Connect with us

INTERNACIONAL

Americans agree with Trump that Iran poses threat to United States: poll

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Amid a week of daily attacks between Middle Eastern juggernauts Israel and Iran, President Donald Trump has repeatedly drilled home a key point.

Advertisement

«IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON,» the president wrote on social media.

And speaking with reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Trump highlighted, «I’ve been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.»

It’s a stance U.S. presidents have taken for a couple of decades. And it appears most Americans agree with Trump and his presidential predecessors when it comes to the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Advertisement

FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS THINK IRAN POSES REAL THREAT TO U.S. SECURITY

President Donald Trump, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 2025, takes questions from reporters regarding the possibility of launching a military strike on Iran. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of registered voters questioned in a new Fox News national survey said they think Iran poses a real security threat to the U.S. That’s a 13-point boost since Fox News last asked the question six years ago.

Advertisement

And the poll, conducted June 13-16, indicates wide support across the partisan spectrum. Majorities of Republicans (82%), Democrats (69%) and Independents (62%) agreed that Iran poses a threat.

The survey also showed that 78% of those questioned said they were very or extremely concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb. And eight in 10 said what happens in the Middle East does matter in the U.S.

HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST POLLING FROM FOX NEWS 

Advertisement

Daron Shaw, a veteran GOP pollster and the Republican partner on the Fox News poll, said that «the increased sense that Iran constitutes a threat is real, but it also reflects the unique timing and circumstances surrounding this poll.»

«The poll was in the field as images of Iranian missiles falling on Tel Aviv dominated television and the internet — the immediacy and clarity of the conflict undoubtedly contributes to how voters gauge what is at risk,» noted Shaw, who is also a politics professor and chair at the University of Texas.

massive plume of smoke and fire rise from a distance in southern Tehran

A massive plume of smoke and fire rises from an oil refinery in southern Tehran following reports that an overnight Israeli strike targeted the site on June 15, 2025. (ATTA KENARE/AFP)

There was a similar response regarding the threat from Iran in a Ronald Reagan Institute national survey conducted earlier this month, before Israel’s initial attack last week sparked the daily bombardments by both nations.

Advertisement

Eighty-four percent of those questioned in the poll, which was shared first with Fox News, said preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons matters to U.S. security and prosperity. 

FOX NEWS LIVE UPDATES ON THE ISRAEL-IRAN ATTACKS

Trump is weighing whether the U.S. should join Israel in striking Iran to cripple its nuclear program and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Advertisement

«President Trump doesn’t often get a political softball sent his way. His decision to support Israel’s attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the prospective decision to deal a limited but decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions by striking the Fordow facility can prove to be political mana from heaven,» veteran political scientist Wayne Lesperance said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Lesperance, president of New England College, noted that «If the President makes the case clearly and firmly to the American people, polling data suggests he would enjoy support from his own party, Democrats and Independents. What’s more, Trump’s decision and subsequent action would crowd out any of the issues or coverage like immigration, the budget, or tariffs in the near term. Politically, a decision to act against Iran is smart politics.»

Advertisement

But Lesperance cautioned that «this all assumes that the attacks are successful. It also assumes Americans are tolerant of the repercussions of backlash over the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.»

Fox News’ Dana Blanton and Victoria Balara contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Advertisement

INTERNACIONAL

Church of England names Sarah Mullally first woman Archbishop of Canterbury after Welby exit

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Church of England announced Friday that Sarah Mullally will become the next Archbishop of Canterbury, marking the first time a woman has been selected for the role.

Advertisement

Serving as the bishop of London since 2018, Mullally replaces former archbishop Justin Welby, who resigned last November after an independent investigation found he failed to act after learning about serial physical and sexual abuse by a volunteer at Christian summer camps.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND HEAD RESIGNS AFTER FAILING TO REPORT DECADES-LONG SEXUAL ABUSE BY SUMMER CAMP VOLUNTEER

Britain’s new Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, Sarah Mullally, speaks following the announcement of her posting, at Canterbury Cathedral in south east England on October 3, 2025. (BEN STANSALL/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

She will be the first woman Archbishop of Canterbury after 105 male predecessors.

Mullally will be known as the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate until her election is confirmed at St. Paul’s Cathedral in January 2026, according to the church. A service of installation will take place in March at Canterbury Cathedral.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The Church of England is the mother church of the Anglican Communion, which has more than 85 million members in 165 countries.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.



united kingdom,religion,world

Advertisement
Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

Panorama internacional: Oriente Medio, el difícil camino hacia el punto de partida

Published

on


El lunes, durante el anuncio del nuevo plan de paz para Oriente Medio, era sencillo adivinar en la trastienda de ese ambicioso proyecto la larga mano de las opulentas potencias árabes asociadas a nivel político, económico y personal con el presidente norteamericano. El acuerdo propone un complejo camino por el medio.

Le brinda una victoria al líder israelí, Benjamín Netanyahu, pero no a su gobierno. Un triunfo por puntos. Se desarmaría la banda terrorista como pretende este polémico mandatario y las potencias árabes y liberan a la totalidad de los rehenes israelíes secuestrados en la masacre de hace dos años. Pero se fulmina la limpieza étnica que alentaban los socios integristas del Ejecutivo israelí, lo que se traduce en que no habrá anexión del territorio de Gaza y menos aún del de Cisjordania. Lo que suceda será con y para los habitantes del enclave.

Advertisement

El plan propone, además, una noción borrosa pero existente de un eventual Estado Palestino que Netanyahu niega, pero está ahí confirmando una cuestión dinámica de esta crisis en el sentido de que el futuro de ese pueblo y su altura institucional no deja de colarse en cualquier modelo hacia adelante. Es el poder de la historia. Y es lo que demandan los significativos socios árabes de EE.UU. que aspiran a calmar la región para impulsar inversiones que involucran también al grupo Trump y a Israel. Pero, claro, en todo este armado que parecería auspicioso, está el líder israelí y está Hamas…

La intervención de ese puñado de potencias regionales, con las cuales Trump dialogó en la ONU antes de encontrarse con Netanyahu, debe ser observada en dos dimensiones. Es posible medir su influencia concreta sobre el lado occidental en el extraordinario episodio en la Casa Blanca con el premier israelí obligado a un diálogo monitoreado por Trump para disculparse con Qatar por haber ordenado el bombardeo de la capital del emirato para intentar eliminar a dirigentes de Hamas. Una acción de la cual el líder israelí ha venido vanagloriándose de modo desafiante hasta que el pragmatismo del lunes lo obligó a un humillante retroceso.

Es claro quién había reclamado este gesto para pasar página. Trump se ocupó de exhibirlo de un modo hasta grotesco con decenas de fotos de Netanyahu sentado contrito hablando con su par qatarí. Esa acción, más las concesiones que incluye el pacto, lo convirtió en “un Chamberlain negociando con Hitler”, según el brutal reproche de su ministro de Finanzas, el ultranacionalista, Bezalel Smotrich, quien le había impuesto una diversidad de líneas rojas a cualquier acuerdo. El temor de ese sector extremo por el destino de las conversaciones del líder israelí con Trump y la posible pérdida de sus ambiciones colonialistas, alcanzó niveles tales que envió una delegación para intentar mantener bajo control al premier.

Advertisement

De modo que para esmerilar el impacto de la nueva propuesta de paz, Netanyahu sin consultas previas a todos los participantes, modificó parte de lo que el enviado especial de la Casa Blanca, Steven Wiltkoff y el propio yerno del magnate, Jared Kushner, –detalle de pie de página, todos empresarios inmobiliarios y de la construcción como el propio mandatario norteamericano– habían acordado con aquellos aliados. No se sabe hasta qué punto lo supo o lo permitió el imprevisible Trump. Esos cambios revelados por el portal Axios dispararon la furia de estos socios cruciales y se llenó el ambiente otra vez de una intensa nube de desconfianza.

Del lado de Hamas, un grupo minoritario, reaccionario y alucinado, incrustado en el universo palestino, las cosas son aún más complejas. El plan propone que el mandato arrebatado a la fuerza a la conducción palestina por esta banda en Gaza sea reemplazado por un “comité palestino tecnocrático y apolítico”, ése es el nombre oficial con ese dato de nacionalidad. Funcionaría supervisado por una “Junta de Paz” presidida simbólicamente por Trump y con coordinación directa del ex premier británico Tony Blair, a modo de virrey .

Palestinos desplazados que huyen de la ciudad de Gaza ayudan a una mujer en silla de ruedas mientras se dirigen al sur, siguiendo una orden de evacuación israelí, en medio de una operación militar israelí. Foto Reuters

Los «dos» Hamas

Advertisement

Los miembros del grupo terrorista que se comprometan a una “coexistencia pacífica y a desarmar sus armas” recibirían amnistía. Otros combatientes que deseen abandonar Gaza recibirían un salvoconducto para el exilio. La banda, que está muy reducida, hace tiempo ya que acepta que no participará en ninguna futura conducción del enclave. Pero hay un problema respecto de esta organización: carece de una jefatura clara, está muy dañada tras dos años de guerra y también se ha esfumado en gran medida el padrinazgo iraní. Esos déficit explican el amontonamiento desordenado de definiciones contradictorias a la prensa de fuentes internas que tanto rechazaban unos como aceptaban otros negociar el acuerdo dándole una primera luz verde.

Qatar junto a Turquía y Egipto están intermediando para salvar el pacto con el argumento consistente de que una decisión en contrario por parte de la organización articularía con la estrategia de los ultranacionalistas del Ejecutivo israelí. A ellos responsabilizan de la destrucción territorial, la masacre de la población y la intención de dividirse el control del enclave con EE.UU, sin sus habitantes, para integrarlo al mapa israelí. Ese destino promovió que el Ejecutivo palestino de Ramallah saliera rápidamente a sostener el acuerdo hasta con elogios a Trump, gesto además justificado porque en ese papel se incluye a esa Autoridad en el futuro organizativo de la región, al margen de que Netanyahu, por las cuestiones domésticas señaladas más arriba, niegue semejante condición.

Pero el Hamas que negocia en Qatar no es el mismo Hamas que retiene cuotas de poder en Gaza. Si aquellos están dispuestos a avanzar y plantean definir puntos que ciertamente deben ser aclarados, como el calendario de la salida de las tropas israelíes y garantías de que Israel no reanudará la guerra como sucedió intempestivamente en marzo pasado, del otro lado no hay señales positivas. El Hamas de Gaza multiplica las objeciones, no necesariamente le debe obediencia a los que negocian en su nombre y, lo que es peor, son eso los que retienen a los cautivos tomados en el sangriento asalto del 7 de octubre. Este diseño vuelve a un punto de partida diferente al que alentaba la propuesta, con el destino del conflicto en manos de visiones extremas en ambas veredas.

Advertisement

Video

Flotilla a Gaza: Israel intercepta barcos con ayuda y surge el debate sobre su legalidad

Este plan que arrancó de modo esperanzador copia la propuesta franco-saudita de julio pasado con sus principales basamentos extraídos de la iniciativa para cerrar el conflicto que Joe Biden, aún presidente, promovió en mayo de 2024. La iniciativa impulsaba un alto el fuego gradual que desencadenara el fin de la guerra, con el efecto de romper el aislamiento internacional de Israel y avanzar en la cuestión nacional palestina desamparando ideológicamente a Irán. Política pura.

Fue, también, el umbral del pacto de principios de este año que tomó la recién llegada administración de Trump y permitió la liberación de una treintena de cautivos, pero zozobró cuando Israel debía cumplir la segunda etapa que era, justamente, finalizar una guerra que tiene muchos más propósitos que los que se declaran y admiten.

Advertisement

El ex premier Yitzhak Rabin, una de las mentes más lúcidas y con visión de futuro de Israel, sostenía que los palestinos “no fueron en el pasado ni en el presente una amenaza existencial para Israel”. Este ex general, que llegó a comandar las FF.AA. afirmaba que “solo hay una solución radical para santificar la vida humana. No blindaje, ni tanques, ni aviones, ni fortificaciones de hormigón. La única solución radical es la paz y esa solución sólo puede ser política. El verdadero punto de partida.

Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

FLASHBACK: James Comey urged officials to always prosecute high-profile perjury cases

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Former FBI Director James Comey, who was indicted Friday on two federal charges alleging that he issued a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, previously has called for those who lie under oath to face consequences. 

Advertisement

For example, Comey once railed against lifestyle icon Martha Stewart, who was convicted of misleading federal investigators, and said her case served as an example to deter others from lying to officials. 

«The Stewart experience ­reminded me that the justice system is an honor system,» Comey wrote in his book, «A Higher Loyalty,» released in 2018. «We really can’t always tell when people are lying or hiding documents, so when we are able to prove it, we simply must do so as a message to everyone. People must fear the consequences of lying in the justice system or the system can’t work.» 

MARTHA STEWART’S ANGER AT JAMES COMEY FOR MAKING HER ‘TROPHY’ CRIMINAL IS ‘UNDERSTANDABLE,’ ATTORNEY SAYS

Advertisement

«There once was a time when most people worried about going to hell if they violated an oath taken in the name of God,» Comey wrote. «That divine deterrence has slipped away from our modern cultures. In its place, people must fear going to jail…To protect the institution of justice, and reinforce a culture of truth-telling, she had to be prosecuted.» 

Comey served as the lead prosecutor who indicted Stewart on charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI in 2003, which stemmed from the FBI’s insider trading investigation into Stewart’s friend’s company, ImClone.

Stewart ultimately was convicted on four counts of obstructing justice and lying to investigators. She was sentenced to five months in prison. 

Advertisement

Former FBI Director James Comey once railed against lifestyle icon Martha Stewart, who was convicted of misleading federal investigators, and said her case served as an example to deter others from lying to officials.  (Brendon Thorne/Getty Images)

Comey’s statement in his book aligns with those he made at the time. After the charges were filed against Stewart in 2003, Comey said Stewart’s «case is about lying — lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC and investors.»

«That is conduct that will not be tolerated. Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is, but what she did,» Comey said at a news conference in 2003. 

Advertisement

Stewart took a swipe at Comey in her Netflix documentary called «Martha,» which was released October 2024. 

«It was so horrifying to me that I had to go through that to be a trophy for these idiots in the U.S. Attorney’s office,» Stewart said. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Comey for comment and has yet to receive a reply. 

Advertisement

Trump–Comey vendetta back in the spotlight 

Meanwhile, Comey’s feud with President Donald Trump is also back in the spotlight following Comey’s indictment. 

The two men have gone head-to-head against each other for years, dating back to Trump’s first administration amid the FBI’s investigation into whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and they have continued to trade barbs during Trump’s second term. 

While Trump has lobbed out terms like «sick person» and «untruthful slime ball,» Comey also has hurled criticism against the president and said he’s not fit for office. 

Advertisement

HOW JAMES COMEY’S INDICTMENT COULD GO SOUTH FOR THE DOJ

In this Wednesday, May 3, 2017, photo then-FBI Director James Comey pauses as he testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. President Donald Trump abruptly fired Comey on May 9, ousting the nation's top law enforcement official in the midst of an investigation into whether Trump's campaign had ties to Russia's election meddling.(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Former FBI Director James Comey is seen at a hearing on Capitol Hill in 2017. (Associated Press)

For example, Comey described Trump as someone who «lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it,» and questioned whether Trump embodied U.S. values during an interview in April 2018 with ABC News ahead of the release of his book, «A Higher Loyalty.» 

«I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president — I think he’s morally unfit to be president … that’s not a policy statement,» Comey told ABC News. «Again, I don’t care what your views are on guns, or immigration, or taxes. There is something more important than that, that should unite all of us, and that is our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country, the most important being truth. This president is not able to do that.» 

Advertisement

That same month Comey attracted the ire of Trump, who accused Comey of being a «terrible» FBI director and that it was his «great honor» to fire Comey. 

«James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under OATH,» Trump said in a social media post in April 2018. 

COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES ‘I AM NOT AFRAID’

Advertisement
A split image of James Comey and Donald Trump

President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey have had a longstanding feud.  (Alex Kraus/Bloomberg via Getty Images and photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

«He is a weak and untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI…It was my great honor to fire James Comey!» Trump said. 

Trump fired Comey in May 2017, just after Comey revealed in March 2017 before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election. 

At the time, Trump said that he had ousted Comey due to his handling of an investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Advertisement

Comey, who previously identified as a Republican, went on to endorse former President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. He also called for «everyone who cares about the rule of law and America’s indispensable role in the world» to get behind former Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee during the 2024 election when she went up against Trump. 

TRUMP SAYS COMEY ‘PLACED A CLOUD OVER THE ENTIRE NATION’ WITH CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, REACTS TO INDICTMENT

a photo of President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump said at the time that he had ousted FBI Director James Comey due to his handling of an investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

«Kamala Harris made me feel like it’s finally morning in America,» Comey wrote in a post on X in August 2024. 

Advertisement

More recently, Comey and Trump sparred after the former FBI director posted a photo on Instagram in May depicting shells arranged on a beach to spell out «86 47.» The term «86» can mean getting rid of something or someone, and Trump is the 47th president. 

Following backlash from Trump allies who interpreted Comey’s post as a threat to remove Trump, Comey said that the thought hadn’t crossed his mind and he opposed «violence of any kind.» 

Still, Trump didn’t buy Comey’s explanation. 

Advertisement

«He knew exactly what that meant,» Trump told Fox News. «A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination.» 

James Comey on ABC

George Stephanopoulos sits down with former FBI director James Comey for an interview in a «20/20» special on April 15, 2018.  (Ralph Alswang/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images)

Following Comey’s indictment, Trump said in a social media post Friday that Comey is «one of the worst human beings this country has ever been exposed to,» and labeled the former FBI director a «DIRTY COP.» 

The charges against Comey are tied to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020 regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Meanwhile, Comey has denied the allegations leveled in the charges against him, and said that he is «not afraid.» 

Advertisement

«My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way,» Comey said in an Instagram video. «We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either. Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she’s right.»

Fox News’ Audrey Conklin contributed to this report. 

Advertisement

white house,fbi,donald trump,james comey,justice department

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tendencias