Posted on 08/18/2026 10:22:39 AM PDT by Miami Rebel
President Donald Trump proclaimed on Tuesday that talks with Iran were not happening, a direct contradiction to his own son-in-law and top negotiator Jared Kushner, who said a day earlier that the negotiations were ongoing.
“There are no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled, with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the president posted to Truth Social on Tuesday. “The Naval Blockade remains in full force and effect. The Hormuz Strait is open and operating. All water mines have been removed or detonated. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
But Trump’s post may have been news to Kushner, the husband of first daughter Ivanka Trump, who indicated to Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst on Monday that the talks were ongoing, and that the president was waiting “for the right deal.”
“Right now, President Trump’s been focused on the economic pressure,” Kushner told Yingst. “He really feels strongly about the blockade. If you look at the Iranian economy, it’s way worse off — it was bad before the war — it’s way worse off now. But President Trump’s very, very clear on why he took the actions he took, which is he believes that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
He added: “And if Iran is willing to, you know, finish the deal they’ve been discussing with us to give up their ability to create a nuclear weapon, then obviously he is going to make a deal that could be great for the Iranian people, and it’s something he would be open to. But right now, they aren’t showing any interest in doing something that makes sense for us.”
The latest development comes as the Iran conflict approaches the six-month mark.
Kushner spoke to Yingst in Jerusalem, where he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a bid to push Trump’s 15-point plan for peace between Israel and Hamas, CNN reported.
Kushner wound up leaving Israel without a breakthrough in the talks as Israeli and Hamas leadership held firm on their own demands, according to Reuters.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Although of course there was widespread opposition to the regime in Iran, how much of it was agitated/exacerbated by MI6/CIA in the lead up to this war ?
“Is what true? “
What the source reported.
is that simple enough for you?
Not the world. The ones who repeatedly threaten to "wipe out the great satan", and repeatedly attack American ships (see post # 16 on this thread), and also works to build nukes.
George Washington and Congress passed the 1794 Navy Act to build a navy after a lot less attacks on American ships by Barbary Pirates. Thomas Jefferson then used our new navy to put a stop to that mess.
Likewise, Reagan did Operation Praying Mantis against Iran over a lot less attacks on our ships. For whatever reason Iran stood down quickly against Reagan, but they haven't done so yet against Trump even though Trump has hit them a lot harder than Reagan did. Sounds to me like today's leaders in Iran need more butt whoopin's till they get the point.
A couple of respectful disagreements, though. And I do mean respectful, as I get more correct wisdom from FR than just about anywhere else.
1) With the Korean War being long over (maybe not "officially" LOL) we wouldn't have had an ally to fight NK to stop them from building nukes. However against Iran, especially after the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, we do have an ally near Iran. And with the new Abraham Accords we had, as was confirmed, somewhat allies in the Arab nations. So I can see a military assessment reason to go after Iran to stop nukes that I haven't seen with NK.
2) As far as "We performed our (night I add perfectly executed) strikes to take out the regime. That should have been it and this is where our CIA leadership needs to be fired", again I respectfully disagree. Perhaps that was enough to take out the then current leader, and by extension, it would add unnecessary feature creep to the war mission if we were to try to make sure a good leader was next. If that's the point you're making, then as far as leadership take out, yes, I'm in agreement.
But in the broader context of stopping Iran from building nukes, that's not enough. See my post # 36 in this thread on just how quickly a nation can build nukes now. If the point is to keep Iran from building nukes, then neither the 2025 nuke site strike nor the 2026 killing of the Ayatollah is enough.
No. It’s not simple enough. What exactly is your concern with this nonsense article? That Trump contradicted someone? His son in law?
What’s the issue?
I’m sure that’s true. What is the concern?
A smarmy and deliberately misleading or dishonest article pretending to be a news article.
Par for the course.
Ok, for people not able to understand English tenses or think critically, this:
“And if Iran is willing to, you know, finish the deal they’ve been discussing with us” does not contradict Trump’s comment.
The take home message is this is not a news report but agenda driven propaganda.
Senior Trump advisor Jared Kushner confirmed that communications between the U.S. and Iran are “more robust” than ever, despite Iran’s denial of a backchannel between President Donald Trump and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
And you think this shows what?
Yes. I aced 7th grade English!
There are vast differences between for example India, the largest democracy in the world, having nukes, versus a dictatorship ruled by radical fanatic Mullah’s. If you think both those countries pose equal threat to united states of America, you should never run for president.
Secondly, I found this item interesting:
The following is the timeline of Houthi attacks on US warships and US-flagged commercial vessels from November 2023 through mid-2026 ...
It's interesting because you specifically use the term "US-flagged commercial vessels," but the timeline you posted has few (if any) US-flagged commercial vessels.
I would discount any attacks on foreign-flagged vessels. Those are not a problem for the U.S. to deal with. Let the nations whose flags they fly deal with the Houthis themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.