INTERNACIONAL
Key China-Iran infrastructure exposes critical hole in Trump’s war strategy
Expert breaks down China’s influence on Iran, US foreign policy
Dennis Citrinowicz, an analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies, explains China’s complex role in the Iran conflict and its strategic implications for America. He highlights that China, while not wanting Iranian nuclear weapons, benefits from US focus on Iran, potentially draining munitions needed for Taiwan. Citrinowicz expresses pessimism about easy solutions given both sides’ firm stances.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The U.S. is trying to choke off Iran’s economy at sea, but a growing China-linked rail corridor is giving Tehran a workaround that Washington cannot easily shut down without risking a wider conflict.
As freight traffic between China and Iran increases along an overland route beyond the reach of American warships, the dynamic is exposing a core limitation in the U.S. strategy: maritime pressure is powerful, but it doesn’t fully extend across Eurasia.
According to Bloomberg, cargo trains running from central China to Iran have jumped from roughly one per week before the blockade to one every three or four days, highlighting a growing alternative channel as Tehran looks to blunt maritime pressure.
The corridor runs through multiple sovereign countries, including Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, making it far more complex to disrupt than shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf.
CHINA-LINKED ROUTE EXPOSED AFTER US SEIZES IRAN-BOUND SHIP WITH SUSPECTED DUAL-USE CARGO
The U.S. is trying to choke off Iran’s economy at sea, but a growing China-linked rail corridor is giving Tehran a workaround that Washington can’t easily shut down without risking a wider conflict. (Zinyange Auntony / AFP via Getty Images)
Directly targeting that overland network would risk widening the conflict and escalating tensions with Beijing, which has spent years investing in trade routes designed to bypass maritime choke points dominated by the U.S. Navy.
That combination of geography, diplomacy and escalation risk helps explain why Washington has focused overwhelmingly on maritime interdiction rather than attempting to shut down overland trade routes.
Experts say the rail corridor remains limited in its ability to offset Iran’s main oil exports.
The U.S. is trying to choke off Iran’s economy at sea, but a growing China-linked rail corridor is giving Tehran a workaround that Washington can’t easily shut down without risking a wider conflict. (Michael Nguyen/NurPhoto via Getty Images:Amr Alfiky/Reuters)
«There’s no substitute for a very large crude carrier,» Isaac Kardon, a senior fellow focused on Chinese strategy and maritime security, told Fox News Digital.
Kardon estimated that «maybe like 1% of the exports that Iran would typically be pushing out through Hormuz could go over land.»
Max Meizlish, a former Treasury official focused on sanctions policy, similarly described the rail corridor as «a drop in the bucket compared to Iran’s traditional oil exports over maritime transit routes.»
TRUMP WARNS CHINA OF ‘STAGGERING’ 50% TARIFF IF CAUGHT SUPPLYING MILITARY AID TO IRAN
The U.S. military has been enforcing a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, even during the ceasefire. (U.S. Central Command)
Still, analysts warn the route carries strategic risks beyond its limited scale.
Meizlish said the rail network «provides a pathway for China to supply Iran with critical dual use goods or just military logistical infrastructure» beyond the reach of U.S. naval enforcement.
Kardon pointed to similar concerns, including the potential movement of «parts for drones» and «missile precursor chemicals.»
Even so, Kardon emphasized the corridor cannot sustain large-scale economic or military flows.
A timelapse video shows marine vessels moving through the Strait of Hormuz. (Kpler/Marine Traffic)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
«It’s a flow question,» he said. «Can you sustain the Iranian war-fighting effort solely with cargoes from China or from its other Eurasian neighbors? And I think the answer is really no.»
Taken together, the rail corridor is not an economic lifeline for Iran, but it underscores a broader shift as China builds trade networks designed to blunt U.S. pressure at sea and test the limits of how far Washington is willing to go to enforce its strategy.
The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.
iran, transportation, sanctions, trade, geopolitics, politics
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The attorney who helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii’s private-property concealed-carry restriction on Thursday criticized the state’s reliance on a Reconstruction-era Black Code to defend the law.
In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court held that Hawaii cannot require licensed gun owners to obtain express permission before carrying firearms onto private property open to the public. Gun-rights challengers dubbed the policy the «vampire rule» because lawful gun owners had to be «invited in» before entering businesses while armed.
«It is disgraceful that any state would rely on a law specifically aimed at taking away the Second Amendment rights or any constitutional right of Black Americans as it was at that time,» attorney Kevin O’Grady, who represented the plaintiffs, told Fox News Digital.
«And it’s not surprising, however, that Hawaii would rely on it as they are diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment. We fully expected that the Supreme Court would identify that as the kind of law that one absolutely should not look to determine whether or not something is constitutional because this is the perfect example of something which is not constitutional.»
SUPREME COURT HANDS SECOND AMENDMENT WIN TO CONCEALED CARRY HOLDERS IN BLUE STATE GUN CONTROL CASE
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks on stage during the «Ketanji Brown Jackson on Lovely One: A Memoir» panel at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 20, 2024. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for The Atlantic)
A major flashpoint was Hawaii’s effort to justify the law under the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since Bruen, courts evaluating firearm regulations have generally asked whether modern gun restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Hawaii cited several historical laws, including an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the post-Civil War Black Codes. The law made it unlawful to carry firearms onto another person’s property without the owner’s consent.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, rejected that argument outright, calling the Louisiana statute a «tainted artifact» that was enacted to disarm newly freed Black Americans and leave them defenseless after the Civil War. He concluded the law «cannot be taken seriously» as evidence of the Second Amendment’s original public meaning.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, argued in her dissent the Court skipped an important constitutional question.
Jackson did not defend the Black Codes, which she acknowledged were racist and used to oppress newly freed Black Americans. But she argued the Court should have first decided whether the Louisiana law itself violated the Second Amendment, or whether the real constitutional problem was that it was enforced in a racially discriminatory way.
SUPREME COURT TAKES SECOND AMENDMENT CASE CHALLENGING HAWAII GUN LAW
Todd Settergren handles pistols inside his display case at Setterarms gun shop in Walnut Creek, Calif., on Jan. 13, 2017. (Michael Macor/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)
«It might well be that the Black Codes are invalid inputs for Bruen’s test,» Jackson wrote, «but only if they violated the Second Amendment — which may or may not be the case.»
Instead, she argued that under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the Court could not simply dismiss those laws without first explaining why they should not count as historical evidence.
She outlined two possibilities: either the firearm restrictions in the Black Codes were constitutional but enforced in a racially discriminatory manner — making the constitutional defect an equal-protection problem — or the restrictions independently violated the Second Amendment. The Court, she argued, never resolved that question before excluding the Louisiana law from consideration.
US APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN CALIFORNIA’S OPEN-CARRY BAN IN MAJOR SECOND AMENDMENT RULING
«Either history does matter, and if so, all potentially relevant historical experiences must be thoroughly examined,» she wrote. «Or, it does not, and the Court should just admit that the test it has created is boundless.»
Her reasoning immediately drew pushback from critics, who argued the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in response to laws like the Black Codes that denied newly freed Black Americans their constitutional rights, like the right to bear arms.
Rain clouds roll over the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 2026. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
«I would simply point her to what Justice Alito pointed out in the majority ruling — it was in response to these types of laws that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in the first place,» Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Association of Gun Rights, told Fox News Digital.
US JUDGE TOSSES ILLINOIS’ BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS, GOVERNOR PLEDGES SWIFT APPEAL
«That right there is your answer,» Hill continued. «Yes, there was a historical tradition — they enacted a constitutional amendment to fix that deprivation of rights, and that is also in the Constitution now, so I think she should probably go back to law school.»
Tyler Yzaguirre, president of Second Amendment Institute, echoed O’Grady and Hill’s criticism.
«Those laws were not legitimate expressions of our Nation’s constitutional tradition; they were examples of government using its power to deprive Americans of a fundamental right,» Yzaguirre told Fox News Digital. «The Court was right to reject the notion that such laws could define the historical limits of the Second Amendment.»
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Businesses may still ban guns by posting or enforcing a «no firearms» policy. But what Hawaii can’t do, the Court said, is treat every business as off-limits to licensed gun owners unless the owner specifically says guns are allowed.
second amendment, individual rights, judiciary, constitution, law
INTERNACIONAL
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero y Bolivia: dos décadas de una relación política que hoy está en el centro de la polémica
La investigación que lleva adelante la Unidad de Delincuencia Económica y Fiscal (UDEF) de España ha puesto el foco sobre una relación política de dos décadas que genera polémica: la del ex presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero con ex autoridades del Gobierno de Bolivia.
Según un informe policial, el mandatario español habría realizado gestiones a nivel político en el país sudamericano con el objetivo de favorecer al Grupo Gloria —un conglomerado peruano dueño de la Sociedad Boliviana de Cemento (Soboce)—, en un litigio millonario relacionado con la estatal Fancesa a cambio de 200 mil euros.
Fuentes del entorno del ex mandatario rechazaron las acusaciones y sostuvieron que el pago realizado correspondía a una consultoría legal, mientras el caso continúa en investigación y no existe una resolución judicial definitiva.
Más allá del proceso penal que eximió a Soboce de pagar 107 millones de dólares a la boliviana Fancesa, el caso ha despertado interés por el acceso privilegiado que llegó a tener Rodríguez Zapatero con altas autoridades bolivianas.
Esta cronología repasa los hitos de una relación que inició en términos institucionales y derivó en una alianza personal con los líderes del Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS): los ex presidentes Evo Morales (2006-2019) y Luis Arce (2020-2025).
Rodríguez Zapatero llegó al Gobierno de España en 2004 con una política exterior orientada a fortalecer los vínculos con América Latina. Un año después, Evo Morales ganó las elecciones presidenciales en Bolivia y ambos gobiernos comenzaron una etapa de cooperación bilateral.
Durante la gestión de Zapatero, se incrementaron los programas de desarrollo, se mantuvo una importante presencia de inversión y se abrieron canales de diálogo político con el nuevo gobierno boliviano. Aunque la relación era eminentemente institucional, fue el primer acercamiento entre Rodríguez Zapatero y Morales.
En esos años, el jefe de Estado español también estrechó lazos con otros gobiernos de la emergente izquierda latinoamericana de inicios de siglo.
Tras dejar el poder en 2011, Rodríguez Zapatero mantuvo contacto e influencia en países con gobiernos ideológicamente afines en América Latina. Tuvo un papel controvertido en Venezuela, donde participó como mediador en diálogos con la oposición, pero su cercanía con Nicolás Maduro y altos dirigentes del chavismo le valió críticas desde los flancos opuestos.
En este periodo, mantuvo contacto con el entonces presidente Morales y realizó una serie de visitas como invitado a conferencias, encuentros académicos y actividades organizadas por instituciones cercanas al oficialismo.
Hacia finales de la década, el ex presidente socialista se convirtió en una figura central del Grupo de Puebla, el foro político fundado en 2019 y conformado por ex presidentes y líderes de izquierda.
Ese mismo año, el español visitó el bastión de Morales en la región del Trópico de Cochabamba, se declaró “amigo de corazón de Bolivia” y se deshizo en elogios para su anfitrión. “Aquí hay un presidente que en 15 años ha hecho más por Bolivia que los 77 anteriores”, afirmó.
En noviembre de 2019, Morales estaba acorralado por una ola de protestas sociales que exigían su renuncia, acusándolo de haber cometido fraude electoral en las elecciones presidenciales del mes anterior, que disputó de manera ilegítima porque la Constitución Política del Estado no le permitía un cuarto mandato.
Tras renunciar al poder en medio de la presión social y exiliarse en México, Morales planteó una mediación internacional encabezada por Rodríguez Zapatero y el uruguayo José Mujica para resolver una crisis política que terminó derivando en su alejamiento definitivo del poder. Si bien esa mediación no se llegó a concretar, el planteamiento revela el nivel de confianza que Morales depositaba en Zapatero apenas había abandonado el Gobierno.
Tras el triunfo electoral que devolvió al MAS al poder con la victoria de Luis Arce en noviembre de 2020, Rodríguez Zapatero abrió una nueva etapa de relación con Bolivia.
A diferencia de los años anteriores, cuando su principal interlocutor era Evo Morales, el ex presidente español amplió sus contactos con funcionarios del nuevo Gobierno boliviano.
En mayo de 2022, durante una visita a Bolivia, invitado por la Academia Diplomática Plurinacional para asistir a una conferencia internacional, Zapatero sostuvo reuniones tanto con el presidente Luis Arce como con Morales, a quien visitó en su bastión en el Trópico de Cochabamba.
En esa oportunidad, en una conferencia de prensa conjunta, llamó a Morales “su amigo” y dijo que deseaba que visitara España para “explicar todo lo que hizo” por Bolivia.
En marzo de 2024, Rodríguez Zapatero llegó al país como integrante del Grupo de Puebla junto a otros dirigentes progresistas, entre ellos los ex presidentes Alberto Fernández y Ernesto Samper. Oficialmente participaron en un seminario sobre integración regional y arquitectura financiera en Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Sin embargo, trascendió que la agenda política estuvo marcada por el conflicto interno del MAS —por la disputa entre los liderazgos de Arce y Morales— que estaba llegando a un punto de no retorno.
De cara a las elecciones nacionales del año siguiente, Zapatero se reunió con Luis Arce en Santa Cruz y también sostuvo contactos con Evo Morales para intentar acercar posiciones. Más tarde explicó que el grupo había realizado una misión “discreta” para impulsar acuerdos dentro del oficialismo boliviano y que sentía que era “su obligación” hacerlo.
En septiembre de 2024, Zapatero regresó a Bolivia para participar en actos de conmemoración del Bicentenario en la ciudad de Sucre, capital del país, junto al secretario general de la Organización Mundial del Turismo. En esa visita, que luego sería uno de los indicios de la investigación que lo acusa de tráfico de influencias, sostuvo un encuentro con Arce en La Paz.
El ex presidente Arce reveló en un comunicado reciente que en aquel encuentro se dio “en el marco de los esfuerzos del Grupo de Puebla para mediar en la crisis” del partido y detalló que abordaron temas de coyuntura política, la posición de Evo Morales y los planteamientos de “unidad del movimiento popular”.
Asimismo, señaló que la relación entre ambos siempre fue “institucional y política” y descartó nexos con el caso que se investiga en España. Luego de esa reunión, el español viajó a Sucre, donde se realizaban los actos conmemorativos de cara a las fiestas patrias.
El escándalo de Soboce y Fancesa
La reciente investigación de la UDEF en España revela que la influencia de Rodríguez Zapatero en Bolivia no se limitó al ámbito político, sino que buscó incidir en decisiones relacionadas con procesos judiciales y administrativos. Según el informe, el ex presidente español recibió un pago de 200 mil euros a cambio de interceder ante las autoridades bolivianas, durante el Gobierno de Luis Arce, para favorecer al Grupo Gloria en el juicio que enfrentaba con la empresa estatal Faboce por un caso de “competencia desleal” y que lo ponía frente a un resarcimiento de 107 millones de dólares.
Si bien hay una resolución judicial que exime al Grupo Gloria del millonario pago, el caso permanece pendiente por una impugnación presentada ante el Tribunal Constitucional Boliviano.
Más allá del curso que tome la investigación, la hipótesis de la injerencia de Rodríguez Zapatero en las decisiones judiciales del país es la que hoy vuelve a poner bajo la lupa la profundidad de sus vínculos con las autoridades bolivianas y las relaciones que cultivó, poco comunes para un exjefe de Gobierno europeo, durante los últimos 20 años.
Government / Politics
INTERNACIONAL
WATCH: Pelosi, Omar stay silent as Mamdani-backed socialist victories shake Democrat Party
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Former Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., dodged answering questions on the growing influence of the socialist movement after three candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani dominated in primary elections.
Mamdani’s political clout was on display Tuesday night after all three House candidates he endorsed — Darializa Avila Chevalier, Brad Lander and Claire Valdez — won their Democratic primaries in New York, beating out more moderate Democrats.
Pelosi, a moderate Democrat herself, refused to answer Fox News Digital’s question on her reaction to these socialist candidates coming out as victorious.
RISING SOCIALIST STARS ON TRACK TO CONGRESS: WHO ARE DARIALIZA AVILA CHEVALIER, BRAD LANDER AND CLAIRE VALDEZ?
Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaks during a ceremony honoring Capitol Police officers at the U.S. Capitol on March 25, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
The 20-term California congresswoman never formally endorsed Mamdani, but she did endorse a socialist candidate in 2024 — Dean Preston for California’s District 5 supervisor.
She also said that she will «reject socialism as an economic system» and as a full picture of the Democratic Party in an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes back in 2019.
«If people have that view, that’s their view,» Pelosi said in the interview. «That is not the view of the Democratic Party.»
Omar, a member of the progressive Squad, also ignored questions about the New York primary results, including whether the three socialist candidates could complicate House Democrats and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ agendas if they’re elected to Congress.
HAKEEM JEFFRIES DODGES QUESTION ON WHETHER MAMDANI IS FUTURE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Rep. Ilhan Omar speaks at Karmel Mall in Minneapolis on Jan. 28, 2026. (Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
While Omar has never formally identified as a socialist, she has supported many policies associated with socialism and has also been backed by the Democratic Socialists of America.
While Pelosi and Omar walked away without responding, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., welcomed the incoming lawmakers.
«I think Democrats in New York elected three new Democrats that will join our caucus, and I’m looking forward for them participating,» Johnson told Fox News Digital.
Asked about criticism that the three candidates have leveled against Israel, Johnson argued they oppose the Israeli government rather than Israel itself.
«They were not anti-Israel. They were anti-Israeli government,» Johnson said. «The government of Benjamin Netanyahu has done a grave disservice to the nation of Israel and to its people.»
Lander is Jewish himself and said in his victory speech, «You can criticize Israel and not be antisemitic. You can be an anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic.»
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST GROUP BACKING MAMDANI CONDEMNS GAZA CEASEFIRE, CALLS FOR MORE ANTI-ISRAEL RESISTANCE
Democratic congressional candidate Brad Lander speaks at an election eve rally in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn on June 22, 2026. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
The three primary winners have all been critical of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, making the issue a defining point of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.
Johnson then called out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s relationship with President Donald Trump and condemned both of their involvement in starting the war with Iran.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
«The people there will have an opportunity to correct the mistake that they made,» Johnson said. «The same way that the people of America have the opportunity to correct this mistake that we made in electing Donald Trump, who unfortunately got manipulated into war by Benjamin Netanyahu.»
He continued, «People don’t like this war, and they don’t like Israeli government policy that put us into this war.»
benjamin netanyahu, ilhan omar, nancy pelosi, zohran mamdani, socialism, politics
El extraño caso del por qué Austria y Argelia preferirían perder en la última fecha del grupo J
¿Se rompió la amistad? Marley contó cómo quedó su relación con Florencia Peña tras el escándalo con Messi
Nace el CNA: la Argentina estrena su primer centro antiterrorista
Uno de cada cuatro adolescentes hizo un reto viral en el último año: qué revela el estudio que alarma a los especialistas
Lawyer who beat Hawaii gun law calls state’s reliance on Black Code ‘disgraceful’
Argentina-Jordania, EN VIVO, por el Mundial 2026: hora, TV, formaciones y todo lo que hay que saber
Diputados: con el apoyo de bloques aliados, LLA logró frenar la sesión en la que la oposición buscaba interpelar a Adorni
Nuevos controles a las devoluciones de 30% por gastos en el exterior: cómo pedir el reembolso del dólar tarjeta ante ARCA
Desesperación y burocracia: Pacientes con cáncer denuncian esperas de más de 20 días en PAMI para recibir su medicación
Crisis de abastecimiento en invierno: qué dijo la Cámara de GNC sobre los cortes de gas
ECONOMIA3 días agoNuevos controles a las devoluciones de 30% por gastos en el exterior: cómo pedir el reembolso del dólar tarjeta ante ARCA
- SOCIEDAD3 días ago
Desesperación y burocracia: Pacientes con cáncer denuncian esperas de más de 20 días en PAMI para recibir su medicación
- INTERNACIONAL2 días ago
Líderes mundiales ofrecieron ayuda humanitaria y equipos de rescate a Venezuela tras los devastadores terremotos
