As talks continue to swirl around the strategic Strait of Hormuz, experts are advising the Trump administration to maintain its focus on the evolving Iranian nuclear situation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded on Wednesday to comments reportedly made by IRGC chief Ahmad Vahidi, asserting that Israel would continue to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, irrespective of any diplomatic agreements in place.

These controversial remarks attributed to Vahidi gained online traction; however, they seem to originate from an earlier interview, back when he served as interior minister and an adviser to the IRGC, revisiting statements initially believed to be made in 2025.

In the interview with ILNA, he reportedly claimed that while Iran was not pursuing bomb development, it possessed the capability to act differently if necessary, according to details shared by Khabar online and picked up by News Media.

In reaction to the remarks that were amplified by Israel’s Ch. 14 on X, Netanyahu said during his speech that, “Today, we heard the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Vahidi, explicitly declare Iran’s intention to continue developing nuclear weapons — ‘continue,’ as he put it,” Netanyahu said at a ceremony marking the reinterment of Shimon and Rivka Herzl, the grandparents of the founder of modern day Zionism, Theodor Herzl.”

“Well, as prime minister of Israel, I too, am determined to continue — to continue preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons,” he said.

Netanyahu praised President Donald Trump as Israel’s greatest friend in the White House and expressed appreciation for the two countries’ joint efforts against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“Israel’s existence is not subject to negotiation,” Netanyahu said. “With an agreement or without an agreement, I am determined — we are all determined — to do whatever is necessary to ensure our security and our future.”

News Media reached out to a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office for clarification of his remarks.

The comments came as nuclear experts urged Trump to keep Iran’s nuclear program at the center of negotiations, warning that Tehran could use the Hormuz crisis to secure sanctions relief and other concessions before addressing its remaining nuclear capabilities.

Trump told “Fox News at Night” Tuesday that military force remained an option if Iran abandoned the talks, while insisting Tehran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

“If they back out again, they’re going to get hit really hard,” Trump told Fox News’ Trace Gallagher. “They know that. They understand that. I have no choice. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple.

“The hard hit is yet to come, and hopefully we won’t have to use it.”

Trump said negotiators held an “all-day negotiation” Tuesday and described the discussions as “very good.” He has said the talks would initially focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz before turning to Tehran’s nuclear program.

Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program, said that sequence could play directly into Iran’s strategy.

“It is in the Iranians’ interest to steer the negotiations toward the issues that they most care about,” Stricker told News Media, including securing major U.S. concessions over Hormuz and “maintaining control of that crucial waterway that has proven a lifeline for Tehran to survive this war.”

She said Iran would also seek oil sanctions relief and potentially relief from all U.S. sanctions, before addressing the nuclear file.

“If Tehran is able to structure the talks that way — and I’m concerned that Trump appears to be going along with that approach — there may be little left in terms of leverage to get big concessions from the Iranians on the nuclear file down the line,” Stricker said.

There is evidence that Tehran has sought to sequence the talks in its favor. Axios reported in April that Iran proposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war before beginning nuclear negotiations, potentially reducing U.S. leverage over enrichment and Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile.

The Washington Post later reported that Tehran was focused on preserving its leverage over Hormuz rather than engaging deeply on major nuclear restrictions.

Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, agreed Iran is seeking to capitalize on the leverage it gained by disrupting maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

“The current focus on the Straits of Hormuz is not surprising. Iran is looking to capitalize on leverage gained by disrupting maritime traffic through the waterway and test if Trump is willing to negotiate in good faith,” Davenport told News Media.

She said Tehran understands that any durable agreement will ultimately have to address its nuclear program but said, “At the end of this conflict, Iran will still possess the capabilities necessary to build a bomb,” Davenport said, “The relevant knowledge and nuclear expertise cannot be bombed away.

“Tehran retains key materials and technologies necessary to build a bomb,” she added. “If left unchecked, the nuclear program will be a source of instability and renewed conflict, even if Iran does not resume more proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.”

A proposed agreement between Iran and Oman could give Tehran some control over ships entering the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, a senior Iranian source and two regional officials told Reuters Wednesday. One regional source described the arrangement as a concession that had already been made, although the precise meaning of Iranian “control” remained under negotiation.

Iran is also seeking fees from ships traveling through the waterway, according to Reuters, while Washington has opposed both Iranian control and mandatory transit charges.

Stricker said postponing the nuclear issues would allow the regime to preserve its remaining enriched-uranium stockpiles and avoid fully dismantling its nuclear infrastructure.

She said Iran also wants to avoid accounting for its past nuclear weapons-related work or committing to end uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing.

“Leaving them as a last-order issue in the negotiations likely means that we will not see the Iranians make big concessions and make a solid nuclear deal,” Stricker said.

Davenport said the administration should prioritize restoring access for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency before beginning detailed nuclear negotiations.

“The IAEA has not visited key Iranian nuclear sites in more than a year,” she said. “It remains unclear how much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains and where any gaps might be in trying to account for Iran’s nuclear materials.”

She said renewed inspections would give Washington a clearer picture of Iran’s remaining facilities and materials, while helping negotiators design a verification regime capable of addressing any gaps.

Davenport also recommended pairing sanctions relief with specific, verifiable Iranian steps rather than negotiating one sweeping package.

“A series of smaller deals could build confidence in the process,” she said.

Stricker urged the administration to link every concession involving Hormuz, sanctions or the U.S. blockade to a measurable Iranian step on the nuclear file.

“The best approach to ensure a solid deal is to make the nuclear issues just as important as the Strait of Hormuz, removing the blockade and other top Iranian priorities,” she said.

DEAR ABBY: For the past two years, I’ve been battling a chronic illness, leading to an extended leave from my job. I’ve always been surrounded by amazing friends and family, whose initial support made the diagnosis a bit more bearable. It was the usual responses of, “Let me know if you need anything,” that comforted me, though I’ve never leaned on anyone, preferring not to impose.

Recently, my world shifted with the passing of my mother, leaving me grappling with overwhelming loneliness. I crave real connection—just a simple lunch or a casual drink with a friend would mean so much. Sadly, my calls go unanswered, and messages seem to disappear into the void. I hadn’t realized there was an expiry on “let me know if you need anything.” I’m certain others out there feel this isolating silence, and I am reaching out for any words of comfort you might offer. — NOT ALWAYS SUNNY IN UTAH

DEAR NOT ALWAYS SUNNY: My heartfelt condolences for the deeply personal loss of your mother. It’s disheartening that those who assured you of their support now seem to have forgotten their promises. This situation requires you to take the initiative to address your solitude.

First, consider joining a support group—either face-to-face or virtual—that relates to your illness. If it aligns with your beliefs, you might also reach out to a religious advisor. Depending on your health, perhaps volunteering for a cause you care about or caring for animals as a foster could also provide meaningful interaction.

Instead of waiting for a call that might never come, perhaps make the proactive choice to have a meal or a drink outside, allowing you to meet new people and protect yourself from dwelling too long in isolation.

** ** **

DEAR ABBY: My son and daughter-in-law think it’s OK to have cameras on me and my husband when we watch their children. It has been going on for six years, and I’m uncomfortable babysitting them while being recorded. 

I know my son and his wife watch the footage, because comments have been made about what we have discussed while babysitting. I’m tired of sucking it up and allowing this. This would mean that I probably wouldn’t get to see my grandchildren anymore. What should I do? — HATE BEING FILMED IN THE MIDWEST

DEAR HATE BEING FILMED: Are the cameras running all the time, or just when you are babysitting? If they are on all the time, then you are not being singled out. Because you find the idea of your son and daughter-in-law listening in on what you thought were private conversations, perhaps you should start doing the babysitting at your home instead of theirs. However, if that isn’t viable, you may either have to bite the bullet and accept the status quo or remove babysitting from the equation.

** ** **

Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. Contact Dear Abby at DearAbby.com or P.O. Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069.

In a troubling turn of events, a teenage girl from Florida quietly slipped out of her house in the middle of the night and has since vanished, leaving her family desperate for answers and pleading for her safe return.

Sixteen-year-old Sophia Cover went missing nearly three weeks ago from her residence in Golden Gate Estates, a location situated approximately 30 miles south of Fort Myers. Her disappearance was recorded shortly before 1 a.m. on July 31.

“There’s absolutely no chance she’d just leave us like this,” her father, Richard Cover, expressed to Gulf Coast News, adding that he refuses to accept any reason for her absence.

Firm in his conviction, he reiterated, “There’s no way. I don’t care what’s behind it.”

Security cameras at the Covers’ residence captured Sophia making her way into the night clad in a hoodie at about 12:45 a.m., navigating the darkness on her path.

‘That day, she wasn’t; it was locked. So the dogs whine. And so, I walk around, go through the pool bathroom door and that’s unlocked,’ Cover told the outlet. 

‘And then I walk into her bedroom and she’s nowhere to be found.’

Sophia and her family moved to the area just four months ago, they said, adding that they don’t believe the teen is capable of running away, Gulf Coast News reported.

‘I think that she left the house because someone either convinced her to, or promised her something and I think that she’s in trouble right now. I think someone has my daughter, is what I believe.’

‘That’s what I believe, and I hope I’m wrong,’ he added through tears. 

‘She’s my buddy. I thought I wasn’t going to cry man.’ 

According to the distraught father, Sophia’s older siblings are ‘going nuts’ and the rest of their family has been desperately trying to help bring her home. 

Sophia’s aunt, Jackie Vileikis, shared on social media that the teenager left with her iPhone, which has since been turned off. 

‘Sophia, if you happen to see this, please know we are extremely scared and worried about your safety. We just want to know that you’re okay and want you home safe,’ her father wrote on Facebook. 

In a later post, Cover said that ‘every hour that passes is heartbreaking for our family.’

‘We are not angry. We are terrified and just want to know that Sophia is safe. Every share and every set of eyes looking for her gives us hope,’ he continued. 

‘Every minute without her feels unbearable. We miss her so much and just want to know that she’s safe.’

Her father has launched an online effort to try and find Sophia and hopefully communicate with his daughter.

‘I have buried myself into finding her,’ he told the outlet. ‘The biggest thing I think is I am focused on finding her more than anything else.’

‘Everybody is looking for you, and, if you’re out there on your own, it’s really easy to come home. You can go to any police officer. You can go to any adult that is safe.’

Sophia’s great-grandmother said in a heartbreaking video posted on social media: ‘I love you, I love you, I love you. Please, come home. I want to see you again. Okay? I’m waiting for you Sophia. I want to see you Sophia. I love you. I love you. I love you.’

Sophia is described as 5 feet, 7 inches tall, weighs 115 pounds, and has long brown hair and brown eyes. Investigators say there are currently no leads on her whereabouts and are urging anyone with information to come forward. 

‘Sophia, if you see this…I need you to know that I love you more than words could ever explain. There isn’t a single day that goes by that I don’t think about you. I miss your smile, your laugh, and hearing your voice. Home just isn’t the same without you here,’ her father wrote on Facebook.

‘I’m not giving up on you. I’ll keep searching, keep hoping, and keep praying until you’re home safe. No matter what’s happened or how much time has passed, you’re my daughter, and that will never change.

‘If you’re scared, hurting, or don’t know what to do, please just let someone know you’re okay. You don’t have to go through anything alone. I just want to know you’re safe and bring you home where you belong.

‘I love you with all my heart, Sophia. I’ll always be your dad, and I’ll always be waiting for you with open arms. Please come home.’

Deputies emphasized that any details regarding her disappearance are essential to bringing her home. Contact the Collier County Sheriff’s Office at 239-252-9300 with any information on Sophia Cover. 

The Daily Mail reached out to the Collier County Sheriff’s Office for comment.  

CHICAGO (WLS) — On a sunny Friday afternoon, a violent altercation at a South Side beach in Chicago left four people injured, including two off-duty police officers.

Chicago police reported the incident took place around 4:05 p.m. at 31st Street Beach, located in the 3100 block of South Lake Shore Drive.

The video in the player above is from an earlier report.

ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

According to the Chicago Police Department, the scene unfolded as a 23-year-old man and a 24-year-old woman, both off-duty officers, were socializing with two other 22-year-old male companions when they encountered two male and two female assailants with undisclosed ages.

An argument swiftly escalated, prompting the off-duty officers to identify themselves in an attempt to calm tensions. Unfortunately, the confrontation turned physical despite their intervention.

The 23-year-old off-duty officer had a cut on his face and nose and was taken to a hospital in good condition, Chicago police said.

The three other victims had various cuts and other injuries, but refused medical attention at the scene, police said.

Chopper 7 was over the scene, where responding Chicago police officers could be seen at the beach’s entrance.

The four suspects involved in the fight were taken into custody, CPD said.

ABC7 was on the scene when one of the four people arrested was taken away in an ambulance. There was no word yet on his condition, but ABC7 crews did see that he was conscious and talking.

Police say charges are pending as they continue to investigate.

INTERACTIVE SAFETY TRACKER Track crime and safety in your neighborhood

Retired Army General Jack Keane has raised doubts about the reliability of Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia in shaping diplomatic negotiations with Iran. He accused these regional allies of influencing the direction away from military pressure, thereby leaving the United States and Israel to handle the challenge of confronting Tehran alone.

During his appearance on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” on Monday, Keane, a senior strategic analyst for the network and a former Army vice chief of staff, claimed that Pakistan and Qatar lack neutrality as mediators. According to him, their leaning towards Iran undermines U.S. interests.

“It’s a widely recognized fact in the Middle Eastern region, supported by our intelligence and regional players, that Pakistan and Qatar are compromised due to their pro-Iran stance, which comes at the expense of U.S. interests,” Keane remarked. “This situation has historical roots and is not a recent development.”

Contrasting Keane’s critical view is former President Trump’s supportive comments regarding Islamabad.

Trump said April 26 during a phone interview with Fox News that he had “great respect for Pakistan” because its officials had “been terrific” and “really tried” to advance negotiations with Iran. He added that Pakistan would remain involved in the process.

While speaking to reporters after the G7 summit in France on June 18, Trump also credited Pakistan and Qatar with helping advance the negotiations that produced the U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly also defended the administration’s regional partners, telling News Media that, “President Trump has great relationships with leaders from Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and he appreciates the involvement of all of our regional partners who are assisting with negotiations.” 

“If Iran cannot agree to a good deal with the United States, the fault will lie squarely with the regime, who will suffer the consequences,” Kelly added.

Mediators were preparing a second memorandum focused exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz, Wednesday reports indicated, potentially separating the immediate maritime crisis from the broader dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities.

Keane, a former four-star general, argued that their involvement may have contributed to Washington misunderstanding Iran’s intentions.

“And yet they’re mediators,” Keane said. “So their influence here, I think, had played a part in misleading the United States in terms of Iran’s real intentions.”

Pakistan and Qatar have played formal roles in the diplomatic process.

A June 22 joint statement from the two countries said they were mediating talks between the United States and Iran under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. The framework established working groups on nuclear issues, sanctions, monitoring and dispute resolution, as well as a mechanism intended to prevent incidents involving commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan declined to comment on Keane’s criticism. The Saudi and Qatari embassies in Washington did not respond by the time of publication.

Raza Rumi, editor-at-large of Pakistan’s The Friday Times, disputed Keane’s characterization, arguing that Islamabad’s working relationship with Tehran does not make it a compromised mediator.

“Successful mediators are often those that enjoy channels of communication with all sides,” Rumi told News Media, saying Pakistan’s approach is shaped more by geography, security and economic concerns than ideological alignment with Iran.

He noted that Pakistan shares a long border with Iran and wants to prevent further instability, while also maintaining longstanding ties with the United States and close partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Rumi also pointed to the exchange of strikes between Pakistan and Iran in January 2024 as evidence that relations between the neighbors are not uniformly close.

“The suggestion that Pakistan somehow caused Washington to misunderstand Tehran’s intentions is difficult to substantiate,” Rumi said. “It would be a considerable stretch to attribute any American misreading of Iran’s intentions to Pakistani mediation.”

Keane directed even sharper criticism at Saudi Arabia, saying that Riyadh denied the United States access to Saudi airspace and a U.S. air base during preparations for a possible operation to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He also claimed Saudi officials had repeatedly persuaded Trump not to resume major military operations against Iran.

“The fact of the matter is, the Saudis are not willing to sacrifice to rid the Middle East region of Iran’s aggression,” Keane said, describing the potential costs as casualties and damage to Saudi oil infrastructure.

“They’re willing for us to make that sacrifice, for sure,” he added. “They’re willing for Israel to make that sacrifice, for sure.”

His remarks highlighted a broader debate over whether Saudi caution represents an unwillingness to confront Tehran or a strategic effort to prevent an open-ended regional war.

Salman Al-Ansari, a Saudi geopolitical analyst, rejected the suggestion that Riyadh is unwilling to confront Iran, saying the Kingdom distinguishes between credible deterrence and military action without clear objectives.

“Saudi Arabia supports confronting Iranian aggression, but not an open-ended regional war without clear objectives or an endgame,” Al-Ansari told News Media.

“Riyadh favors diplomacy backed by credible deterrence, but any agreement must be enforceable and verifiable, addressing Iran’s nuclear program, its proxies, and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz,” he added.

A Gulf affairs analyst who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue offered a different assessment, saying Saudi leaders fear that a wider confrontation would expose the Kingdom’s critical infrastructure to Iranian retaliation.

“Saudi Arabia believes it should appease Iran because it is deeply concerned about the consequences of a broader confrontation,” the analyst said. “Riyadh fears the damage Iran could inflict on the Kingdom’s infrastructure and has therefore favored restraint and negotiations over a decisive military campaign.”

The analyst described a widening divide among Gulf states, arguing that Saudi Arabia and Qatar favor accommodation while the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait support stronger pressure on Iran.

Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank and former National Security Council official, said during a separate Fox News appearance Wednesday, that Washington continues to depend on Saudi infrastructure even as disagreements persist over military strategy.

“When we talk about the Gulf states, we talk about Saudi Arabia and General Keane’s comments, remember, we also are relying on Saudi Arabia with their overland pipelines to keep us in the game here,” Goldberg said. “The fact that they’re at maximum capacity moving through the Red Sea also allows us to continue the strangulation strategy.”

The debate comes as the United States and Iran continue negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz.

Oman, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia all have been involved in the diplomatic effort, while reports Wednesday indicated that mediators were working on an interim arrangement that could establish separate shipping routes through Iranian and Omani waters as broader nuclear negotiations continue.

The central question is whether those negotiations can produce an enforceable agreement or merely allow Tehran to preserve its leverage over the waterway.

Keane said he remained doubtful that Iran was prepared to surrender meaningful control.

“They are not going to give up the Strait of Hormuz,” he said. “They think it’s a strategic asset.”

He predicted Iran would seek to retain some degree of control over the waterway and warned that reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program would be even more difficult.

“My gut feeling here is no,” Keane said when asked whether Iran was prepared to reach and implement a substantive agreement. “The president is not going to make a bad deal here.”

Jill Biden, the former first lady, expressed her skepticism on Wednesday about witnessing a female president during her lifetime, mentioning her strong belief that Kamala Harris, the former Vice President, was destined for the role.

In a discussion on Kelly Ripa’s podcast, “Let’s Talk Off Camera,” Ripa queried Jill Biden on whether she imagined a female president emerging in their lifetimes.

“Considering my age, being 75, I doubt it would happen while I’m still around, Kelly. However, it might be possible in your lifetime,” she answered.

Biden conveyed her trust in Harris’s potential to become the first woman president.

“Back then, I truly believed Kamala would secure the presidency. Campaigning alongside her, I witnessed the fervor and enthusiasm,” Biden remarked. “The crowds were there, the energy was palpable at the convention, and I thought, ‘At last, we’re on the brink of having a woman president.’”

Patrice Onwuka, the vice president of economic policy at Independent Women, told Fox News Digital in a statement that the ex-first lady’s comments were a slap in the face.

“Jill Biden’s comments about never expecting to see a female president is a slap to the bench of female Democrats that have 2028 aspirations, like AOC and Gretchen Whitmer. The supposed party of women can’t even convince the former first lady of its prospects to elect a woman at the top of the ticket,” Onwuka said.

Onwuka told Fox News Digital Harris’ loss was about her being a status quo candidate.

“Kamala Harris blew a billion-dollar campaign chest and a coronation on the top of the presidential ticket to only lose. Perhaps it’s time to stop fixating on gender and take policy seriously. Democrats failed to make Americans’ lives better in 2024. They didn’t care about a first female president if she was just going to continue the status quo. This fate lays wait for any female candidate who cannot deliver economic mobility for regular Americans,” she added.

Ripa said during the conversation she was “less hopeful” than the former first lady.

“I’m hoping that at a certain point, that that turns around. I don’t know what it’s going to take. I don’t think social media helps,” Ripa added. “I will always keep moving forward. I just, you know, I just feel like there has to be something internally. There’s got to be a messenger eventually that breaks through (to) the people.”

Former first lady Michelle Obama has also said she didn’t believe the US was ready for a female president.

In November, Obama told a crowd America “ain’t ready” to elect a woman, pointing to Harris’ loss to President Donald Trump in 2024.

Harris pushed back on the notion in December 2025.

“I do believe the country is ready,” Harris told The New York Times at the time.

“Thousands of people are coming to hear my voice. Thousands and thousands,” Harris said in the interview, referring to her book tour. “Every place we’ve gone has been sold out.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also pushed back on Obama’s remarks but said the US still needed to change.

When asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether she agreed with the former first lady’s comments, Pelosi asked why a woman commander-in-chief would be out of the question.

“Well, I hope — I mean, I respect her and I know that view is one that we all are saddened by, but we — I think we have to change. The fact is that I‘ve heard every excuse in the book, you know, like, ‘I‘m not sure a woman could be commander-in-chief.’ Well, why not?” she asked. 

“‘Well, I served in the military.’ Well, OK. And so? So do women serve in the military.”