The U.S. military is preparing for the possibility of sustained, weeks-long operations against Iran if President Donald Trump orders an attack, two U.S. officials told Reuters, in what could become a far more serious conflict than previously seen between the countries. The disclosure by the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the planning, raises the stakes for the diplomacy underway between the United States and Iran. U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will hold negotiations with Iran on Tuesday in Geneva, with representatives from Oman acting as mediators. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned on Saturday that while Trump’s preference was to reach a deal with Tehran, “that’s very hard to do.” Meanwhile, Trump has amassed military forces in the region, raising fears of new military action. U.S. officials said on Friday the Pentagon was sending an additional aircraft carrier to the Middle East, adding thousands more troops along with fighter aircraft, guided-missile destroyers and other firepower capable of waging attacks and defending against them. Trump, speaking on Friday after a military event at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, openly floated the possibility of changing the government in Iran, saying it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen.” He declined to share who he wanted to take over Iran, but said, “there are people.” “For 47 years, they’ve been talking and talking and talking,” Trump said. Trump has long voiced skepticism about sending ground troops into Iran, saying last year, “the last thing you want to do is ground forces,” and the kinds of U.S. firepower arrayed in the Middle East so far suggest options for strikes primarily by air and naval forces. In Venezuela, Trump demonstrated a willingness to rely also on special operations forces to seize that country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, in a raid last month. Asked for comment on the preparations for a potentially sustained U.S. military operation, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “President Trump has all options on the table with regard to Iran.” “He listens to a variety of perspectives on any given issue, but makes the final decision based on what is best for our country and national security,” Kelly said. The Pentagon declined to comment. The United States sent two aircraft carriers to the region last year, when it carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. However, June’s “Midnight Hammer” operation was essentially a one-off U.S. attack, with stealth bombers flying from the United States to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran staged a very limited retaliatory strike on a U.S. base in Qatar. The planning under way this time is more complex, the officials said. In a sustained campaign, the U.S. military could hit Iranian state and security facilities, not just nuclear infrastructure, one of the officials said. The official declined to provide specific details. Experts say the risks to U.S. forces would be far greater in such an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles. Retaliatory Iranian strikes also increase the risk of a regional conflict. The same official said the United States fully expected Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes and reprisals over time. The White House and Pentagon did not respond to questions about the risks of retaliation or regional conflict. Trump has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and crushing of internal dissent. On Thursday, he warned the alternative to a diplomatic solution would “be very traumatic, very traumatic.” Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has warned that in case of strikes on Iranian territory, it could retaliate against any U.S. military base. The U.S. maintains bases throughout the Middle East, including in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Trump for talks in Washington on Wednesday, saying that if an agreement with Iran were reached, “it must include the elements that are vital to Israel.” Iran has said it is prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions, but has ruled out linking the issue to missiles. On Saturday, Iranian opposition figure Reza Pahlavi said U.S. military intervention in Iran could save lives and urged Washington not to spend too long negotiating with Tehran’s clerical rulers on a nuclear deal. The exiled son of Iran’s toppled shah told Reuters in an interview there were signs that the Iranian government was on the brink of collapse and that an attack could weaken it or accelerate its fall. “We are hoping that this attack will expedite the process and the people can be finally back in the streets and take it all the way to the ultimate regime’s downfall,” said Pahlavi, who is based in the United States and has lived outside Iran since before his father was toppled in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. (Reporting by Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali; Editing by Don Durfee, Rosalba O’Brien, Rod Nickel)

The U.S. military conducted another lethal strike on Friday against a suspected drug‑smuggling vessel in the Caribbean, killing three, the latest in a concerted campaign under Operation Southern Spear to disrupt narcotics trafficking networks that transport deadly drugs toward the United States. According to U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), Gen. Francis L. Donovan directed Joint Task Force Southern Spear to carry out a “lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations,” adding that no U.S. military personnel were harmed in the operation. Video accompanying the announcement shows the boat steaming along known narco routes just before it is struck and destroyed. This strike marks the fourth publicly disclosed operation in 2026, following an earlier attack this week in the Eastern Pacific that killed two and left one survivor. Since Southern Spear began operations in September 2025, there have been 39 confirmed engagements in both the Pacific and Caribbean. On Feb. 13, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/y50Pbtexfi — U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) February 14, 2026 The impact of these strikes against multiple vessels moving along established smuggling corridors has forced cartel networks to adjust their operations, according to statements by Defense officials. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth previously posted that “some top cartel drug‑traffickers” have chosen to “cease all narcotics operations INDEFINITELY” in response to the “highly effective” multilateral crackdown. Southern Spear targets suspected traffickers in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, regions notoriously used by transnational cartels to transport heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, and precursor chemicals up to the U.S. mainland. SOUTHCOM has described the vessels it strikes as linked to designated terrorist organizations and engaged in narco‑trafficking, although it has not publicly disclosed the identities of the groups involved. Support for the operation has come from high levels of the Trump administration, which has framed the maritime strikes as part of a broader confrontation with narco‑terror and cartel networks that operate with impunity in the Western Hemisphere. Officials argue that the lethal pressure is longstanding justice for families ravaged by drugs and a stark deterrent to traffickers who have specialized in moving product toward U.S. streets. The Southern Spear campaign has unfolded against the backdrop of an even broader security offensive aimed at narcotics networks and destabilizing forces in the region. On January 3, 2026, U.S. Special Forces executed a complex nighttime raid in Caracas that resulted in the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, whom U.S. officials have charged with drug trafficking and narco‑terrorism. The Caracas operation, involving elite units such as Delta Force, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and support from over 150 aircraft, demonstrated a willingness by the U.S. military to confront narco‑state threats directly, and not just at sea. The campaign in Venezuela has been justified by U.S. leaders as part of an effort to dismantle the infrastructure used by cartels, particularly groups allied with or operating out of Venezuela. Hegseth and other officials have linked Caracas’ regime and associated networks to the flow of drugs that fuels the opioid crisis in the United States. The capture of Maduro and his extradition to New York to face federal charges further ties the regional narcotics fight to broader national security and law enforcement priorities. The combination of maritime strikes and high‑profile operations like the Venezuela raid reflects a multi‑domain pressure campaign aimed at disrupting narcotics infrastructure at every level. By striking at both the transportation networks on the seas and leadership figures linked to narco‑trafficking in the region, cartels and allied networks no longer enjoy safe passage or sanctuary. According to the Trump administration, each successful strike degrades traffickers’ operational capabilities and expands deterrence across the hemisphere. As the Southern Spear campaign continues, the decisive actions reflect a unified strategy to choke off cocaine, fentanyl, and other illicit flows at their source, hitting traffickers where they are most vulnerable: on the sea, in leadership echelons, and in allied networks that have long benefitted from weak enforcement.

San Francisco residents are suing the city over a Reparations Fund established solely for black residents, two months after the fund’s initial creation sparked controversy. One plaintiff, Richie Greenberg, said the fund is “dividing the city rather than trying to unite.” “What we really need is to be focusing on how to uplift everybody rather than focusing on one group giving everything to that one group,” Greenberg told Fox News Digital. The original bill, signed right before Christmas, established a dedicated reparations fund, creating a legal framework to address what the city deems to be historical systemic harms against its black community, The Daily Wire previously reported. It included a proposal that could eventually grant eligible residents lump-sum payments of $5 million. “San Francisco is engaged in a sordid and unconstitutional enterprise — it is administering funding and wielding public authority to distribute government benefits explicitly based on race and ancestry,” the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs argue San Francisco is violating the Constitution by distributing money on the basis of race, through the city’s Human Rights Commission. “By directing an agency funded almost entirely by taxpayer dollars to administer funding solely dedicated to implement race-exclusive benefits, the City is using public money, public employees, and public authority to carry out an unconstitutional racial spoils system that allocates benefits and opportunities based on race and ancestry,” the lawsuit says. The Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER) is one of the plaintiffs in the case. Greenberg and fellow plaintiff Arthur Ritchie are members of CFER. In 2023, CFER sued San Francisco over allegedly racially discriminatory guaranteed income programs, The Daily Wire previously reported. Additional benefits for eligible black residents include debt forgiveness for a variety of loans, exemption of property taxes, and priority status for employment opportunities, according to the lawsuit. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said in December that the plan would not require taxpayer dollars, instead setting up a “structure” for future city or private funding. The city’s $1 billion budget deficit prevents immediate funding, but the plan signals a shift in city policy. “We need to stop this because it is a tremendous, tremendous amount of funding that would, eventually, basically kill the city,” Greenberg said. “It would destroy the city of San Francisco, and it would set up an unworkable situation of who within the city gets preference as opposed to everyone else that would not.”

Imagine it’s Valentine’s Day at Silicon Valley Middle School. The cafeteria is covered in construction-paper hearts. Everyone pretends not to care — while caring very much. And the most popular kids — the ones who decide who’s cool, who eats lunch alone, and who gets stuffed into lockers — are quietly deciding who deserves a Valentine and who gets the dreaded, “Sorry, we’re just friends.” Now swap out the middle schoolers for Apple News, Google News, Microsoft’s MSN, and Yahoo News, and you have a pretty good picture of today’s media ecosystem. Instead of candy grams, these platforms hand out something far more valuable: visibility, traffic, and perceived legitimacy. Algorithms play matchmaker. Editorial choices determine who gets asked to the dance, who goes stag, and who doesn’t even get through the door. The pattern is hard to ignore. Research from the Media Research Center examining the “Big 4 News Apps” found that left-leaning outlets dominate coverage, while right-leaning outlets are routinely sidelined or completely buried. Start with Google News, the alpha dog at the lunch table. Google appears especially fond of The New York Times — not a casual acquaintance, but the kind of devotion that fills a notebook margin with hearts. Between Halloween and Valentine’s Day, Google featured about twice as many New York Times stories (215) as its next most-featured outlets, CNN (122) and the BBC (105). Because Google’s news feed appears by default on millions of Android and Samsung devices, that preference carries enormous national reach. Looking at 106 days of data since Halloween, Google News promoted 1,757 stories. Almost 70% came from left-leaning outlets, 29% from centrist sources, but just 2% from right-leaning media. Like Google, Apple News also has a bestie from the print world. The Washington Post receives frequent top placement and prominent visibility. Since Halloween, Apple has featured the Post 109 times. Other regulars in Apple’s rotation include NBC News (89), Reuters (86), and the Associated Press (85). Michael Short/Getty Images Overall, of AllSides-rated outlets, Apple News featured 75% left-leaning outlets, 25% centrist outlets — and zero right-leaning outlets in the period studied. Zero is on purpose. Zero means being locked out of the dance. Zero is indefensible.  Next comes Microsoft’s MSN, whose reach comes from its enormous footprint on desktop computers. While its distribution is not quite as disturbing as Apple’s or Google’s, its preferences are still clear. MSN is more than smitten with Newsweek, publishing 316 Newsweek stories between Halloween and Valentine’s Day. That level of attention would make any publisher blush. MSN’s mix included about 10% right-leaning outlets and 37% centrist outlets — higher shares than its competitors, but still leaving Left-leaning sources with the largest slice of attention at 53%. And then there’s Yahoo News. It’s easy to joke about Yahoo, but the platform draws more than 200 million monthly views, something achieved by only three other outlets. Think of Yahoo as the bad boy who got held back a grade but has a date at every party. And Yahoo certainly plays the field. Yahoo occasionally features right-leaning outlets, but it has a serious thing for smaller, radical outlets — Buzzfeed, Salon, the New Republic, Rolling Stone, Huffington Post and Mediaite. Yahoo is also unique among the Big 4 in relying heavily on its own in-house reporting. Those stories leaned left and accounted for a large share of featured content (269 stories). Of the 1,715 stories Yahoo promoted in the study period, 88% came from left-leaning outlets (by far the most of any of the news apps), 6% from centrist organizations, and 6% from right-leaning sources. Defenders of these platforms argue they are simply promoting “mainstream” outlets with proven “reliability.” But Americans aren’t buying that claim. Gallup polling shows trust in national media has never been lower. There are reasons for that collapse in confidence. Many Americans remember years of breathless coverage of the Russia collusion narrative, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the dismissal of the Wuhan lab-leak evidence, and persistent shielding of President Biden’s cognitive deficiencies. They’ve also watched elitist media advocate aggressively for DEI, ESG and anti-ICE movements — while insisting they are neutral observers. Distribution is power. A newsroom can produce solid reporting, but Apple, Google, MSN, and Yahoo are clearly trying to control the narrative. The political Left has long understood that institutions shape culture and public opinion. Today, the Big 4 news apps are the institutions: enormously powerful, largely opaque, and virtually unaccountable to the public. So yes, it’s Valentine’s Day. And in the digital cafeteria, Google, Apple, MSN, and Yahoo are still handing out cards to the favored few and pushing others into lockers. But another holiday is coming. The Fourth of July is only months away, and federal regulators are examining whether dominant tech platforms have unfairly restricted competition in parts of the media ecosystem. Congress should also continue to investigate the role Big Tech plays in shaping what Americans see and don’t see. In a free country, the biggest companies should not determine who is allowed into the dance and who is not, who gets a voice and who gets left out in the cold. Freedom must be available to all. * * * Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Leftist New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez struggled to answer when asked how the United States should respond to China’s threat to take over Taiwan. Ocasio-Cortez was part of a panel at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, alongside Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer and U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker. The panel focused on discussing U.S. foreign policy, but when the moderator asked Ocasio-Cortez if the United States should “commit U.S. troops to defend Taiwan, if China were to move,” the far-Left Democrat struggled to come up with an answer. “I think that, uh, this is such a — you know, I think that this is a, umm — this is, of course, a uh, a very longstanding, umm, policy of the United States,” she began. “Uh, and I think that what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure we never get to that point, and we want to make sure we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.” AOC is asked if the US should defend Taiwan in the event China invades. Her answer is a word salad disaster that would even make Kamala cringe: pic.twitter.com/jgfMWiSfmE — Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) February 14, 2026 The Daily Wire reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office, asking for clarification on her response. Earlier during the panel discussion, Ocasio-Cortez said the wedge between the United States and China is more about “competition” than “conflict.” “I think China is, of course, an ascending global power, growing very quickly, acting in its own self interests,” she said. “And oftentimes in Washington, there’s this frame between conflict and competition. I think sometimes depending on what’s happening, that rhetoric can get a little conflict-driven, and I think that it’s really a question of competition.” In another panel on “the rise of populism” on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez attempted to describe President Trump’s shift to a new strategy on foreign policy and how the rest of the world has responded. Her remark, however, left people wondering what she meant. “I think what we are seeking is a return to a rules-based order that eliminates the hypocrisies around when too often in the West, we look the other way for inconvenient populations to act out these paradoxes, whether it is kidnapping a foreign head of state, whether it is threatening our allies to colonize Greenland, whether it is looking the other way in a genocide. Hypocrisies are vulnerabilities, and they threaten democracies globally.” Ocasio-Cortez was mocked over her answers on foreign policy and “the rise of populism,” with some commentators making comparisons to former Vice President Kamala Harris, who regularly made head-scratching remarks on the campaign trail and in interviews. Both Ocasio-Cortez and Whitmer are viewed as potential Democratic presidential candidates who could compete for the nomination in 2028, but neither the governor nor the congresswoman seemed prepared to answer questions on important foreign policy topics during the Munich Security Conference panel. In one exchange, Whitmer was asked what she viewed as the solution to the war between Ukraine and Russia, but she tried to redirect the question to Ambassador Whitaker. “No, please, I’d love to hear your answer,” Whitaker said after Whitmer asked him to take the question. “The two that I am on the panel with are much more steeped in foreign policy than a governor is,” Whitmer said. “I do think that Ukraine’s independence, keeping their land mass and having the support of all the allies, I think is the goal from my vantage point. Go ahead, ambassador, do a better job.”