lawmaker added.

Dan Maurer, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and judge advocate, published a hypothetical memo Hegseth should receive from the Pentagon legal counsel, informing him of criminal liability for himself and any subordinate who followed his directive to deny quarter.

Keep reading

The War Without an Exit: Why Quick Victories in Iran Are Illusions

The notion of a short and decisive war has always been a temptation for politicians. This notion holds a promise of quick victories, low costs, and clear triumphs. However, the course of history over the last few decades has indicated that wars do not always follow this pattern. The current conflict between the United States and Iran seems to be a clear manifestation of this reality, as the early indications of a quick victory are not supported by the fundamental realities of the conflict.

The fundamental reason why a quick victory might not be possible in this conflict is not related to military capabilities. The military capabilities of the United States are overwhelming, as they are far ahead of Iran in terms of technology, logistics, and global reach. In the early phases of this conflict, the U.S. forces, along with the Israeli military, struck thousands of targets in Iran, targeting its missile capabilities, naval forces, and military installations. According to experts, the initial objective of this campaign was to destroy the Iranian naval capabilities, missile systems, and nuclear facilities, as well as weakening Iranian influence in the region.

However, military success does not automatically translate into a corresponding level of political achievement. As many a strategic analyst has noted, “destroying capabilities does not necessarily translate into regime collapse, political transformation, or stability.” While military instruments are effective at destroying capabilities, they are not as effective at creating alternatives.

This tension represents the heart of the strategic problem facing the United States.

As a matter of fact, even before the war began, American intelligence assessments reportedly indicated that military intervention was not likely to result in a change of regime in Iran because the Iranian system was so resilient, and there was no opposition to replace it.

Such intelligence assessments are part of a larger trend in modern warfare, wherein systems under military pressure tend to become more, not less, cohesive. Leadership changes occur rapidly without necessarily altering the fundamental structures of power. In this current conflict, the speed with which a new leader was installed into the Iranian leadership structure was a manifestation of this trend.

For the strategist who hopes to achieve a rapid level of regime collapse, this level of resilience represents a formidable obstacle.

Another factor affecting the prospects of a swift victory is the symmetry of the strategic goals and objectives. While the US might hope for a decisive victory in the form of destroying the military capability of the adversary or changing its politics, the same is not necessarily true for Iran. In fact, it is possible that the Iranian strategy is simply to survive.

In an asymmetric war, survival is victory.

The Iranian strategy seems to be one of survival and waiting it out, and analysts are observing how the escalation of the war is less dependent on the ability of the two adversaries to match each other in conventional warfare and more dependent on the ability of one of the adversaries to make the conflict unsustainable for the other. This means the war is now one of endurance rather than one of firepower.

A prime example of this is the energy sector and how it can be considered a part of the strategic environment. The current situation with the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total oil supply is shipped, has already caused economic concerns for the world as a whole. Analysts predict that if the current situation is not rectified, the price of oil could rise significantly, causing economic consequences for the world as a whole.

Similar concerns are now coming from financial institutions as well, with some predictions indicating that the conflict could have significant effects on the world’s markets and economic growth, thus showing the economic consequences of the escalation of the conflict.

The economic consequences of the conflict create a whole new aspect of the strategic environment of the war. The conflict is no longer limited to military facilities and vessels; it is now affecting global trade routes and economic growth, as well as the politics of nations.

History has shown that conflicts of such nature are rarely brief.

The United States has faced similar strategic conundrums in the past. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both began with rapid military successes that destroyed pre-existing governments within a matter of weeks. However, the political and security aftermaths took years to resolve. The conclusion should not be drawn that military force is ineffectual in these situations but rather that military victories do not necessarily equate to political success.

The case in Iran is more complex.

Keep reading

Five Losers in the War on Iran

There may be no winner in the war on Iran. But, although it is Iran that is under attack, they will not be the only losers. This war, fought without legal reason or political or security justification, will have myriad losers. Here are five.

The first loser of the war on Iran is the Iranians. Iran has an “inalienable right to a civilian program that uses nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They signed the JCPOA nuclear agreement that closed all roads to a military nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) repeatedly verified that they were in full compliance. They were currently negotiating further voluntary limitations on their civilian nuclear program, which would have assured the world of the impossibility of diverting their civilian nuclear program to a military one. Nothing was illegal or unusual about Iran’s nuclear or missile programs.

But bombs fell on Iranians. The people of Iran live in daily terror. Their cities are being bombed, and their infrastructure and water desalination plants have been devastated. Nearly 20,000 civilian buildings have been damaged, including dozens of hospitals and schools. Their leader has been assassinated. Over 1,300 civilians, hundreds of them children, have been killed.

The second country that will pay a price for the war on Iran is Ukraine. Just as Russia is thought to be massing for a large late spring offensive, its war economy is being pumped full by the rising cost of oil; which was caused by the effective closing of the Strait of Hormuz and the resultant easing of sanctions on Russian oil, while Ukraine’s supply of weapons is being threatened. Russia will have the money to continue launching missiles and drones, and Ukraine will lack the missiles to defend against them.

The U.S. is firing an incredible number of interceptors to defend against Iranian missiles and drones. The war on Iran is using up the defensive weapons that would have been sent to Ukraine. “The biggest and most immediate impact will be on air defense,” Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, told me, since “Ukraine depends almost entirely on the United States for air defense, especially Patriot air interceptors and AMRAAMs.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said, “We understand that a long war… and the intensity of the fighting will affect the amount of air defence equipment we receive.”

In this war of choice, the U.S. has made a bad choice, and it too will be a loser in this war. The U.S. will lose the war in Iran in four ways.

Keep reading