Support for solar energy, offshore wind falls among Democrats and independents: poll

Behind closed doors, Iranian officials are reportedly weighing potential successors to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who’s currently holed up in a bunker after recent airstrikes by Israel and the U.S. While no official announcements have been made, whispers of frontrunners suggest the regime is preparing for a high-stakes transition—one that could reshape Iran’s political and religious landscape.

Editor’s Note: Khamenei’s eventual successor will steer Iran’s domestic and foreign policies for decades, affecting everything from nuclear negotiations to regional conflicts. With tensions already sky-high, even rumors of a leadership shift could send ripples through the Middle East and beyond. This isn’t just insider politics—it’s a power play with global consequences.

Democratic Senator John Fetterman pushed back against fellow progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion to impeach Donald Trump over recent U.S. airstrikes in Iran, bluntly saying the idea was a non-starter. Fetterman, known for his unfiltered style, dismissed the proposal as politically impractical, especially after unilateral military action.

Editor’s Note: This highlights the ongoing tensions within the Democratic Party between progressive firebrands and more pragmatic voices. Fetterman's rejection of AOC’s call signals that even in a divided party, there’s little appetite for revisiting Trump-era battles—especially when it comes to military decisions that could alienate moderate voters. It’s a reminder that not all Democrats are on the same page, even when it comes to holding Trump accountable.

The White House is pushing back on claims that Trump signaled a shift in US policy toward Iran after he posted about regime change on social media. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt insists Trump was just "raising a question" and expressing support for the Iranian people—not announcing a new strategy. Meanwhile, the US embassy in Qatar has issued a travel alert (linked in the article), hinting at broader tensions in the region.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about parsing Trump’s tweets—it’s a reminder of how offhand remarks from leaders can ripple into diplomatic uncertainty. With Iran already a geopolitical tinderbox, even vague comments about regime change risk fueling misunderstandings or escalation. The travel advisory suggests officials are bracing for possible fallout, whether from protests, retaliation, or just heightened nerves.

Johnny Depp isn't mincing words in his latest interview—he compares himself to a "crash test dummy" for the #MeToo movement, claiming Hollywood friends ditched him to stay on the "woke" bandwagon. He also doubles down on his stance against Amber Heard's abuse allegations, saying he refused to back down because his reputation was on the line.

Editor’s Note: Depp's comments add fuel to an already fiery debate about accountability, cancel culture, and due process in Hollywood. Whether you side with him or not, his case has become a flashpoint for bigger conversations about how the industry handles allegations—and who gets believed. This isn’t just tabloid fodder; it’s a messy, high-profile example of how personal and public battles collide in the age of social justice movements.

A top House Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes, called President Trump’s claims of "success" after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites "insane," arguing it’s too soon to assess the impact. Himes, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, pushed back on Trump’s optimism during a CNN interview, stressing that reliable intel takes time—and implying the administration might be jumping the gun.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just political bickering—it’s a high-stakes debate over how (or whether) the U.S. measures the fallout of military action. With tensions already razor-thin between Washington and Tehran, Himes’ skepticism hints at broader concerns: Is the administration spinning the narrative, or is there real evidence behind the claims? Either way, it’s a reminder that in geopolitics, declaring victory too soon can backfire.