ON
← Back to feed
Top U.S. military commander in Middle East advised halting Hormuz bombing
United States🏛️ PoliticsLean Conservative12 days ago

Top U.S. military commander in Middle East advised halting Hormuz bombing

Admiral Brad Cooper, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, advised halting the bombing campaign around the Strait of Hormuz due to diminishing returns, according to two sources. This recommendation influenced President Trump's decision to temporarily pause U.S. airstrikes against Iran. The pause followed a meeting with military and civilian advisers where they presented a revised strike plan. Trump had previously considered resuming major combat operations but changed course after hearing the recommendations. Cooper emphasized that while the campaign degraded Iran's ability to attack ships, most targeted locations had been exhausted. He suggested resuming major operations to target remaining 20% of designated sites. Meanwhile, General Dan Caine warned Trump about potential shortages of air defense interceptors that could threaten U.S. and allied forces. Negotiations between Iran and Oman continue to reopen Hormuz for shipping without attacks, though it remains uncertain whether such an agreement would satisfy Trump.

Top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, Adm. Brad Cooper, reportedly advised President Donald Trump to halt the bombing campaign around the Strait of Hormuz due to its limited effectiveness, according to sources familiar with his position. This recommendation played a role in Trump’s decision on Friday to pause U.S. strikes against Iran. The move reflects a recognition by both military and civilian advisors that the effectiveness of military action, particularly air power, has reached its limits. For the first time in two weeks, Trump ordered the military to stop conducting strikes against Iranian targets along the southern coast of Iran and in the Strait of Hormuz area. The decision followed a meeting with top advisers and military officials who presented him with a revised strike plan for the day. Initially, Trump had shown inclination towards resuming major combat operations, but his stance shifted on Thursday evening, leading to the decision to halt the bombing campaign. Admiral Cooper had previously conveyed his recommendations regarding the course of action to the Pentagon, the joint chiefs, and the White House. He emphasized that the two-week-long strikes in the Strait of Hormuz area had significantly reduced Iran's capability to attack ships. Cooper noted that the designated bombing targets had largely been exhausted. He proposed that the next potential step could involve resuming major combat operations to address the remaining 20% of targets identified by the U.S. military during Operation Epic Fury. Without a decision to return to major combat operations, Cooper argued that continuing the previous two-week bombing campaign would serve no purpose. A spokesperson for CENTCOM, Captain Tim Hawkins, declined to comment on these developments. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly raised concerns with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Trump about a shortage of air defense interceptors, which could hinder the protection of U.S. forces and allies in the region. These warnings were initially reported by the New York Times. A spokesperson for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declined to comment on confidential military advice provided to the president. Meanwhile, Iran and Oman continue to negotiate a new agreement aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz, allowing for the free transit of ships without attacks. However, it remains uncertain whether such a deal would meet Trump's approval. In the interim, the situation appears relatively calm, with both sides refraining from attacking each other. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz mentioned on Sunday that while Trump keeps all options open, he is also giving talks with Iran room to develop. Waltz confirmed that discussions between the U.S. and Iran are ongoing at multiple levels. The U.S. and U.K. remain in discussions about organizing an international conference later this week to establish a coalition aimed at protecting and clearing mines from the Strait of Hormuz. Although no definitive date for the meeting has yet been set, preparations are underway. In parallel, the U.S. military continues to carry out strikes against Iran, with reports indicating a 13th consecutive night of bombings. President Trump warned of a "massive attack" against Iran, raising questions about the definition of victory and how it might be achieved. Republican Representative Michael McCaul stated that the U.S. military was winning the war against Iran, suggesting that the metrics for victory might be evolving. Current objectives include preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, reducing its ballistic missile capabilities, and eliminating its regional proxy threat, but these goals appear to be overshadowed by the urgent need to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of the world's energy products pass. Zev Faintuch, head of research and intelligence at security firm Global Guardian, indicated that if Iran does not gain exclusive control of the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. does not unfreeze the majority of Iran's frozen assets, the situation could be deemed a win. Freeing up around $24 billion worth of Iranian funds was part of the June 17 memorandum of understanding (MOU) that paused the war, reopened the Strait of Hormuz, and initiated 60 days of talks regarding Tehran's nuclear program. Faintuch noted that the latest strikes did not significantly curtail Iran's nuclear program compared to the 12-day war in June but did degrade its conventional military capabilities, which could be viewed as a victory. He anticipates that the Trump administration will seek an exit strategy before September, around 60 days prior to the midterms, possibly involving a desperate diplomatic effort within the next few weeks. The U.S. president attributed responsibility for attacks by Tehran-backed Houthis on shipping in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait to Iran, threatening further escalation. Trump expressed consideration of a "massive attack, bigger than ever before" without providing specifics. Two other U.S. officials indicated that no new orders had been issued to the military. Retired U.S. Vice Admiral Robert Murrett suggested that the statement implied a dramatically escalated air campaign, though there was no indication of large-scale ground force deployments or significant ground activities. Following Trump's comments, U.S. Central Command announced additional strikes against Iranian military targets aimed at reducing threats to commercial shipping posed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Separate strikes occurred near Piranshahr in northwestern Iran and an IRGC naval base at Zibakenar on the Caspian Sea coast, with reports of smoke rising afterward. Independent outlet Iran International covered these incidents. Aurélien Colson, academic co-director of the ESSEC Business School Institute for Geopolitics & Business, suggested that the U.S. could further weaken Iran by bombing facilities, destroying air defenses, tightening sanctions, and increasing the military and economic costs for Tehran. However, he noted that this approach does not equate to achieving a victory. There is no purely military solution to the Iranian nuclear question, which remains the primary concern despite the U.S. administration focusing on reopening the Strait of Hormuz. While the U.S. can impose penalties on Iran, it cannot achieve a stable nuclear settlement through bombing alone. If Washington defines victory as regime collapse or complete surrender, it risks setting itself up for failure. A U.S. strike at Iran’s Shalamcheh border crossing with Iraq was reported by Iran’s Mehr News Agency. Iran analyst Hamidreza Azizi, from the think tank SWP Berlin, suggested that the strike could indicate preparation for deploying special operations or ground forces or enabling the advancement of armed insurgent groups.

Go to the primary sources (10)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

5 reports

Axios logoAxiosIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 7512 days ago
Top U.S. military commander in Middle East advised halting Hormuz bombing

Admiral Brad Cooper, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, advised halting the bombing campaign around the Strait of Hormuz due to diminishing returns, according to two sources. This recommendation influenced President Trump's decision to temporarily pause U.S. airstrikes against Iran. The pause followed a meeting with military and civilian advisers where they presented a revised strike plan. Trump had previously considered resuming major combat operations but changed course after hearing the recommendations. Cooper emphasized that while the campaign degraded Iran's ability to attack ships, most targeted locations had been exhausted. He suggested resuming major operations to target remaining 20% of designated sites. Meanwhile, General Dan Caine warned Trump about potential shortages of air defense interceptors that could threaten U.S. and allied forces. Negotiations between Iran and Oman continue to reopen Hormuz for shipping without attacks, though it remains uncertain whether such an agreement would satisfy Trump.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the military and political considerations behind the decision to pause airstrikes. It includes perspectives from multiple officials, including Admiral Cooper and General Caine, without overtly favoring any particular political ideology. The framing focuses,

Why factuality (90): This article offers a balanced view by reporting on the recommendations made by Admiral Brad Cooper and how they influenced President Trump's decision to halt strikes. It provides context about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign and the subsequent strategic considerations.

Why objectivity (75): While the article maintains a relatively neutral tone, it focuses primarily on the military perspective and does not explore the broader geopolitical ramifications or the impact on civilian populations affected by the conflict.

Newsweek logoNewsweekIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 6514 days ago
Trump Warns of 'Massive Attack' on Iran Amid Questions Over Endgame

Donald Trump warned of a 'massive attack' on Iran amid ongoing U.S. airstrikes targeting Iranian military sites. This comes after a 13th consecutive night of U.S. bombing operations, raising questions about the definition of victory in the conflict. Republican Rep. Michael McCaul claimed the U.S. was 'winning the war against Iran,' though the goals of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and reducing its missile capabilities appear to have shifted toward securing the Strait of Hormuz and unfreezing Iranian assets. Analyst Zev Faintuch suggested that while recent strikes have degraded Iran's conventional military power, they have not significantly curbed its nuclear ambitions. He predicted the Trump administration might seek a diplomatic resolution before the mid-term elections in September.

Bias read (Center): The article presents multiple perspectives, including statements from Trump, a Republican representative, and an analyst, without overtly favoring one side. It reports on military actions and strategic considerations without clear ideological framing or biased language.

Why factuality (80): The article accurately describes the U.S. military's ongoing strikes against Iran and the mutual threats to civilian infrastructure. It includes direct quotes from Trump and Iran's foreign minister, aligning with the primary sources. The details about the 12th night of strikes and the impact on ship

Why objectivity (65): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting both sides' perspectives without overt bias. However, the emphasis on the destruction of infrastructure and the potential for further escalation introduces a slight tilt towards the conflict's severity.

Breitbart News logoBreitbart NewsIndependentConservativeFactual 75Objective 6016 days ago
Rand Paul: Need Hundreds of Thousands of Troops to Secure Strait, Iran Knows We Won't Do That

During an appearance on Bloomberg’s 'Balance of Power,' Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) discussed U.S. military involvement in securing the Strait of Hormuz. He argued that controlling the strait would require deploying hundreds of thousands of troops, which he believes President Biden is unwilling to do. Paul suggested that Iran likely knows the U.S. won't commit to such a large-scale military presence. He criticized the current state of U.S.-Iran relations, stating that while the region is now militarized, the situation has made the U.S. 'worse off' compared to before the war. Paul acknowledged potential benefits of increased leverage over Iran's nuclear program but expressed skepticism about achieving meaningful progress, suggesting the U.S. is moving further away from favorable outcomes.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Senator Rand Paul's comments as critical of current U.S. foreign policy toward Iran, emphasizing his belief that the administration is avoiding significant military commitments. The tone suggests concern over U.S. strategic weakness and aligns with conservative critiques of Biden.

Why factuality (75): The article accurately describes the ongoing attacks and the diplomatic efforts in Pakistan. It includes details about the Iranian official's meetings and the continuation of hostilities, which align with the primary sources. However, it lacks specific information on the outcomes of the diplomatic e

Why objectivity (60): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting the situation without overt bias. However, the focus on the continuation of attacks and the lack of progress in diplomacy introduces a slight tilt towards the conflict's persistence.

HuffPost logoHuffPostIndependentConservativeFactual 75Objective 5516 days ago
U.S. Military Says It's Carrying Out Strikes On Iran As Both Sides Threaten Civilian Infrastructure

The U.S. military conducted airstrikes against Iran, marking the 12th such operation, amid escalating tensions over control of the Strait of Hormuz. The strikes aim to disrupt Iran's ability to threaten maritime traffic, as both nations increasingly target civilian infrastructure. President Trump vowed to retaliate by destroying bridges or power plants if Iran attacks ships in the strait. Meanwhile, Iran has retaliated by attacking energy facilities and desalination plants in neighboring Gulf states. Diplomatic efforts have stalled, raising concerns about global economic impacts and rising fuel prices ahead of U.S. midterm elections. Iran's foreign minister pledged a 'eye for an eye' response to any aggression.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the U.S. actions as defensive and justified, emphasizing Trump's strong rhetoric and the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. It highlights the U.S. military's proactive stance and portrays Iran's responses as escalatory. The focus on Trump's direct threats and the impact

Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports the surge in oil prices and the U.S. downplaying new peace talks. It includes quotes from officials and mentions the disruption of key trade routes, which align with the primary sources. However, it lacks specific details on the current state of negotiations or the exa

Why objectivity (55): The article presents the situation with a somewhat critical tone towards the U.S. approach, focusing on the economic impacts and the lack of progress in diplomacy. This framing introduces a subtle bias against the current U.S. strategy.

Breitbart News logoBreitbart NewsIndependentConservativeFactual 70Objective 6514 days ago
CENTCOM Completes 13th Straight Night of Iran Strikes as Trump Weighs ‘Massive’ Attack, Tehran Rejects Ceasefire

The U.S. military conducted its 13th consecutive night of airstrikes against Iran, targeting military infrastructure, drone facilities, communications systems, and maritime capabilities. These actions followed reports that President Donald Trump was considering a 'massive attack' larger than any previous operation. Meanwhile, Iran rejected a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal, arguing that it failed to address concerns over the future status of the Strait of Hormuz. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi visited Tehran to engage with Iranian leaders, seeking to ease tensions, but Iran emphasized that the issue was not a lack of communication but rather the U.S.'s perceived unreasonable stance. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi criticized Trump's plan to use Iranian assets to compensate for damages to U.S. ships, calling it an 'incendiary' precedent.

Bias read (Conservative): The article emphasizes the scale of U.S. military operations, quotes Trump's rhetoric about potential large-scale retaliation, and frames Iran's rejection of the ceasefire as a refusal to compromise. It highlights U.S. military actions and Trump's aggressive posture while presenting Iran's position,

Why factuality (70): The article accurately reports the continuation of U.S. strikes and Trump's consideration of a larger attack. However, it includes speculative elements such as the possibility of Israel joining the operation, which aren't explicitly mentioned in the primary source documents. The mention of the New Y

Why objectivity (65): The article has a stronger lean towards the U.S. perspective, especially in describing Trump's intentions and the potential for further escalation. It presents the situation from a viewpoint that emphasizes U.S. military actions.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories