标签： North America

A sharp escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran has plunged the Middle East into renewed uncertainty this week, after Washington launched a new round of military strikes ordered by President Donald Trump, who has criticized Tehran for dragging its feet on peace negotiations.

US Central Command (Centcom) confirmed Wednesday that it had initiated what it described as “additional self-defense strikes” targeting multiple sites across Iranian territory. In an official statement, the command said the operation was a direct response to what it called Iran’s “unwarranted and continued aggression” against US interests in the region.

The cycle of escalating tit-for-tat attacks began earlier this week, when a US military helicopter was shot down in an assault that US officials have blamed on Iran-backed forces. Shortly after the downing, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched retaliatory strikes against multiple US military bases spread across the Middle East, raising the stakes in the rapidly deteriorating standoff.

Wednesday’s US strikes triggered reports of loud explosions across several Iranian locations, including the Gulf island of Qeshm, as well as the southern port cities of Bandar Abbas and Sirik. In an immediate and defiant response to the new attacks, Iran’s top military leadership issued a sweeping announcement that it would block all maritime traffic passing through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical global oil and commercial shipping chokepoints. “The Strait of Hormuz has been completely closed to all types of vessels, including commercial ships,” the statement read.

Hours before US forces launched the new strikes, President Trump had already signaled the coming escalation in a post on his Truth Social platform. “We hit them hard yesterday and we’re going to hit them hard again today,” Trump wrote, adding that Iranian leaders had “taken too long to negotiate a deal” to end the ongoing conflict.

The Trump administration’s framing of the strikes has drawn sharp pushback from Iranian officials. Iran’s foreign ministry has accused the US of actively undermining diplomatic efforts through its conflicting messaging and unilateral military action. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated his country’s resolve in the face of US pressure, saying that Iran “will stand firm against any pressure or threat.”

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the operation in comments following the strikes, confirming that US warplanes targeted key Iranian infrastructure. Hegseth said that Iran had been offered a clear opportunity to reach a negotiated settlement but had failed to take that path, noting that Trump had explicitly warned of renewed attacks if no progress toward a peace deal was made.

The current escalation marks a major breakdown of the fragile truce reached between Washington and Tehran back in April. That ceasefire was initially intended to last two weeks, and while both sides engaged in intermittent low-level fire over the following months, neither side returned to large-scale open conflict. In recent weeks, however, efforts to broker long-term peace talks between the two governments have stalled, creating the conditions for the sharp resurgence in hostilities seen this week.

On Wednesday, billionaire philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates appeared voluntarily behind closed doors before the U.S. House Oversight Committee, which is conducting a bipartisan investigation into the network of deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. During his testimony, Gates addressed long-swirling rumors about his relationship with Epstein, issuing a flat denial of any personal connection to the disgraced financier and pushing back against unsubstantiated claims of involvement in Epstein’s criminal activity.

Gates told the panel that his only interactions with Epstein began in 2011, three years after Epstein had pleaded guilty to state-level prostitution charges in Florida, and centered entirely on Epstein’s promises to arrange major fundraising for Gates’s global health philanthropic initiatives. Gates emphasized that from the start of their interactions, he explicitly barred Epstein from any role in the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and made clear the financier would never receive compensation for any donations he helped secure. By 2014, Gates said, he realized Epstein’s fundraising pledges were empty: after Epstein assembled a group of purported potential donors, none expressed interest in moving forward with contributions. At that point, Gates cut off all contact with Epstein, saying he never met or communicated with him again.

In his opening statement, Gates repeatedly denied any knowledge of or involvement in Epstein’s well-documented criminal conduct. “I never went to his island, his ranch, or his Florida home. I have never victimized anyone,” Gates told the committee. “While he may have sought to foster a personal relationship, I was never interested in that and never reciprocated.” He added that he never witnessed any illegal activity and had no indication of the exploitation Epstein was carrying out. Gates also addressed the unverified claims included in recently released court documents, including allegations that Epstein facilitated illicit affairs for Gates and that Gates sought to hide a sexually transmitted infection from his then-wife Melinda. Gates denied all of the false claims, but publicly admitted to having extramarital affairs years ago — a fact he said Epstein exploited to attempt to blackmail and pressure him. “Epstein was working to use information about my infidelities – in addition to many lies that he layered on top – to pressure me to re-engage with him,” Gates explained. He closed his opening remarks by expressing his hope that all survivors of Epstein’s crimes would ultimately receive the justice they deserve, echoing a previous public statement that every minute he spent with Epstein was a mistake he deeply regrets, and that he exercised poor judgment in ever agreeing to meet with him.

During the hearing, Gates reportedly provided committee members with the names of powerful individuals that Epstein approached for fundraising during his interactions with Gates, though the panel has not released those names publicly. Committee members from both parties echoed a consistent assessment of Epstein’s modus operandi: the financier actively collected relationships with high-profile, influential figures to bolster his own power and public standing. “It’s pretty clear to me that Epstein was a friend collector. He just liked to have people around him that were big deal and get his picture made with them and hang out with them, and I think that’s how he reeled them,” Republican committee member Tim Burchett told reporters after the hearing. Democratic ranking member Robert Garcia noted that Gates acknowledged he knew Epstein had been convicted of a serious crime, but still continued interactions to pursue philanthropic funding. Democrat Emily Randall added that Gates’s testimony reinforced a pattern: many prominent men who interacted with Epstein only saw what they wanted to see during their encounters, ignoring obvious red flags. Lawmakers also pressed Gates on how the tech billionaire, a leading figure in the global information industry, failed to look into Epstein’s publicly available criminal record beyond a vague awareness that Epstein had faced some form of legal restriction. Burchett added that Gates appeared notably reserved during the hours of intense questioning, describing him as “down-trodden for a guy worth several billions.”

Gates is the latest in a string of high-profile figures to be questioned by the committee’s investigation, joining former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and current U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, among others. Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges. His long-time associate Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of multiple felonies related to Epstein’s crimes and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence; she appeared virtually before the committee in February but invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions. The testimony comes months after the U.S. Department of Justice released millions of pages of documents from the Epstein investigation earlier this year, in which Gates’s name appeared thousands of times, including in multiple photographs of Gates alongside Epstein. Gates has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s illegal activity since the documents were published.

A little-known internal assessment conducted by House Republicans’ top campaign organization has found that the bitter, nationwide battle over redrawing congressional electoral maps has delivered a significant partisan advantage to the GOP ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, according to reporting from the BBC.

The analysis, prepared by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and not previously made public, was finalized last month after the last holdout states completed their redistricting processes. Its findings show that the reshuffled maps have created 10 new House districts that lean toward the Republican Party. Most notably, the number of Democratic-held House seats that went to President Donald Trump in his 2024 re-election victory has jumped to 23, up from just 13 at the opening of the 2026 midterm cycle. On the flip side, Republicans now hold just eight districts that 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris won, an increase from three at the start of the cycle. When all shifts are tallied, the assessment concludes Republicans net a potential advantage of five favorable seats compared to the previous map layout.

The new electoral landscape comes at a critical moment for House Republicans, who currently hold a fragile 217-212 majority with five congressional seats sitting vacant. While public polling shows widespread voter anxiety over economic conditions, sky-high living costs and the ongoing conflict in Iran, the revised maps offer the party a critical buffer that could help them hold their narrow control of the chamber.

Historically, midterm election cycles tend to favor the opposition party, the out-of-power bloc in Congress. This year, that dynamic would normally work in Democrats’ favor, particularly with Trump’s approval rating hovering near the lowest point of his second term. But both major parties have waged an unprecedented partisan fight to redraw district lines outside the standard once-a-decade census-based redistricting process, a battle that has reshaped the playing field. A 2020s Supreme Court ruling that struck down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act cleared the way for many states to revise their congressional maps, supercharging this off-cycle redistricting fight. While Democrats successfully pushed through revised maps in California and Virginia, the Virginia changes were later invalidated by state courts, leaving the GOP-aligned original map in place.

If the current finalized maps remain unchanged through the November election, the NRCC’s analysis confirms Republicans have secured a clear edge in the bitter redistricting war. While a net five-seat advantage may sound modest, political observers note it could prove decisive if Republicans overperform historical trends and the election results end up much closer than pre-election polling predicts.

Top Democratic strategists have already acknowledged that the new maps give House Republicans a wider margin of error heading into November. Even so, many Democratic operatives argue the advantage is smaller than many within the party originally feared, pointing to independent polling that still shows Democrats are well-positioned to flip the chamber and take majority control.

Republicans, for their part, argue redistricting is not the only factor behind their stronger-than-expected position this primary season. NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella told the BBC that robust candidate recruitment and a substantial fundraising lead over Democratic groups have also boosted the party’s odds. “Democrats are climbing an uphill battle, and their outlook for the House gets darker by the day. The math doesn’t work. The map doesn’t work. The money doesn’t work. The candidates don’t work. That’s why House Republicans are on offence,” Marinella said in his statement.

The NRCC’s internal assessment, which drew on public voter demographic data, aligns closely with analysis from nonpartisan election watchdogs. The Cook Political Report currently rates 18 House seats as competitive toss-ups, and 17 of those competitive districts were carried by Trump during his 2024 presidential win, which saw him flip all key swing states to secure a comfortable victory over Harris.

The NRCC analysis also highlighted another positive trend for the GOP: At the start of the 2018 midterm cycle, the last midterm election when Trump held the presidency, House Republicans controlled 42 districts where Trump had won less than 50% of the vote in the prior presidential election. Today, that number has dropped to just 14 Republican-held districts where Trump failed to win a majority in 2024, meaning Republicans are far less exposed to headwinds in swing districts than they were eight years ago.

Despite the shifted map, Democratic leaders remain confident they can flip the House in November. CJ Warnke, communications director for House Majority PAC, House Democrats’ lead super PAC, noted that many of the 23 Trump-won Democratic-held districts remain highly competitive this cycle, including battleground seats in South Texas and Ohio where Republican candidates still face steep obstacles. “No amount of trying to change the maps on redistricting is going to prevent House Republicans from losing this fall,” Warnke said. He went on to tie Republican incumbents to ongoing economic pain, arguing “Inflation continues to rise, gas prices are skyrocketing, and after promising no new wars Trump and Republicans went off and started a war with Iran that’s now hurting the American economy.”

Democrats are also counting on long-standing historical trends to hold in their favor. Data from the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara shows that since 1934, the party that controls the White House has gained House seats in just three midterm elections, and gained Senate seats in only six cycles. This pattern held in recent cycles: Democrats flipped 40 Republican-held House seats in 2018, while Republicans flipped nine Democratic seats in the 2022 midterms.

In a stunning, unscripted remark that sent ripples through political and economic circles, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly declared “I love inflation,” a comment that defies mainstream economic consensus and contradicts decades of political messaging around price stability. The unusual statement comes as American households continue to grapple with persistent cost-of-living increases that have eroded purchasing power for low- and middle-income families across the country. In the same public appearance, Trump dropped another unanticipated bombshell regarding U.S. energy policy toward Iran, confirming that the United States has been extracting millions of barrels of oil from Iranian reserves without Tehran’s awareness until his public disclosure. “Tehran didn’t know until right now,” Trump stated, confirming the unannounced action that escalates long-running tensions between Washington and Tehran. Foreign policy experts have already raised alarms over the reveal, noting that unacknowledged seizure of energy resources risks amplifying regional instability in the Middle East and could prompt retaliatory measures from Iran that roil global energy markets. The dual comments have drawn sharp criticism from economic analysts who point to widespread public hardship linked to high inflation, as well as from national security specialists who warn that public disclosure of covert operations undermines strategic messaging and puts U.S. interests at greater risk in the region.

In a surprising turn of events that has upended expectations for Maine’s U.S. Senate race, Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate whose primary campaign was roiled by high-profile controversies, has emerged victorious in the state’s party primary. His win now sets him up as the Democratic Party’s official nominee heading into the critical November midterm elections, where he will compete for the open Senate seat representing Maine.

Platner’s path to the nomination was far from smooth. For weeks leading up to primary day, his campaign faced constant scrutiny and public backlash over a series of unflattering revelations that dominated local political headlines. Many political analysts had predicted that the cascading scandals would derail his bid for the nomination, with opponents and pundits alike arguing that the controversies would make voters unwilling to throw their support behind him. But in a post-victory statement, Platner pushed back against that narrative, leaning into a message of personal redemption that appeared to resonate with primary voters. “People can change,” Platner told supporters after the results were finalized, framing his campaign as a testament to the possibility of personal growth and second chances.

The outcome of the primary has already shifted the dynamics of the general election race. Political strategists across the state are now re-assessing their projections for November, as Platner’s ability to overcome scandal to win the nomination signals an unpredictable race ahead. While Democrats will now unify behind Platner as their official nominee, the lingering questions from the primary campaign are expected to remain a central point of attack for his general election opponent. Regardless of what comes next, Platner’s primary win stands as a reminder that even the most troubled campaigns can defy political odds when candidates connect with voters on messages of change and redemption.

One of the world’s most recognizable tech billionaires and philanthropists, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, will appear Wednesday before a U.S. congressional committee to answer long-simmering questions about his past connections to deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The interview marks the latest chapter in the ongoing fallout from the 2026 release of more than three million pages of court documents related to Epstein’s federal criminal investigation, where Gates’ name appears thousands of times.

Gates has confirmed his appearance is voluntary, and in a public statement, he said he welcomes the chance to address the House Oversight Committee’s questions about his relationship with the disgraced financier. Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges; his long-time accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in his criminal ring.

The recently unsealed documents from the U.S. Department of Justice have reignited public and congressional scrutiny of Gates’ ties to Epstein. Among the released materials are multiple undated photos: one captures Gates standing near an aircraft alongside Epstein’s pilot, while others show Gates posing with his arm around Epstein alongside several unidentified women. The documents also include a series of draft emails allegedly written by Epstein that make multiple unsubstantiated, disputed claims about Gates’ personal life. These include allegations that Epstein arranged secret affairs for Gates with married women, that Gates contracted a sexually transmitted infection from women Epstein connected him to, that Epstein helped Gates obtain medication to treat the infection, and that Gates attempted to secretly give antibiotics to his then-wife Melinda to prevent her from contracting the infection. Gates has forcefully denied all of these unproven claims, but he has publicly admitted to having had extramarital affairs with two Russian women.

Gates’ core public defense of his relationship with Epstein has framed their association as strictly transactional: he has said the pair connected in 2011, three years after Epstein’s Florida conviction for soliciting prostitution involving a minor, to discuss potential philanthropic funding for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates has repeatedly stated no such funding ever materialized, and that he cut off all contact with Epstein in 2014. He has also repeatedly denied any wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s illegal activities, though he has publicly acknowledged he made a terrible mistake in ever meeting with Epstein. “I was foolish to spend time with him. I was one of many people who regret ever knowing him,” Gates said earlier this year. “Every minute I spent with him I regret.”

Lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee have laid out three core lines of questioning they plan to pursue during Wednesday’s interview. First, they will challenge Gates’ claim that he was unaware of the full extent of Epstein’s criminal past even as the pair maintained contact years after his conviction. Committee Democrat Robert Garcia noted last week that Gates continued interacting with Epstein even after basic information about Epstein’s horrific crimes was already public, saying “we want to ask Mr. Gates, why continue that relationship? Who else did he see? What else might he know? And who else should we be bringing in to ask questions of?”

Lawmakers also plan to press Gates on why he maintained a years-long relationship with Epstein when no philanthropic funding ever materialized from their discussions— a timeline that stretches far longer than would be expected for a failed funding pitch. Additionally, the committee will investigate whether Epstein sought to leverage his connection to Gates, one of the most connected and influential figures in global public life, to advance and protect his illegal criminal enterprise. The committee has stated it believes Gates has key insight into how Epstein and Maxwell cultivated powerful connections to shield their crimes.

Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, another Democratic member of the committee, told the BBC that investigators specifically want to know if Epstein attempted to blackmail Gates, as he is alleged to have done with other high-profile associates. Epstein was known to meticulously document his relationships with powerful figures, keeping detailed records of meetings, personal information, and embarrassing personal details that could be used for leverage. While there is no concrete evidence of blackmail against Gates to date, the unproven claims about Gates’ personal life contained in Epstein’s documents raise questions about potential leverage. The Gates Foundation has previously confirmed that a small number of its staff interacted with Epstein at Gates’ direction to explore potential philanthropic funding for global health initiatives, but that no collaboration was ever finalized and the foundation regrets any contact with the disgraced financier.

The interview comes as congressional investigators continue to unpack the full scope of Epstein’s network of powerful connections, years after his death brought an end to any criminal prosecution of the financier himself.