President Donald Trump’s broad coalition faces the hardest test of his second administration this week, all depending on what the president commits the country’s armed forces to over the next few days.On one side of the MAGA coalition, Iran hawks, military interventionists, and remaining neoconservatives are excitedly watching for their long-awaited collapse of the ayatollahs’ regime. On the other, America-firsters, skeptical non-interventionists, and the handful of the coalition’s actual isolationists watch with worried eyes.Just consider the pros and cons. Foreign entanglements are rarely clean and simple, and a lot rides on the next few days.From a certain point of view, it is the best of times to attack; from another, it is the worst of times — for both MAGA and the historically close American-Israeli relationship. So let’s examine the pros and cons.Pro: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump are both credible wartime leaders. Israel’s longest-serving prime minister has a long history of successful hawkish intervention where he felt necessary, and Trump is no slouch either.In Trump’s first term, the president proved the Washington blob wrong when he swiftly dealt with the Islamic State’s “caliphate,” bombing its forces into submission and hunting its leader down “like a dog.”In Syria, too, Trump enforced the red lines he drew — but didn’t involve the United States any further than that. And in Afghanistan his famed MOAB strike helped bring the Taliban to the table.Both men have repeatedly warned Iran for a decade that it was on the path to a war they’d gladly bring it, and here we are.To the hawks, Trump and Netanyahu seem a match made in heaven for realizing their dreams of crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities or even ousting the regime entirely. But wait just a minute and consider why Trump is back in office in the first place!Con: Trump was elected first in 2016, then again overwhelmingly in 2024 on great big waves of discontent.That anger, first rippling in the Tea Party movement and then apparent from Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’ first and only authentic campaign, stretches across tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, outsourcing, DEI, immigration, and the Democratic Party’s obsessions with social issues. It can all be boiled down to “the elites do whatever they want without any regard for what will actually help Americans.”Bombing Iran’s nuclear program into the Age of the Steam Engine might be the right thing to do for an ally in need. It might be smart foreign policy, when it comes to America’s red lines being taken seriously. It might even be just. But you really, truly have to stretch far and wide into the future and all the many paths it can take to divine how intervention helps Americans here at home.That’s a problem. It’s a big reason you see such discontent and even rage bubbling up all over the America First and MAGA right, from Tucker Carlson to the Federalist’s Sean Davis to the anonymous X poster down the way.Some of these types think war not only doesn’t serve American interests but actively threatens our safety by unleashing broader conflict. Others recognize the promises we heard in the lead-up to Afghanistan and Iraq: that this is different from Vietnam and we won’t get bogged down because we’re way smarter now.The reality is that a large segment of voters never signed up for another Middle Eastern war. They want the government to focus on problems at home for a change.This discontent doesn’t just jeopardize the MAGA coalition’s unity; it jeopardizes broader domestic support for our alliance with Israel, which is already under strain among the Democrats.None of the latter MAGA camp are happy right now, but a very short war made up of successful strikes could change a lot of their minds. Trump is just the sort of man to deliver that possibility.Pro: Trump's done this before, in Afghanistan and Syria. The reason he has such credibility on the national stage is that unlike his two Democratic predecessors, he delivers overwhelming force exactly when he says he will.Let’s say American bombs could reach Iran’s football-field-deep mountain uranium enrichment plant and we blast it and go home, leaving in place an Iranian regime still clinging to power but set back decades from developing nuclear weapons.Is Trump the man to break the curse of the Middle East? A wise man once told me the number-one trick to never getting divorced is simple: Never get divorced, even — especially! — when times are tough. Maybe all it takes to not get entangled in nation-building is not to get entangled in nation-building — especially when times are tough.Since right around the time he descended the golden escalator 10 years ago, the president has told the Iranians to stop enriching. The United States has made that demand for decades longer still.Now the bill has come due. Unlike previous U.S. presidents, this one collects. Wasn’t one of the driving issues of both 2016 and ’24 the Democrats’ foreign policy weakness, from “pallets of cash” and “red lines” under Barack Obama to the sloppy retreat from Afghanistan under Joe Biden? What no American voted for, however, is another 20-year war in the Middle East.Con: Reports suggest Israel wanted to take out Iran’s supreme ayatollah but that the United States blocked the operation. The president later posted on Truth Social that we know the ayatollah’s location and will kill him if he makes a wrong move.But what happens if he’s killed and the Iranian regime doesn’t recover? What if the entire state collapses? The regime has endured for five decades, but tyrannies often seem invincible — right up until their leaders flee to exile through Moscow International Airport.Iran has a sophisticated society, far more advanced than Iraq’s and nothing like the tribal chaos of Afghanistan. It’s also a much older civilization. But it’s not a unified Persian monolith. Between 35% and 40% of the population — including the ayatollah’s own late father — belongs to one of the country’s many ethnic minority groups.Maybe that wouldn’t come to any violence, and maybe Iran’s oil could pay for reconstruction. Some Iranian dissidents and expats hope Reza Pahlavi, the 46-year-exiled crown prince of Iran and eldest son of its last shah, could return. He’s the current head of the National Council of Iran, a secular, United Nations-friendly group that claims to represent millions of Iranians.The problem is we don’t know, do we? Sure, the crown prince’s father ruled Iran at the peak of its domestic freedoms, but he was ousted by a violent domestic revolt. Iran’s hard-line regime makes it more than a little challenging to gauge domestic opinion, and lots of exiled leaders have promised the West they’d be greeted with ticker-tape parades upon their triumphant returns.But few have pulled off such a feat without the U.S. military marching behind them, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, both exiled governments ended in failure even with American GIs dying in the streets to maintain their power. And don’t forget that during the half-century they’ve spent in exile, the council backed Iraq in its disastrous war on Iran.So let’s assume the worst: civil war, with Iranian refugees flooding into Europe. Who steps in?Israel has neither the ability, the mandate, nor the care to do so. Nearby China certainly doesn’t care and would probably just profit and steal along Iran’s periphery. Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine, and Europe simply cannot afford to bring stability.So it would fall to us. Nation-building once more, whether we like it or not.It needn’t come to that. Trump won in 2016 and ’24 saying his predecessors started conflicts but that he would end them with strength. In that sense, his involvement in this conflict isn’t really a departure from what he ran on — so far.Trump’s foreign policy only works when allies and adversaries believe he’s willing to respond with overwhelming force when challenged. Under his leadership, the United States regains the ability to tell the West how much to spend on defense — and the world how to trade with us. Foreign leaders know he won’t hesitate to use the big stick.Maybe he can land this plane. Just consider the pros and cons. Foreign entanglements are rarely clean and simple, and a lot rides on the next few days — both foreign and domestic.Daniel McCarthy in the Spectator: Trump won’t be dragged into a regime-change warBlaze News: Israel’s strategy now rests on one bomb — and it’s AmericanBlaze News: Massie, Dems seek to limit presidential war-making authority amid talk of Iranian regime changeABC News: Exiled Crown Prince Reza sees 'best opportunity' to get rid of regimeThe Spectator: Has Trump sided with the hawks?Sign up for Bedford’s newsletterSign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines."The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public," wrote Kennedy. "News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues."The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins.""Consistent with Secretary Kennedy's public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency," added Hilliard.RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesBloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.'The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.'Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company "would have to pivot," potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.RELATED: MAHA scores major victory as Kraft Heinz vows to stop using artificial food dyes Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty ImagesAlex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns."Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well."The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement. "The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads."An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.Unlike the Trump administration's potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban."The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier," said King.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

When you think of Fromsoftware’s RPGs - the studio’s accumulated Souls games and soulslikes, like Elden Ring, Sekiro, and of course Dark Souls itself - you likely remember the struggles, the ardor, and the world’s unremitting brutality. Lordran, Drangleic, Yharnam, and the Lands Between are often stark and cruel places, where only raw force and sheer, iron-tough will can keep you alive. But there’s a boss fight in Dark Souls 3 where that all changes. Your battle against the Dancer of the Boreal Valley feels more like ballet, or a figure skating routine, albeit soaked in blood. Combine that vicious elegance with the fast-paced, agile combat of Stellar Blade, and you get close to Tsarevna, a new hack-and-slash game inbound for Steam. Continue reading New hack-and-slash game mixes Stellar Blade and Dark Souls 3's best boss fight

Even if these projects made sense when first conceived, they no longer do.

Recovering a music and film legacy in the age of rage.

The most recent session of the legislature adjourned without doing much of anything about aliens residing in Texas in violation of federal law.

Funcom has released the latest Dune: Awakening update, and this houses more than just your standard bug fixes. The new patch for the open-world multiplayer survival game introduces an important adjustment to PvP that you may have seen players do since the game's launch.

Taking on jobs with your teammates as you fight back against the Hiss in FBC: Firebreak—an easy-to-grasp gameplay loop in Remedy's latest IP, well, until you realize how it doesn't hold your hand through some things.

MindsEye, developed by one of the former lead devs of Grand Theft Auto, is establishing itself as one of the year's biggest flops and worst-reviewed games of the year.

The Ver. 1.1.1 patch for Mario Kart World is live, and it brings with it a number of updates, including several fixes for the connection issues that have plagued the game since launch.