In a little over a year, the United States has carried out dozens of airstrikes on vessels in the Caribbean tied to alleged narco-trafficking networks, launched sustained operations against Houthi forces in the Red Sea, captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, struck Iranian nuclear facilities and now embarked on an extended military campaign aimed at degrading Tehran’s missile, drone and command infrastructure.

The tempo marks one of the most assertive stretches of American force projection in recent years, spanning Latin America, the Middle East and critical maritime corridors.

For War Secretary Pete Hegseth, it also represents a striking turn. 

Just before the 2024 presidential election, he described himself as a ‘recovering neocon,’ expressing regret over his support for Iraq-era interventionism and warning against open-ended wars. 

Several analysts say the defining feature of the administration’s approach may be less about ideological evolution and more about alignment and execution.

‘Unlike in Trump one, everyone in Trump’s cabinet now — Hegseth, Rubio, etc. — understands that the president is the boss,’ said Matthew Kroenig, a defense strategist at the Atlantic Council. ‘In Trump 1.0 you had some Cabinet officials who thought their job was to save the Republic from Trump, the so-called adults in the room. And so I think it’s pretty clear the president wanted to go in this direction, and I think Hegseth sees himself as supporting the president’s vision.’

‘Validation of … leadership’ 

That cohesion has coincided with a pattern of risk-taking. 

Several of the administration’s most consequential military moves, from Venezuela to the Houthis to the current Iran campaign, carried the potential for escalation.

Some strategists say the relative absence of early blowback from those interventions may have reinforced the administration’s willingness to escalate into the Iranian theater. 

‘I’m not sure I would have advised this,’ Kroenig said of the Iran operation. ‘It is pretty risky, but it’s going well so far.’ 

Iranian missile launches have declined in volume. Regional allies have not broken ranks. 

Whether that constitutes strategic success, however, depends on the metric.

Justin Fulcher, a former Pentagon adviser to Hegseth, argued the early phases of the campaign reflect what he described as a ‘return to strategic clarity.’

‘Deterrence is only credible when our allies actually believe that if President Trump says something, we will back it up,’ Fulcher said. ‘This is a validation of Secretary Hegseth and President Trump’s leadership.’

Hegseth, a former Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has argued that the current campaign bears little resemblance to those conflicts.

‘This is not Iraq. This is not endless. I was there for both,’ Hegseth said at a press conference in early March. ‘Our generation knows better and so does this president.’

In a separate interview, he added, ‘This is not a remaking of Iranian society from an American perspective. We tried that. The American people have rejected that.’

Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the campaign has unfolded largely as expected.

‘I think things have gone reasonably well,’ Pletka said, pointing to degraded air defenses and what she described as repeated miscalculations by Iran. ‘All they’ve really done is made everybody quite mad, and that was a really bad calculation on their part.’

At the same time, she cautioned against interpreting the administration’s actions as part of a fixed doctrine.

‘I don’t think that it is doctrinal,’ Pletka said. ‘I think this is ad hoc.’

Some longtime Trump supporters have said the current conflict is not what they expected from Trump, who campaigned on ending wars and ‘America First.’

‘It feels like the worst betrayal this time because it comes from the very man and the admin who we all believed was different and said no more,’ Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., wrote on X. ‘Instead, we get a war with Iran on behalf of Israel that will succeed in regime in Iran. Another foreign war for foreign people for foreign regime change. For what?’ 

In Pletka’s view, the president has shown a pattern of attempting diplomacy first and shifting to force only when he concludes negotiations are unserious. She argues that posture distinguishes the current moment from past interventions.

She also emphasized that much of the operational credit belongs to the professional military.

‘The planning behind this is credit to the U.S. military and to the CENTCOM commander and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,’ she said.

‘Success and precision’ 

That distinction complicates efforts to attribute the current posture solely to Hegseth’s personal worldview. While the defense secretary has become a public face of the administration’s deterrence messaging, the execution of high-tempo campaigns rests heavily with career military leadership. 

Some critics argue the administration has yet to clearly articulate an end state for the Iran campaign.

‘Pete Hegseth needs to check with his boss on what the objective is,’ former national security advisor John Bolton recently said on CNN. ‘How does Hegseth explain that we’ve already changed the regime, which wasn’t our objective? I think the Pentagon top leadership, civilian top leadership, needs some attitude adjustment. I think the military’s doing fine, but I wonder about the civilian leadership.’

The White House pushed back forcefully on criticism of the campaign. 

Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said Monday that Hegseth ‘is doing an incredible job leading the Department of War,’ pointing to what she described as the ‘ongoing success of Operation Epic Fury’ and other missions. 

Kelly said Iranian retaliatory attacks ‘have declined by 90 percent because the Department of War is destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities,’ and added that Hegseth works ‘in lockstep with President Trump every day’ to ensure the U.S. military ‘continues to be the greatest, most powerful fighting force in the world.’

The Pentagon echoed that assessment. 

‘Operation Epic Fury continues to advance with overwhelming success and precision,’ Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said, describing a ‘resolute, full-spectrum campaign’ aimed at the ‘total dismantlement of Iran’s terrorist network or its unconditional surrender.’

Others see the moment in broader historical terms.

Peter Doran, a foreign policy analyst, described the campaign as a potential attempt to ‘end a 47-year war’ waged by the Islamic Republic against the United States, but on Washington’s terms.

‘This is a clear effort to end a 47-year war that Iran has been waging against the United States,’ Doran said.

He argued that visible American military performance could reverberate beyond the Middle East, particularly in Beijing.

‘They look good,’ Doran said of U.S. forces. ‘That will serve, I hope, as a disincentive for adventurism.’

If the operation ultimately succeeds in significantly degrading Iran’s military infrastructure, Doran argued, it could reshape the Middle East and expand diplomatic opportunities such as broader Arab-Israeli normalization.

‘It changes everything in the Middle East,’ he said.

Yet even supporters acknowledge that long-term effects remain uncertain. In Venezuela, Maduro’s removal marked a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, but the governing apparatus he built remains largely intact. 

Degrading missile stockpiles and drone infrastructure in Iran may buy time, but whether it produces durable deterrence or simply postpones reconstitution remains to be seen.

For now, the administration’s willingness to take calculated risks and its ability to avoid immediate escalation have reinforced the perception of restored American assertiveness. Whether that assertiveness translates into lasting strategic gains will likely define Hegseth’s tenure far more than the rhetoric that preceded it.

Hegseth and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment. 

‘Think of Mojtaba Khamenei as his father on steroids.’

That is how Kasra Aarabi, director of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps research at the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, described Iran’s new supreme leader in comments to Fox News Digital following reports that the son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been selected to lead the Islamic Republic.

‘Mojtaba was already operating as a ‘mini supreme leader’ in the Bayt-e Rahbari — his father’s office and the core nucleus of power in the regime,’ Aarabi said.

‘His father had created the Bayt’s extensive apparatus as a hidden power structure to ensure continuity should he be eliminated — and through Mojtaba’s appointment, this is exactly what we will get,’ Aarabi said.

President Donald Trump also reacted to Mojtaba Khamenei’s rise. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump said he was ‘not happy with’ the younger Khamenei replacing his father as leader of Iran’s theocratic system but declined to elaborate on how the United States might respond. ‘Not going to tell you,’ Trump said when asked about his plans regarding the new supreme leader. ‘Not going to tell you. I’m not happy with him.’

An Iranian source with knowledge of the leadership transition told Fox News Digital that earlier speculation Mojtaba might pursue reforms now appears unlikely given the circumstances surrounding his appointment.

‘Previously there were whispers suggesting that if Mojtaba were to become the leader, he might introduce reforms that would both open up the domestic political space and bring a more interactive approach to foreign policy,’ the source said.

‘However, now this possibility seems very weak.’

Mojtaba was chosen ‘amid disputes, controversies, and pressure from the IRGC,’ according to the source, meaning he ‘owes his appointment to their support and therefore cannot act against their wishes.’

Built inside Iran’s security state

Mojtaba Khamenei, 56, has spent decades building influence inside the power structures surrounding Iran’s supreme leader.

Born in 1969 in Mashhad, he pursued clerical studies in Tehran, Iran, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought his father to prominence. Over time, however, analysts say his influence developed less through traditional clerical authority and more through Iran’s security institutions.

In 2019, the United States sanctioned Mojtaba under Executive Order 13867. The U.S. Treasury Department said he had been ‘representing the supreme leader in an official capacity despite never being elected or appointed to a government position aside from work in the office of his father.’

Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Iran Program, said Mojtaba’s background reflects a broader shift inside the Islamic Republic.

‘Despite donning a turban, Mojtaba is the product of the regime’s national security deep state,’ Ben Taleblu told Fox News Digital. ‘Expect him to work with and through the IRGC to keep his hold on power.’

Aarabi said Mojtaba has spent years consolidating influence behind the scenes.

‘His past tells us he enjoys micromanaging every aspect of authority to satisfy his thirst for power,’ Aarabi said, describing how Mojtaba allegedly relocated IRGC command centers to his office during protests, engineered election outcomes and installed loyalists across state institutions.

Since 2019, Aarabi added, Mojtaba has also been implementing what he described as his father’s effort to ‘purify’ the regime by promoting ideological loyalists across the political system.

‘Mojtaba is a deeply antisemitic, anti-American, and anti-Western ideologue,’ Aarabi said. ‘He has personally been involved in repression in Iran and terror plots abroad.’

Analysts see harder line ahead

Analysts say Mojtaba’s rise may further strengthen the role of Iran’s security institutions.

‘The rise of the younger Khamenei expedites trendlines seen in Iranian politics and national security for years,’ Ben Taleblu said. ‘From one Khamenei to another, things in Iran can be expected to go from bad to worse if this regime survives.’

‘And like the elder Khamenei, corruption runs in the family,’ he added.

Ben Taleblu warned that the regime may also escalate tensions externally as a survival strategy.

‘The regime knows it is weak, but believes it can extract a price and widen a crisis in order to survive,’ he said.

For opposition groups inside Iran, the leadership transition signals continuity rather than reform.

‘He’s the son of Khamenei and they have same ideology and they same strategy and they try to continue the same policy,’ said Khalid Azizi, spokesperson for the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran.

‘So far it’s very difficult to say what he will be done and is he going to have a different policy? I don’t expect this.’

The Iranian source who spoke with Fox News Digital said that while engagement with the United States and the West is theoretically possible in the future, the chances remain slim.

‘As I mentioned,’ the source said, ‘this possibility is very weak.’

‘In short,’ Aarabi said, ‘Mojtaba is his father on steroids. He’s certainly no MBS.’

The top Senate Democrat wants President Donald Trump to tap the nation’s oil stockpile as fuel prices skyrocket, years after blocking his attempt to replenish the supply when prices were low.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called on Trump to unleash reserve barrels of oil from America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) as oil prices spike amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Schumer argued in a statement that the reserve ‘exists for moments exactly like this.’

‘When wars and global crises disrupt energy markets, the United States has the ability to act, but President Trump and his administration are refusing to do so,’ Schumer said. ‘Trump should release oil from the SPR now to stabilize markets, bring prices down, and stop the price shock that American families are already feeling thanks to his reckless war.’

During his first term, Trump wanted to use about $3 billion from a colossal COVID-19 stimulus package making its way through Congress to fill the reserve, but the move was promptly rejected by Schumer and congressional Democrats, who panned it as a ‘bailout’ for the oil industry.

The price per barrel at the time was roughly $29, according to WTI Crude Oil. Now, oil has eclipsed $110 per barrel over the weekend for the first time since 2022.

Though the SPR has capacity for over 700 million barrels of crude oil, the reserve currently has far less.

That’s because under former President Joe Biden, it was tapped twice — once to relieve soaring fuel prices as the nation still grappled with the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, and another time to combat increased energy costs at the onset of the war between Russia and Ukraine.

At the end of Biden’s term, the reserve had about 415 million barrels of crude on hand, according to data from the Department of Energy. Schumer supported both instances when Biden opened the nation’s oil reserves but, years prior, blocked Trump from building up the stockpile toward the end of his first term.

‘Senator Schumer championed Joe Biden’s Green New Scam, which raised energy costs, threatened our national security, and stifled American energy independence,’ White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘President Trump has been unleashing American energy dominance since day one, and now, American oil and gas production is at record highs.’ 

Schumer lauded Biden’s first move to tap into the SPR in 2021, arguing that it provided ‘much-needed temporary relief at the pump.’

‘Of course, the only long-term solution to rising gas prices is to continue our march to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels and create a robust green energy economy,’ he said at the time.

And toward the end of Biden’s presidency, his administration did buy back barrels of oil to refill the reserves, which Schumer did not object to. 

Fast-forward, and the price per barrel of oil has launched into the stratosphere since Trump’s Operation Epic Fury and Iran’s response to put the Strait of Hormuz — a key route ferrying barrels around the globe — into a chokehold.

For now, the administration has no public plans to tap into the reserve as Americans undergo sticker shock at the pump.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright argued that the best way to lower prices was to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by neutralizing Iran’s ability to target oil tankers.

Wright told Fox News over the weekend that the disruption would last for ‘weeks, certainly not months.’

‘We believe this is a small price to pay to get to a world where energy prices will return back to where they were,’ Wright said. ‘Iran will finally be defanged, and now you can see more investment, more free flow of trade, and less ability to threaten energy supplies.’

President Donald Trump’s latest push to slash prescription drug prices promises relief at the pharmacy counter, but behind the headline savings lie trade-offs that could reshape how drugs are developed, priced and delivered in the United States.

To deliver on that promise, the administration has rolled out TrumpRx, a federal price-comparison platform aimed at lowering out-of-pocket costs. The effort unfolds against the backdrop of the midterm election cycle, where rising healthcare costs remain a central concern for voters and a defining campaign issue.

The political appeal is clear, but experts warn the economics are messier. Economists point to a basic trade-off: lower prices today can shape how and whether new drugs are developed tomorrow.

‘When drug prices are capped or negotiated down, companies anticipate lower returns, reducing investment in drug research and development,’ said Olivia Mitchell, a professor of business economics and public policy at the Wharton School.

‘Economic evidence shows that lower prices depress incentives to develop new drugs,’ she added. 

‘In the short term, patients and payers can see meaningful savings through lower prices and out-of-pocket costs, but in the longer term, there is more risk of fewer or slower-arriving new medicines, especially in areas most exposed to price controls.’

Michael Baker, director of healthcare policy at the American Action Forum, said government price setting does not eliminate costs so much as redistribute them.

‘At the most basic level, government price setting only limits what patients pay for a drug — usually reflected in an out-of-pocket or co-insurance payment,’ Baker said. ‘This does nothing to address the overall cost of the drug, which someone still has to pay, nor does it lower the cost associated with development.’

As a result, he said, those costs could reemerge through tighter health coverage rules, fewer treatment options or reduced future innovation.

Supporters of the administration counter that the policy does not amount to strict government price caps. Instead, they describe it as a negotiated arrangement.

Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation said companies appear to be lowering prices in exchange for expanded market access or other relief, a structure he argues avoids the most disruptive effects of traditional price controls.

‘In such cases, companies are likely calculating that revenue losses from lower prices will be offset by revenue gains from more sales,’ Haislmaier told Fox News Digital. 

‘The kind of government price controls that are most damaging to innovation are ones that limit the initial price a company can charge for a new product. That is the situation in some countries, but fortunately not yet in the United States,’ he added.

For patients squeezed by rising costs, the promise of immediate savings is hard to dismiss. 

But economists say the long run question is whether the system can deliver cheaper drugs without dulling the incentives that produce the next generation of treatments —an issue both parties are likely to keep pressing as health costs stay front and center.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill could soon add another priority to their growing agenda as Republicans work to navigate a partial government shutdown and other deadlines looming in the next several weeks — weighing whether to provide additional cash to fund President Donald Trump’s operation in Iran.

Early chatter is beginning in the House of Representatives over a potential supplemental funding bill to aid the U.S. and Israel’s joint strikes on Iran, depending on how long the operation lasts and how much both countries bear down on the Islamic Republic.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., told reporters last week that he would ‘expect’ a supplemental funding request from the Department of War ‘well before the end of the year.’

‘We’ve been told the Pentagon is looking at it, but we haven’t been given anything about an amount or time frame yet,’ Cole said.

Asked by Fox News Digital about what kind of price tag he would expect, Cole speculated, ‘Maintaining two carrier battle groups in action is not a cheap thing, not to mention all the other resources that are being expended. So I would expect it to be very robust.’

‘It’s been a pretty frequent part of conversation,’ House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital of an Iran funding bill.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., also told Fox News Digital he would ‘absolutely’ back a defense supplemental funding bill.

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, said they envisioned a modest increase in funding for Iran but said there were multiple variables at work that made a total cost unknowable at this point.

‘It depends on how long it lasts,’ they said. ‘A lot of this depends on, do our Gulf Coast partners participate? If they do, that helps. It depends on how long Israel goes. But we’ll definitely need some more munitions, so I’d say a small supplemental is probably important to just restock.’

But it will likely be difficult to sell the need for more Iran funding to House Democrats, many of whom have argued Trump’s involvement has amounted to an illegal war.

‘We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it in terms of if the administration makes a request to Congress to consider additional funding,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told NBC’s ‘Meet The Press’ on Sunday. ‘But at this particular point in time, the administration has failed to make its case as to the rationale or justification for this war of choice in the Middle East.’

And with the House GOP’s razor-thin majority, which is expected to grow to two votes after a special election in Georgia this week, Republican leaders could have a tough time appeasing fiscal hawks in their own party.

‘We need to know what the terms of the conflict are going to be, how long — a lot of us are very happy with going after and taking out Iran’s capabilities and taking out a lot of their bad guys, but what’s the endgame?’ Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said to Fox News Digital.

‘Number two, is it paid for? So, you know, general support for what we’re doing to go after the bad guys, but we’ve got to know what the limits are and how much it’s gonna cost, and if it’s paid for.’

Even if it passes the House, such legislation would need 60 votes to advance in the Senate, meaning at least several Democrats would need to be on board. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the Department of War for additional comment.