deal

Published on
10/08/2026 – 7:43 GMT+2

Oil prices rose in early trading on Monday as market participants weighed mixed signals from the US and Iran, with concerns that a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could take longer to materialise.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Futures for international benchmark Brent crude for October delivery gained 1.04% to $84.42 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate futures for September advanced 0.83% to $78.83 a barrel.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards insisted on Sunday that they would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz until the US complied with a list of demands.

Tehran insists on retaining control of the waterway – through which a fifth of world oil and LNG pass – after the war and wants to charge tolls for passage, which Washington has pushed back against.

Attacks in the strait, which was free to transit before the war, led to the collapse of an April ceasefire, and mediators have urged both sides to return to the terms of a subsequent June memorandum that set out a path for peace talks.

Iran on Saturday released a list of conditions for reopening the strait, including an end to the war on all fronts, the lifting of a US counterblockade of Iranian ports, the end of sanctions, the release of frozen assets and compensation for wartime damage, the Tasnim news agency reported.

Those conditions echoed the terms of the June agreement, which included a provision to create a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday that their strategy was to maintain their blockade “until the enemy accepts all our conditions… the strait is now actually a theatre of war for us and not just a waterway”.

For his part, US President Donald Trump said in an interview: “We are low-keying it.”

“We are only semi-negotiating with them,” he was quoted as saying. “We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.”

“It will work out,” he added. “It’s like a chess game.”

Additional sources • AFP

Steve Soboroff leans back in a chair at his mayoral campaign headquarters in Sherman Oaks and ticks off the real estate deals that made him rich.

The auto parts store in Torrance: “Wonderful.” The Ralphs supermarket in Canoga Park: “A beauty.” And his favorite, a Sav-on Drugs in Mar Vista, the one he bought and resold for more than twice the price: “Enjoyed every bit.” He blows on his fingertips and buffs them on his chest.

“That’s how I’m going to run the city, too,” he says.

He calls himself a “wild man” in the world of strip malls. The 52-year-old landlord and broker built his fortune cutting deals with Mervyn’s, Office Depot, Pep Boys and scores of other retail chains sprawled across the Southland.

His sole ambition since college had been to make it big in real estate. But Mayor Richard J. Riordan stoked his political ambitions, making Soboroff his senior advisor, his parks commission president, his pit bull on school repairs, his trouble-shooter on the Staples Center sports arena.

Now, with Riordan’s blessing, Soboroff is running for mayor as a “problem solver, not a career politician.”

A similar pitch worked for Riordan, who sold himself to a city recovering from riots and recession as “tough enough to turn L.A. around.” For Soboroff, the question is whether the city, after eight years of social calm and prosperity, wants another multimillionaire Republican in charge at City Hall.

Dominating Soboroff’s campaign is his wealth–specifically, how much he has and how much he’s willing to spend. As of last week, he had vowed to put $687,000 of his own money into the race by the April 10 primary, well below what was expected but enough to remain competitive.

Soboroff is the only major contender for mayor who refused to live by the city’s voluntary spending limit of $2.2 million, a move that freed the other five to exceed it too. Rivals have accused him of trying to buy the election. He responds that as the only candidate seeking office for the first time, he must spend his own money “to level the playing field.”

He puts his net worth at less than $10 million, but won’t say how much less. He refuses to release his tax returns. Riordan, a far wealthier man, accepts $1 of the mayor’s $154,000 annual salary; Soboroff plans to take it all.

“I could use the money,” he said.

The Soboroffs live in a $3-million house overlooking the ocean in Pacific Palisades. It has seven bedrooms and a pool. A locked steel gate keeps strangers out of the neighborhood. On the guard shack is a sign: “Ridgewood Country Estates. A Private Community.”

The family’s half-million-dollar second home is in another gated community, the Indian Ridge Country Club near Palm Springs. Soboroff, a member of the club, golfs and relaxes by the pool. The club’s initiation fee is $52,000.

Soboroff, his wife, Patti, and their five children, ages 7 to 17, take frequent ski trips to Utah; he says they prefer “the places you dress down instead of dress up.” The seven of them have taken a safari in Kenya, snorkeled at the Great Barrier Reef, hiked in the Australian rain forest and toured London and Paris. In New York, they stay at the Plaza or the Pierre.

Soboroff’s hard-charging style helped him amass his wealth, but it has made him more than a few enemies in government. But he’s proud that they dislike him. It only reinforces his argument that he is an outsider–even if he is the incumbent’s hand-picked successor. The city, he argues, could use someone like him to rethink the basics, from crime to traffic.

“The left-turn signals– why do they need to be going on for two minutes at a time when there are no cars?” he asks. “Why aren’t they working on demand instead of on timers?”

Soboroff’s roots are in Chicago. His grandfather, Samuel Soboroff, arrived as a boy in the 1880s after the family fled Russia amid a pogrom. Around 1895, he opened a plant that made baseball caps and earmuffs for Sears. He passed the business along to his two sons, one of whom, Irving, was Soboroff’s father. By the time Soboroff was born in 1948, the plant on Chicago’s northwest side was thriving with 150 workers at sewing machines.

His family lived in Highland Park, Ill., an upper-middle-class suburb. He remembers being a shy, cross-eyed “klutz” of a boy. But already, he was an entrepreneur with a knack for self-promotion: He delivered eggs on his bike, and for advertising glued a picture of himself to an egg, placed it in an egg cup, snapped a photo and printed fliers. New customers got a free whisk.

He also sold homemade dog leashes.

“I wanted to have a few bucks,” he said.

Tough Times Prompt Family’s Move West

In the 1960s, the family hat business collapsed, a casualty of shifting fashion trends. The Soboroffs moved to Arkansas for six months as Irving tried–without success–to revive the firm with cheaper labor. His parents hoped for better fortunes in California, so when Soboroff was 16 the family moved to Woodland Hills, where Soboroff attended Taft High School. He ran track and joined the wrestling team, but 35 years later has nothing but scorn for Taft.

“All the kids were talking about was hubcaps, and how much they were going to spend on their car,” Soboroff said. “Let me tell you, they haven’t done anything to that school since I left. They haven’t emptied the trash.”

Tragedy struck the Soboroffs soon after their arrival in California. Steve’s older sister, Lucy, broke down with schizophrenia. It hit with the suddenness of an airplane crash, he said. For the rest of their lives, his parents would be consumed, emotionally and financially, by caring for her.

“It was quite a shock and quite a heartache,” said Soboroff’s aunt Eleanor Levy. “They did everything they could possibly do, but there’s only so much you can do. Very, very sad.”

Lucy has spent most of her adult life in mental institutions. She lives at a group home in Mar Vista. Soboroff and his younger sister, Amy Audino, take care of her, paying medical bills not covered by insurance. He goes on walks with her and takes her to lunch.

With the hat business gone, Soboroff’s mother, Evelyn, became the family breadwinner. She opened a custom linens shop in Beverly Hills that quickly took off. His father, who wore a suit to work every day, minded the books in the back room until he died in 1993.

Soboroff, after graduating from Taft, moved to Tucson to study finance at the University of Arizona. Vietnam War protests, the drug culture and sexual revolution were flourishing. But Soboroff followed his own path.

He volunteered as a mentor in the Big Brothers program. (He has been a Big Brothers leader ever since and is chairman emeritus of its Greater Los Angeles chapter.) He attended football games with his fraternity buddies, went to bed each night at 9 and kept his room tidy.

“He was immaculate,” said roommate Don Kain.

To break into real estate, he turned to Joseph Eichenbaum, a pioneer in shopping malls and a family friend. “What should I do to be like you?” he asked.

From Tucson, Soboroff sent him a plan for a mall with an Orange Julius, a pharmacy and two department stores. His reaction? “It’s lousy, but if you ever come to L.A., call me.”

Soboroff did. “I was going to make myself so important to this guy that he was going to adopt me,” Soboroff said.

His job was to lure tenants to the malls of Eichenbaum and his partner, developer Ben Weingart. Soboroff said they taught him “the psychology of deal-making,” an art he plans to apply as mayor.

“It’s bringing people together and letting them feel like they got something instead of feeling like they lost,” he said. “It’s not taking the last dime. It’s being open.”

But their protege was eager to move upward. To build his reputation and a network of investors, he organized a UCLA seminar on shopping malls. It worked. He met hundreds of players in real estate. Some provided leads that produced multimillion-dollar deals and paved the way for his independence.

In 1978, he opened Steven Soboroff & Co. in Westwood. The heart of the business was finding buildings that Kinney Shoes and other retail clients would lease for new stores. He got a commission on every lease. The business, now Soboroff Partners in Santa Monica and Encino, prospered as the number of clients expanded. Among the biggest are Circuit City and Orchard Supply Hardware.

From Broker to Landlord

Over the years, he has shifted the emphasis of his business from brokering to being a commercial landlord, in large part to give himself more time with his family.

“All you need is a mail slot to do that, because the checks come in,” he said.

Before long, he and his partners acquired retail properties in North Hollywood, Sun Valley, Buena Park, Fontana, West Covina, Sacramento, Tucson, Phoenix and Louisville, Ky.

Their showcase holding is the Cross Creek Shopping Center on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. Soboroff said it alone produced $120,000 of his income last year.

“In my niche, I’m a wild man,” he said. “I could turn on a dime. I would commit to something in 10 seconds.”

He says such traits would be useful in running the city. Yet the tactics used in business can sometimes produce, at the least, unwelcome publicity in politics.

In business, for example, Soboroff has been known to hold a grudge. For years, he resented a Tucson developer who refused to take his phone calls.

So Soboroff bought a lot that the developer needed to build a shopping mall. “I was basically standing in the way of progress,” he recalled. “It was nothing but revenge.”

In the end, Soboroff said, he sold his rival the lot, and they both made money.

He’s also willing to manipulate at times. He learned to stave off clashes with neighbors of his strip malls by slipping the word “preservation” into the the names of his holding companies. “Cross Creek Preservation Co.,” he said. “It works. It’s soft.” Neighbors figure “we’re preserving the creek.”

Soboroff’s career in real estate has not only made him wealthy, but also cushioned his move into politics. His friends in the industry have provided a large share of the $2.9 million raised by his campaign. Page after page of his finance reports list donations from developers, brokers, property managers and the like–California Home Builders, CB Richard Ellis and the Irvine Co. among them.

It was Soboroff’s real estate lawyer, Jeffrey L. Glassman, who steered him into the Riordan administration. Glassman, an attorney at the mayor’s firm, Riordan & McKinzie, recommended Soboroff for a City Hall appointment. Riordan, a former parks commission chief, had met Soboroff years before when Soboroff was raising money to fix up a park in Pacific Palisades. So, just after taking office in 1993, he named Soboroff to the city Harbor Commission.

Soboroff’s main assignment was to strike a deal with three railroads to allow construction of the Alameda Corridor, a freight rail artery linking the harbor and downtown.

He succeeded. The competing railroads agreed to share the line. Harbor colleagues say Soboroff’s talks with railroad executives were a key factor in removing a final obstacle to the $2.4-billion project, now under construction.

“He put on his Superman outfit and he made it happen,” Riordan said.

Making Some City Hall Enemies

Nothing else in his work for the mayor would seem so easy. When Riordan put him to work on Staples Center, Soboroff’s aggressive advocacy of the sports arena drew praise from the developers. But Soboroff made enemies of City Councilman Joel Wachs, a fellow mayoral candidate who crusaded against taxpayer subsidies of the arena, and Councilwoman Rita Walters, whose district is home to Staples Center.

“He thought he could come in and stampede folks,” Walters said. “He upset a lot of people in City Hall.” As it happens, Walters also chairs the council committee that oversees parks. So from 1994 until last month, he would need to work with her in his role as Recreation and Parks Commission president.

He left a bad impression. Walters said she found him rude and unpleasant, and she called his personality “explosive.”

Soboroff has been dogged by questions about his temperament, and at public events he has shown flashes of anger. But family, friends and co-workers deny that he has a bad temper. He is “not a bull in a china shop,” Riordan said.

As former parks commission president, Soboroff takes credit for renovating 200 parks and creating 153 community advisory boards. Park advocates applaud him for backing 30 agreements with the school district to open schoolyards for recreation on weekends and after school. Not enough, they say, but it’s a start.

They fault Soboroff–and Riordan–for doing little to acquire new parkland, especially in largely African American and Latino areas of the city with scarce open space. Overall, Soboroff says the park system is “grossly underfunded” and “grossly understaffed,” but promises no additional money as mayor. “It depends on what the other priorities are,” he said.

His most visible role under Riordan was as chairman of the school repair and construction oversight committee. It monitors spending of $2.4 billion in bonds that voters approved in 1997 under Proposition BB. For three years, Soboroff, whose children attend private schools, used the platform to bash the school bureaucracy.

The Los Angeles Unified School District “has no business in the school building business, and they prove it over and over again,” he said. “Without that oversight committee hanging there, this would have been an unmitigated disaster.” He championed more than 1,000 new repair projects after South-Central students and parents complained that their schools were getting shortchanged. “He took it on, and he was consistent until he delivered,” said Karen Bass, executive director of the Community Coalition, a South-Central advocacy group. “We were thrilled.”

Soboroff calls funding of the projects his biggest accomplishment on the school panel.

Soboroff also scored points with environmentalists for pushing a new policy of planting grass and trees in schoolyards instead of replacing cracked asphalt. How much greenery will actually get planted remains an open question.

To Soboroff, his leadership of the school panel illustrates his ability to get things done.

“I climbed 60% up an absolute slippery pole, with a whole lot of people sitting on the top of that pole pouring grease down it,” he said.

But his swaggering approach did not always work.

Fellow school committee members David Barulich and Michael B. Lehrer were impressed by Soboroff’s energy and enthusiasm. But Barulich said Soboroff’s mayoral aspirations got in the way of good judgment when he rammed through, with inadequate planning, a project to install school air-conditioners.

“He’s a guy who wants to make a deal happen,” Barulich said.

Lehrer, an architect, detected “well-meaning naivete” in Soboroff’s toughness with school officials bedeviled by project delays, contractor mix-ups and management turmoil. “Get-things-done and can-do sometimes can be too fast,” Lehrer said.

At school district headquarters, rancor toward Soboroff runs deep. Officials call him a bully who drove people out of their jobs when they resisted his will.

“He’s kind of an ask-questions-later person at times, and that would often rub district officials the wrong way,” said Erik Nasarenko, a former district spokesman.

Emulating Riordan’s Formula for Success

Other rich businessmen who turned to politics have faced similar criticism. Whereas Riordan–in an extraordinarily different political climate–proved that the transition is possible, it is far more common for candidacies like Soboroff’s to fail.

As much as he can, he is mimicking Riordan. His appeal is aimed at the same white Republicans, San Fernando Valley residents and Jewish moderates who formed the mayor’s base. He has made a point of courting Latino and African American voters, but it has been a tough sell. He is the only major candidate for mayor committed to fighting the federal court consent decree mandating Los Angeles Police Department reforms to curb police misconduct. The city must “stop fighting cops” and “start fighting crime,” he says. He also favors splitting the school district into neighborhood districts–a popular idea in the Valley, even if it would be outside his mayoral authority.

Soboroff says it never occurred to him to run for mayor until Riordan asked a few years ago if he might be interested. At times, his inexperience shows.

Over lunch downtown, he struggled with questions on abortion. First, he said teenagers should be required to notify parents before getting one. Should the government fund abortions for women who can’t afford them? “I would probably prefer not.” A moment later, he wobbled. “I just haven’t taken it to the different levels in my own thinking, and the realities of it haven’t hit me.”

The next day, he called to clarify: He opposes parental notification requirements and favors public funding of abortions for the poor.

Another time, Soboroff boasted at an environmental forum of driving an electric car. He needled the other candidates for their “gas guzzlers.”

“You guys talk the talk. I walk the walk,” he said. The next day, he pulled up to a restaurant on Ventura Boulevard in his other car, a gas-guzzling Ford Expedition.

“I’ve got five kids,” he said later with a shrug. “What am I supposed to do? I’ve got to drive them around.”

But to Soboroff, inexperience in politics is not a failing; it’s his calling card. Thirty years in real estate and eight in the Riordan administration, he argues, have trained him to run Los Angeles.

“I’m not doing this because I’m out of work,” he said. “I’m not doing it as a career politician who’s only been in politics. I’m doing it as someone who has a balance.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Steve Soboroff

* Born: Aug. 31, 1948, in Chicago.

* Education: University of Arizona, bachelor of science and master of science in finance, insurance and real estate.

* Personal: Married to Patti Soboroff. Five children: Jacob, 17, Miles, 15, Molly, 13, Hannah, 12, and Leah, 7.

* Party: Republican

* Career: Senior advisor to Mayor Richard Riordan, 1996-2000; Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Commission chairman, 1994-2001; Proposition BB Blue Ribbon Citizens Oversight Committee chairman, 1997-2000; Harbor Commission chairman, 1993-94; Soboroff Partners, managing partner, 1978-present; J.K. Eichenbaum Associates, 1971-78.

* Strategy: Soboroff casts himself as a political outsider in the mold of Riordan, hoping to capture–and expand upon–the mayor’s base of white Republican, San Fernando Valley and Jewish voters. He emphasizes proposals to step up anti-gang programs, break up the Los Angeles Unified School District and ban road construction on major arteries during rush hours.

*

About This Series

The Times today presents the third of six profiles of the major candidates for mayor. The articles will appear in the order in which the candidates will appear on the ballot.

BRITAIN’S Got Talent boss Simon Cowell is being sued over a £75million deal said to have been written on a napkin.

The TV and music mogul is accused by former business adviser Ian Rosenblatt of being unpredictable and “very difficult to speak to” as he refuses to own a mobile phone.

Mr Rosenblatt worked for Mr Cowell from 2018.

But he is pursuing him for millions after claiming a deal, originally hashed out over dinner on a serviette, was not honoured.

The pair are said to have met for dinner in London in October 2022 to discuss a way forward following a series of rows.

Documents submitted to the High Court claim that Mr Cowell offered an attractive fee arrangement for a deal he was working on at the time.

ONE DIRECTION

Is THIS the new Harry Styles? Meet Simon Cowell’s prodigy set for stardom

REAL LIFE

Simon Cowell’s partner Lauren & ITV team up for ‘devastating’ social media drama

The documents say: “The terms of that offer were written on a napkin which Mr Cowell then signed.”

It offered up to 15 per cent of any deal of more than £75million.

The deal was later formalised at a meeting at Mr Cowell’s Cotswolds home in February 2023.

Mr Rosenblatt claims to have not been paid at all for the agreement.

Lawyers for BGT and X Factor boss Mr Cowell are yet to respond to the claims.

The Sun on Sunday has contacted him for comment.

Serbia and Ukraine have agreed to deepen economic cooperation, with both sides pledging to finalise a long-stalled free trade agreement by the end of the year as Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic hosted his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Belgrade.

The commitment came on the final day of a two-day visit that concluded on Saturday, Zelenskyy’s first to Serbia since taking office in 2019. The two leaders have met several times previously, most recently in Kyiv on July 15.

Speaking at a joint news conference, Vucic said Serbia would support Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union and maintain its support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including territories seized by Russia since 2014.

Belgrade has, however, refused to impose sanctions on Russia, its longtime ally.

Ukraine, for its part, has not recognised Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence. Serbia considers Kosovo part of its territory.

“You have never heard a single bad word about our country, neither from Volodymyr Zelenskyy nor anyone else [in Ukraine], and I am extremely grateful to our Ukrainian friends for that,” Vucic said.

“Our cooperation is expanding and will become much bigger,” he told reporters, adding that Serbia would help rebuild Ukrainian cities damaged by Russia’s invasion.

Long-delayed free trade agreement

The proposed free trade agreement has been under discussion for more than two decades, with both countries now aiming to complete a deal by the end of the year.

The agreement is crucial to Serbia’s bid to join the World Trade Organization and is a prerequisite for its EU membership. Ukraine has blocked a deal since 2005 over quotas and tariffs affecting its agricultural sector.

Both leaders pointed to progress on the agreement as a sign of strengthening economic ties, alongside Serbian commitments to provide humanitarian aid and infrastructure and energy support to Ukraine this winter.

Zelenskyy said the two leaders had discussed joint infrastructure projects as well as cooperation on energy and food security before the winter, saying that “virtually not a single thermal power plant remains intact” in Ukraine because of Russian strikes.

He said Russian attacks had also damaged railway stations, hospitals, universities and civilian businesses, and thanked Serbia for preparing a new humanitarian aid package focused particularly on the medical and energy sectors.

“We are developing all formats of cooperation which can give our people … more resilience,” Zelenskyy said.

In a post on X on Saturday, Zelenskyy said he also discussed economic and logistics projects with Serbian Prime Minister Duro Macut, including the Danube Corridor and closer links between Ukraine, the Western Balkans and the EU.

Zelenskyy thanked Serbia for pledging 2 million euros ($2.3m) to support Ukraine’s energy sector.

The two countries also signed a memorandum on animal health and food safety, according to the Kyiv Post. The agreement was signed by Serbia’s Agriculture Minister Dragan Glamocic and Ukraine’s ambassador to Serbia, Oleksandr Lytvynenko.

Serbia balances EU ambitions and Russia ties

Vucic expressed doubts that either Serbia or Ukraine would secure rapid EU membership.

“I wish Ukraine every success, but this is not just a merit-based process,” he said, noting that the bloc has not admitted a new member since Croatia joined in 2013.

He also warned that he did not expect the war in Ukraine to end soon.

“I’m very afraid that we’re in for a very difficult winter – especially for Ukrainians,” Vucic said, according to the Kyiv Post.

Belgrade had condemned Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and has supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but it has resisted joining Western sanctions against Moscow. Serbia also remains dependent on Russia for most of its gas.

At the same time, Serbia has sought to reduce some of its military dependence on Russia, including through an agreement to replace its ageing Soviet-era MiG-29 fighter jets with French Rafale aircraft.

The Kremlin has repeatedly accused Serbia of selling ammunition that ultimately reached Ukraine through intermediaries. Belgrade has denied supplying ammunition to Ukraine, but has said it sells ammunition to buyers around the world.

Vucic and Zelenskyy said military cooperation was not discussed during the visit.

Spectrum owner Charter Communications is nearing the finish line in its long-awaited $34.5-billion purchase of Cox Enterprises to form the nation’s largest internet and cable television company.

California’s Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote next week to approve the merger that would bolster Southern California’s dominant provider with more than 5 million customers. Securing the approval of California regulators — the deal’s final hurdle — has been a slog as federal officials gave Charter their consent months ago.

Customers of privately held Cox, the Atlanta-based company that serves Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, Las Vegas and large parts of Orange and San Diego counties, would be switched to Spectrum service. Charter is the industry leader, providing Spectrum internet, phone and cable TV packages for Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.

It’s been more than a year since the companies unveiled their proposed union, and they hope to combine operations this month. But flaps have flared up in the last lap.

Public interest groups have argued that the PUC’s proposed settlement with Charter doesn’t go far enough to ensure long-term affordable internet for low-income residents or accommodations for customers reeling from natural disasters such as last year’s Eaton and Palisades fires.

In addition, advocates have asked utilities commissioners to demand that Charter commit to fostering workplace diversity, equity and inclusion among its proposed 9,000-member workforce in California. Such programs have been under siege since President Trump returned to the White House.

“State regulators like the CPUC have an important role to play — they have a voice and leverage if they choose to use it,” said Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers’ Rights, a Bay Area group that is lobbying for Charter to renew its commitment to a diverse workplace.

“It’s important that California stand up for its own laws, policies and values,” Solomon said.

A Spectrum truck in New York City.

(Star Max/IPx)

The five-member commission is set to vote on the Charter-Cox merger Thursday. The panel will consider two competing proposals; both would allow the merger to go through with various conditions.

Charter years ago pledged to create a diverse workplace but scaled back its public statements amid Trump’s vocal demands that companies dump DEI programs. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, also has championed eliminating diversity programs, saying they are discriminatory.

The FCC in February approved Charter’s proposed purchase of Cox’s residential cable, commercial fiber, cloud and information technology businesses. To win Carr’s approval, Charter agreed to “new safeguards to protect against DEI discrimination,” according to the FCC.

Charter is in a bind. It disavowed diversity efforts to win the FCC’s blessing but now is facing calls in California to embrace such commitments.

“In a state as diverse as California we should protect diversity in the workplace,” said Jessica J. González, co-chief executive of advocacy group Free Press. “We have a responsibility to stand up to what’s been going on in the federal government, and in the Trump administration, to force companies to roll back their policies.”

In its public filings, Charters said it would reach out to diverse suppliers and work with business groups, including the Women’s Business Development Council, the California LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, the African American Chamber, the California Hispanic Chamber and the Cal Asian Chamber.

“This transaction will be good for consumers, community leaders, and businesses across California as it will provide them with lower prices, greater value, better service, and support from Spectrum’s 100% U.S.-based employees,” the Stamford, Conn. company said in a statement.

Concerns heightened among activists after one of the two proposed settlements, hashed out between Charter and Commissioner Matthew Baker, the commission’s Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund, failed to include diversity efforts.

Advocates viewed Baker’s proposal as weaker on broadband access provisions too, including commitments to provide low-cost internet for disadvantaged residents and communities that lack service.

“For us, it’s really about making sure everyone in Cox’s and Charter’s service territory benefits from this transaction,” said Paul Goodman, counsel for the Berkeley-based Center for Accessible Technology.

“We want to make sure that communities that have been historically overlooked get the same benefits from the transaction as everyone else,” Goodman said.

For example, a coalition of advocacy groups is seeking to prevent Spectrum from tacking on equipment charges for customers on low-income plans.

Commissioners will be asked to select from Baker’s draft decision or last month’s proposal from the agency’s administrative law judge, Jamie Ormond. Advocates are urging the panel to adopt Ormond’s version because it contains more compliance conditions, including mechanisms to foster an inclusive workplace.

Commissioners have “a statutory duty” under the state’s utilities code “to deny the transaction outright rather than approve a weaker deal,” the advocates argued in a recent filing.

Solomon’s group is pushing for an “organizational infrastructure for equal opportunity compliance,” including reporting compensation and promotion data for Charter’s California workforce and pay equity audits.

The state has required diversity measures before — despite such initiatives being out of favor in Washington. In January, the commission approved Verizon Communications’ purchase of Frontier Communications.

In that proceeding, Verizon pledged to “further California’s public policy goals of diverse supply chains and workforces, including a $10 million partnership with the California State University system,” the PUC said.

Under both Ormond’s and Baker’s proposals, Charter would be required to offer affordable broadband to low-income residents, including California LifeLine service tiers. It would have to sell stand-alone broadband plans for five years, although advocates would like to see that extended to 10 years.

The company has agreed to spend at least $275 million to upgrade its California network and complete its 1-gigabit service capability across its legacy service areas within three years.

Charter also agreed to invest at least $30 million in customer outreach initiatives, such as digital literacy training and device access for low-income communities. The company also is being asked to provide free broadband and Wi-Fi service for about 50 eligible institutions, including schools, libraries and community centers for several years.

Charter was criticized after the January 2025 fires for charging fees for equipment that burned, said Natalie Gonzalez, director of Digital Equity Los Angeles, one of the advocacy groups that is asking for Charter to “improve disaster response and customer service standards … during life’s most challenging moments.”

Charter pushed back on that contention, saying it helped residents in the burn areas.

“We opened all our wifi hot spots to anyone (non Spectrum customers) and were deeply involved in the restoration efforts,” the company said in its documents.

The advocates, including Digital Equity LA and the California Alliance for Digital Equity, compiled evidence to help commissioners determine whether the merger was in the public interest.

Should the deal go through, Cox subscribers will soon see changes. Charter plans to roll out its Spectrum products and fees to Cox customers next month.

Subscribers can opt for their existing pricing or switch to a Spectrum bundle that includes such apps as Disney+, Hulu, ESPN and Paramount+.

Charter has also said it would offer Cox subscribers a year of free service when they switch their cellphone carrier to Spectrum.

The Charter name will be dropped in one year and the combined company will become Cox, although consumer products will keep the Spectrum brand.

The switch is because the Cox family — descendants of an Ohio press baron who bought his first newspaper in 1898, began acquiring cable systems in 1962 — will become the firm’s largest shareholder group, with about 23% of the stock.

In a recent earnings call, Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey told investors the combined company would have nearly 37 million customers nationwide.

It expects to generate $67 billion a year in revenue and about $28 billion in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

Manchester City have agreed a deal to sign Argentina goalkeeper Geronimo Rulli from Marseille for £1.7m.

The 34-year-old returns to Etihad Stadium – where he spent the 2016-17 season without making a first-team appearance – and has signed a two-year deal.

Rulli famously scored a penalty in Villarreal’s 2021 Europa League final victory over Manchester United, before denying opposite number David de Gea to decide the marathon shootout.

He has won eight caps for Argentina and was part of the squad that won the 2022 World Cup and 2024 Copa America.

Rulli has also had spells at clubs around Europe including Real Sociedad, Montpellier and Ajax.

He comes in as a replacement for England goalkeeper James Trafford, who left City to join Leeds in a deal worth up to £45m earlier this week, and will be understudy to number one Gianluigi Donnarumma.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

Clippers star Kawhi Leonard had a second lucrative undisclosed sponsorship agreement with a company doing business with the team, Pablo Torre reported Thursday night on his podcast.

Scoreboard manufacturer Daktronics, which built the $100 million video board at the Clippers’ Intuit Dome, hired Leonard to a multi-million dollar endorsement deal, according to Torre. The podcast host found no evidence that the All-NBA forward did any work for the company.

The details are similar to the $28 million endorsement deal Leonard had with Aspiration, a now-defunct environmental banking company that had a 23-year, $300 million sponsorship deal with Clippers. Steve Ballmer, the team’s owner, invested $60 million into Aspiration, triggering allegations that the payment to Leonard circumvented the NBA salary cap.

That deal is at the center off an ongoing, almost year-long NBA investigation. Requests on Friday for comment from Leonard’s agent and the Clippers were not immediately answered.

The salary cap limits what teams can spend on player payroll to ensure parity and prevent the wealthiest teams from outspending smaller-market teams to acquire the best players. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has called attempts to circumvent it a “cardinal sin.”

The topic was raised on Torre’s podcast by a person identified as an “anonymous high-level source under contract for Intuit Dome.” The person alleged in an interview that the sponsorship deal was “1,000% a way to circumvent the salary cap. It was funneling money from the Clippers through Daktronics back to Kawhi.”

The investigation into the Aspiration allegations has grown in scope, the Athletic reported three weeks ago. In addition to attempting to determine whether Aspiration’s payment to Leonard violated NBA salary-cap rules, the probe conducted by high-powered New York law firm Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz is examining Leonard’s deal with Daktronics.

If the NBA determines that a salary-cap violation occurred, the Clippers could be fined and stripped of first-round picks. Ballmer also could be penalized and Leonard’s contract could be voided. He has one year and $50.3 million left on a three-year, $149.5 million deal he signed before the 2024-25 season.

The endorsement deal with Daktronics raised suspicion because the company doesn’t do business with the general public and doesn’t need prominent athletes or celebrities to pitch its products.

“Daktronics was conservative to a fault for the 20+ years I was there,” a former employee told Torre. “I remember asking early on why we didn’t do more traditional advertising and promotion to increase brand recognition. I was told that since it’s B2B and not a consumer product, it didn’t make sense to advertise that way.”

Asked whether Leonard had an endorsement deal, Daktronics pointed Torre to a crisis management firm whose spokesman said, “My understanding is Daktronics doesn’t have a deal with Kawhi right now.” Asked for clarification, the spokesman said, “I don’t know what the company wants to say, or can say, given the Wachtell investigation and all that.”

Daktronics is a leader in designing, engineering and manufacturing digital LED display technology and audio systems. Nearly 600 clients are listed on the company website, including numerous NBA, MLB, NFL and NHL teams. Other clients include several airports, and Daktronics built the LAX Time Tower, a 72-foot, four-sided interactive digital media structure located in the Tom Bradley International Terminal.

The Clippers traded Leonard to the Toronto Raptors on June 30 for Brandon Ingram, Gradey Dick and a slew of draft picks, but the teams put deal was put on hold pending the outcome of the investigation.

Leonard would not talk about the allegations during the 2025-26 NBA season because the investigation was ongoing. He brushed it off during media day in September.

“None of us did … wrongdoing and, yeah, that’s it,” he said. “We invite the investigation.”

Almost a year later, the investigation continues. Silver has expressed a desire for a resolution, saying in June that it “needs to be wrapped up before next season.” The NBA regular season will begin in October.

Salary-cap circumvention first surfaced with Leonard during his free agency in 2019 after he led the Raptors to the NBA championship. Negotiations with the Lakers ceased when Leonard’s uncle, Dennis Robertson, requested a house, the use of private aircraft, guaranteed off-court earnings and an ownership stake in the team, according to Dan Woike of the Athletic. The Lakers informed Leonard’s representatives that those requests violated the NBA collective bargaining agreement and Leonard eventually signed with the Clippers, where he played the last seven seasons.

The federal law enforcement probe into the financial affairs of the Dodgers’ controlling owner, Mark Walter, seems to focus on what looks like an obscure financial maneuver: related-party transactions.

They are deals between entities with business or personal ties, including loans, sales and other transactions, that can have legitimate reasons but pose potential conflicts of interest and typically require extra scrutiny.

Walter tapped insurers he controlled to provide most of the financing for the $2.15-billion acquisition of the Dodgers in 2012, The Times has reported — a deal later vetted by state insurance regulators.

Now, regulators reportedly are investigating whether billions of dollars’ worth of similar loans made by Walter’s companies were properly disclosed.

There are examples in which related-party transactions led to trouble, including the 2001 bankruptcy of Enron Corp., the largest at the time in Wall Street history. Bernie Madoff profited from his Ponzi scheme through related-party loans.

At issue with Walter is $21 billion in loans not disclosed to state insurance regulators that were made by two Delaware insurers he owns, according to ratings agency Fitch. The loans reportedly were made to companies with ties to Walter or his TWG Global holdings company.

The seriousness of the investigation has been highlighted by subpoenas served on the insurers and the reported seizure of Walter’s cellphone and laptop by federal authorities. Still, investigations by prosecutors and securities regulators can result in no action.

Here are more details on the risk presented by related-party transactions and why they require disclosure and extra regulatory scrutiny.

What do the investigations mean for his ownership of his sport teams?

The 66-year-old billionaire also took a majority stake in the Los Angeles Lakers last year and owns the Chelsea soccer team in the English Premier League. There is no indication yet that any of this has affected his ownership stakes, but the probe has yet to be completed.

What is the problem with related-party transactions?

Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant who worked on the Enron and Madoff cases, says the issue comes down to the motivation of the parties and can be explained through an analogy.

Sell a car to a stranger and you both research its worth and come to an agreed “fair market value,” he said. Sell it to your brother, you might cut the price to “give him a deal,” and later even forgive the payments.

“That’s why, from an audit standpoint, there should be more scrutiny if you’re doing business with the left hand and the right hand, because it’s easier to manipulate things,” Dubinsky said. “Repayments can be delayed indefinitely. They are always more suspect to fraud.”

How does that play out in the insurance industry?

Insurance is one of the most regulated industries, since the companies hold premium dollars from policyholders for future claims payouts — and regulators want to ensure the money is there when it’s needed. Related-party transactions can threaten that.

“There is a conflict of interest between the policyholders’ interest in the company being profitable and the owner’s interest in getting the least expensive financing that is available,” said Jim Donelon, who served as Louisiana insurance commissioner for 18 years before stepping down in 2024.

“It potentially threatens the solvency of the company, which then threatens the welfare of the policyholders,” Donelon said.

The National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners, for whom Donelon served as president, provides guidance to regulators on how to review related-party transactions.

What are some of the most notable examples of related-party transactions turning into financial disasters?

The failure of Enron was a prime lesson in how related-party transactions can lead to a company’s downfall.

As the Houston energy trader struggled and racked up $30 billion in debt, chief financial officer Andrew Fastow thought he found a way to keep it off Enron’s books. He created off-balance sheet entities to unload the debt and took personal stakes in them, allowing him to sit on both sides of the negotiation and pocket millions.

They were “transactions with related parties that were not at arm’s length,” Dubinsky said.

The debacle was a driving force in the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which tightened regulations over governance, accounting and related-party transactions.

What about the Madoff fraud?

The Madoff scandal, in which investors lost $17.5 billion in invested principal, operated like a typical Ponzi scheme with returns to older investors paid by money from new investors.

However, related-party transactions were key too, and some literally involved family members. Madoff’s brother, Peter, pleaded guilty to receiving $15.7 million in sham loans and giving $9.9 million in sham loans to family members. What’s more, the auditor was a related party.

“In Madoff, what were called ‘related‑party loans’ were just sham transactions — there was no real economic substance. It was simply Madoff taking money out of his own firm,” said Dubinsky, an expert witness for the government.

Is there anything comparable with the Walter probe?

The three situations appear entirely different, but the investigation into the related-party loans made by Walter’s Delaware Life and its affiliate, Clear Spring Life and Annuity, involves vast sums of money.

After receiving the subpoenas, the firms conducted internal investigations. They had reported having $1 billion in related-party loans but, after the review, they reclassified $21 billion worth of loans as related, including $4.6 billion held by Clear Spring, said Fitch analyst Jamie Tucker, senior director of North American insurance ratings.

Executives said they were unaware the loans were going to an affiliated company.

Is there any indication what the money was used for?

“Unclear at this stage,” Tucker said. “This a developing situation with ongoing investigations.”

One clue may be a report that Walter tapped insurers to fund more deals than the Dodgers acquisition. The Wall Street Journal said five insurers had provided more than $10 billion in deal funding since Walter’s financial services company, Guggenheim Partners, got into the insurance business after the 2008 financial crisis.

What have been the implications for the insurers owned by Walters?

Fitch said the financial restatement increased the two insurers’ related-party loans from 2% to 40% of their portfolios, the highest exposure among life insurers it rates in North America.

Fitch, A.M. Best and S&P Global also downgraded Delaware Life’s outlook to negative, though they said the insurer maintain a high level of financial strength.

“Our capital position and liquidity remain strong, and our financial strength ratings are unchanged,” said Group 1001, the insurers’ parent company, in a statement.

What has Walter had to say about all this?

He has not publicly commented, but a TWG spokesperson stated that, “Mark Walter and TWG have always acted in good faith, and those who have done business with Mark know him as honest and straightforward. Nothing about these transactions was any different.”

US President Donald Trump expects the conflict with Iran to end “pretty soon”, while Tehran reports that an agreement with Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is “on the verge of being finalised” following a route agreement between both nations.

The 26-year-old Brazil international had been linked with a move to English champions Arsenal.

Real Madrid have secured ⁠the ⁠future of Brazilian winger Vinicius Jr, extending his contract until ⁠June 2032, the Spanish giants announced, ⁠bringing an end to months of speculation over his future.

The 26-year-old Brazil international has been ‌a central figure in Real’s attack in recent seasons and had been linked with a move to English champions Arsenal.

His previous contract was ⁠due to expire in ⁠June 2027.

“Real Madrid and Vinicius Jr have agreed to extend our player’s ⁠contract, which now keeps him with the ⁠club through June ⁠30, 2032,” Real said in a statement on Thursday.

“Vinicius has become one of the most ‌important players during one of the most successful periods in ‌our history.”

Since joining from Brazilian club Flamengo in 2018, Vinicius has scored 128 goals and registered 100 assists for Real.

Spanish and British media had reported prolonged contract negotiations between the player and the club, while Arsenal were said to be monitoring the situation and exploring a potential move.

The extension removes the prospect of Real losing one of their most valuable players ⁠on a free transfer.

Vinicius also had a demanding summer with ⁠Brazil at the World Cup, where they were eliminated by Norway in the last 16.

The forward has built an impressive trophy collection during his time in Madrid, winning two Champions League titles and three ⁠La Liga crowns among numerous other honours.

He is set to work under Jose Mourinho for the first time after the Portuguese ⁠coach returned for a second spell in charge ⁠at Real in June.

The appointment followed a disappointing campaign for the record 15-time European champions, who finished runners-up to archrivals Barcelona in La Liga, exited the Champions League in the quarterfinals and ended the season ‌without a major trophy.

Tying down Vinicius represents another significant step in an active transfer window for Real.

The club have also strengthened their squad with the arrivals of winger Yan ‌Diomande, ‌midfielder Bernardo Silva, centre-back Ibrahima Konate, left-back Marc Cucurella and wing-back Denzel Dumfries ahead of the new season.

British regulators on Thursday cleared tech scion David Ellison’s $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — the latest international agency to find the blockbuster combination of TV channels and historic film studios wouldn’t dampen competition.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority and the government’s culture minister separately reviewed Paramount Skydance’s proposed Warner acquisition, which is facing significant turbulence in the U.S. as California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta leads a coalition of state attorneys general who are battling to try to unravel the mammoth deal.

“The evidence shows that, after the merger, Paramount will continue to face sufficient competition in the various areas it operates in, including the production and distribution of films and TV content, the supply of children’s channels to pay-TV providers and the supply of streaming services,” the authority said in a statement.

Earlier this summer, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Lisa Nandy said she was weighing whether to intervene by launching an in-depth investigation into potential harms that could result from the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. combination.

Nandy opted not to issue an “intervention notice” after striking an agreement with Paramount that provides “assurances and legally-binding commitments” that the company would not abuse its market clout.

The authority’s approval was significant because Paramount owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns HBO, CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.

Ellison and his team now have won clearances from 66 antitrust regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, and regulators in Australia, Germany, France, Italy, China and Canada, among others. The European Commission also approved the deal last month.

“These clearances recognize that the combination of Paramount and WBD will enhance consumer choice and enable a creative-first company to invest in more projects and bring stories to audiences worldwide,” Paramount said in a statement.

Still, the deal is stalled in the U.S.

Bonta and his fellow Democrat state attorneys general have won early victories in their court battle, and a federal judge this week scheduled a March trial — months later than Paramount had hoped — to determine whether the merger would violate the century-old U.S. Clayton Antitrust Act.

Paramount is facing a June 4 deadline to finalize the deal or pay Warner a $7-billion break-up fee.

Bonta and the 11 other state attorneys general, including from New York, Colorado and Oregon, have alleged the merger of two major film studios would give Paramount-Warner Bros. more than 25% of the wide-release theatrical film market. Their lawsuit contends the combined company would own too many cable TV channels — more than 50, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Comedy Central.

The Writers Guild of America has separately sued to block the transaction, claiming the combination of two historic studios would reduce opportunities and pay for writers.

Ellison, in a guest essay this week, blamed politics for the U.S. friction. “The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN,” Ellison wrote in his op-ed in the New York Times.

Bonta, in a recent interview with The Times, denied his lawsuit was motivated by politics, saying it was a “meat-and-potatoes” antitrust case.

More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including such high-profile stars as Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter early this year, calling on Bonta to thwart the merger. The group alleged the transaction would weaken Hollywood with “fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences.”

Britain’s competition authority found the combined company would still encounter competition from Universal Pictures, Disney and Sony Pictures Entertainment and “a range of other smaller studios.”

In addition, the CMA factored in the competition brought by streaming services to traditional forms of movie and TV distribution — one of Paramount’s key arguments.

“Paramount is grateful to the CMA for its constructive engagement and its review of the transaction,” Paramount said in its statement. “These conclusions further demonstrate the misguided and gerrymandered market definitions relied upon by the US state AGs in their antitrust complaint in California.”

Aug. 5 (UPI) — Iran and Oman are in the final stages of a joint agreement to manage commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, agreeing on a route for ships Wednesday, the Iranian foreign ministry said.

However, Iran will not open the strait to traffic until the United States ends its blockade, the ministry said, CBS reported.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state-run media that there is agreement between Iran and Oman on proposed inbound and outbound shipping routes in the strait, CNN reported.

Iran and Oman are on opposite sides of the strait, a major commercial waterway used for much of the world’s oil and gas supplies. They’ve been in negotiations over it for about three weeks. Before the United States and Israel attacked Iran in February, the strait was an open international waterway, but Iran closed it in response to the attacks.

“The geographic coordinates of the route envisioned by both sides have been agreed upon,” said Esmail Baghaei, spokesman for the Iran Foreign Ministry, told the country’s state news agency, as reported by The New York Times. “If certain third parties do not obstruct the process, a joint statement by the two countries,containing the principal considerations and points of agreement, is currently in the final stages of review and drafting.”

U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters there has been a lot of progress on reopening the strait and that it will reopen “soon,” perhaps even as soon as Wednesday or Thursday. However, Gharibabadi denied again that Iran is negotiating in any way over the waterway with the United States, CNN said.

A deal between the US and Iran could be signed within 48 hours, according to US officials. The agreement would reportedly focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and could mark a first step towards broader negotiations.

Al Jazeera’s Marah Ryan has the latest.

Japanese winger Daisuke Yokota hopes to make “special memories” after joining Rangers from Hannover.

Yokota, 26, has joined on a three-year deal with the option of an additional year and becomes the Ibrox side’s ninth summer signing.

He moved to Germany as a teenager and spent time with FSV Frankfurt and Carl Zeiss Jena before stints in Latvia with Valmiera and in Poland with Gornik Zabrze.

A move to Belgian side Gent followed in 2024, but Yokota was unable to establish himself in the first team and was loaned to Kaiserslautern and Hannover.

Hannover signed him permanently earlier this summer off the back of five goals and four assists in the German second tier.

“I’m really excited to be joining Rangers,” Yokota told club media. “This is a massive club with a fantastic history, passionate supporters and high ambitions so it’s a proud moment for me.

“My aim is to help the team achieve success this season and I hope we can create some special memories together.”

In the spirit of Zeus’ law to be generous toward guests, I’m honored to welcome classics professor Emily Wilson to the land of film criticism. As she’s recently learned, it’s an adventure that sails smack into islands of musky internet trolls and clashes with cinematic and literary titans like Christopher Nolan and Joyce Carol Oates.

Nolan credits the opening line of Wilson’s 2017 translation of Homer’s “The Odyssey” — “Tell me about a complicated man” — as partly inspiring his adaptation of the ancient epic, which, nearly a month into its release, is soldiering toward a billion-dollar box office gross. Symbiotically, Wilson’s edition is now the No. 2 bestselling book in the country. That Wilson’s incendiary essay in the London Review of Books revealed she doesn’t think much of Nolan’s blockbuster struck some as hubris, including Oates, who took to social media to decry the scholar’s “tone of dismissal” and “haughty superiority.”

If you haven’t been following the controversy, Wilson felt that Nolan had flattened the saga by mostly erasing the Greek gods and Odysseus’ wit, lust and thorny contradictions. Oates likened the tone of Wilson’s critique to the “crude language of MAGA folks.” In short: Wilson snuck a 2,700-year-old poem through the gates of mainstream taste — and after that victory, her arrogance left her marooned.

Sounds familiar if you’ve read Homer. Less so if you’ve only seen the film. Wilson is right that Nolan’s movie lacks Odysseus’ egomaniacal brilliance.

I’m here to play peacemaker. Wilson adores Odysseus so much that she has his bow tattooed on her right leg. Frankly, Nolan doesn’t seem to like the wily, libidinous and violent trickster-veteran of the poem — half Rhett Butler, half Rambo in “First Blood” — as much as Wilson or I do. Because if he did, that Odysseus would be onscreen.

But having seen his movie twice, it’s obvious that Nolan is less interested in Wilson’s first line than her fifth: “Tell the old story for our modern times.” That, he’s done. His take on Homer is, as I wrote in my original review, “a moralistic ‘Oppenheimer’ prequel.” For the record, I like it anyway.

Film critics and translators start work in the same place. Step one: What is the artist’s intent? Wilson considered the entirety of Homer’s tale and decided the right word for polytropos was “complicated.” I weighed what Nolan chose to protect, tweak and abandon in his own version and concluded that he wanted to make an action-tragedy about societal decline.

Movies must be measured against their own ambitions. A stoner comedy can’t be graded like a Shakespearean drama (and vice versa). Here’s where Wilson runs aground. She wants to allow Nolan creative freedom, knowing that the Greek playwrights rebooted figures like Odysseus and Medea just like Marvel treats Spider-Man. There’s even a spinoff of the original poem in which Odysseus has kids with Circe.

Yet, storytellers have to protect the core of their characters. Medea must be angry, Spider-Man must be helpful and Odysseus, dang it, must have swagger. Damon doesn’t.

This is why Wilson deserves empathy even if she can’t bring herself to grant Nolan the same grace. As a professor of classics at the University of Pennsylvania, she’ll be on the front line of academics condemned to unteach Nolan’s heavily altered screenplay to students who will arrive quoting it chapter and verse. For decades to come, high school kids — probably even a few high school teachers — are just going to pop in his Blu-ray and call it a day.

Nolan does hit his target, eventually. Yet his script wobbles. He’s made a movie about Odysseus’ remorse for inventing the Trojan horse without a crucial scene: the moment he invents it. We see Odysseus silently stroll the beach outside Troy, but not the pride he must have felt running back to base to pitch an idea that will finish the war and let his allies go home. The emotional arc Nolan wants to trace should start there. The beat’s absence is confounding since Odysseus also needs to appear clever (and never does).

This is what it means to measure a film against its ambitions. Only after we accept that Nolan is solely interested in human mistakes can we gauge his disregard for the Greek gods. I dig that choice — it’s bold — yet still think he flubs it by not replacing the magical powers of Charlize Theron’s Calypso and Zendaya’s Athena with, say, a personality. What a waste of two terrific actors. It’s no wonder Oates stuck up for him. Her novel “Blonde” also stripped the agency from love goddess Marilyn Monroe and its own 2022 movie adaptation launched a thousand hot takes.

There will never be a faithful modern film version of “The Odyssey.” No, not even whatever AI slop Elon Musk claims he’s green-lighted, a project I’m sure will come to fruition as fast as his any-year-now claim that he’s landing on Mars.

The issue isn’t just the poem’s length. It’s that today’s audiences have zero stomach for happy endings about horrible wrongs. We can barely rationalize the slaughter of the suitors. No one wants to watch Homer’s gory scene after that, when Telemachus cruelly orders a dozen enslaved girls to clean up the mess and then executes them too.

Only a seven-and-a-half hour Italian miniseries produced by Dino de Laurentiis in 1968 dares mention that second bloodbath and even in that, the women are hung offscreen after we’ve been assured (fictitiously) that the maids tried to kill them first. (Side note: Dino’s Penelope, played by the mighty Irene Papas, is my favorite.)

Previous movie adaptations of “The Odyssey” soft-pedal or ignore the hero’s postwar PTSD. You catch a glimpse of it in the two-part NBC special from 1997 in which Armand Assante’s Odysseus rescues a Trojan toddler. But mainly, he spends more time hot-tubbing with Vanessa Williams’ Calypso.

That’s not a knock. The ’90s “Odyssey” is as tacky as Caesars Palace but Assante’s smooth-talking horndog is closer to my ideal Odysseus than Damon’s neutered mope. He sleeps with both Calypso and Circe and still earns his tender reunion with Penelope by choosing her beloved wrinkles over those gods’ immortal perfection. (For what it’s worth, Oates is a fan of it too. Wilson has yet to comment.)

Only the two most recent versions — Nolan’s and Uberto Pasolini’s 2024 “The Return,” starring a sinewy Ralph Fiennes — center on Odysseus’ culpability for the carnage of the Trojan War. Damon’s Odysseus is numbed by the massacre of Troy’s civilians; Fiennes’ hates himself for leading the best men of Ithaca to their death, gutting his own community in the heedless destruction of another. I’m tempted to diagnose the current gloom as the result of our own post-9/11 forever wars.

The 21st century has seen enough genocide for Homer to compose a hundred sequels. Only those stubbornly ignorant to the human cost of actual combat would be psyched to bring on more of it. (Just ask the veterans in my family how they feel things are going in Iran.) At the end of “The Return,” when Fiennes stands entrail-smeared before his beloved Penelope, she recoils from the horror of the battlefield brought right into their home.

That interpretation has its flaws too. The middle stretch has a concocted outdoor chase sequence that feels like a clumsy campground slasher. Wilson applauded its “stylish sparseness.” Fair enough. I’d still love to invite her and Nolan and even Oates to a banquet of wine and roasted fowl and have a blast agreeing to disagree. No weapons allowed.

Paramount Chairman David Ellison believes the tug-of-war over his proposed $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery comes down to a single question: whether he can be trusted to control CNN.

“I believe this fight is not really about market share,” Ellison wrote in a Tuesday op-ed in the New York Times, noting that regulators around the world, including the U.S. Justice Department, have approved the deal that has been temporarily blocked by an antitrust lawsuit brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of Democrat state attorneys general.

“I believe a plainer worry sits beneath the briefs and the news releases … The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN,” Ellison wrote.

The rare opinion piece serves as Ellison’s acknowledgment that his family’s close association with President Trump has sullied his standing in Hollywood and beyond.

Shakeups at CBS News, which is part of Paramount, the departure of CBS late night host Stephen Colbert, and a visible presidential lobbying effort — including hosting a dinner for Trump in Washington in late April and attending Trump’s birthday extravaganza in June with UFC fights on the White House lawn — have come with a cost.

More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including such high-profile stars as Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter early this year, calling on Bonta to try to block the merger.

Bonta and the other state attorneys general sued, saying the merger of two of the major film studios would give Paramount-Warner Bros. more than 25% of the wide-release theatrical film market. Their lawsuit also alleged the combined company would own too many cable TV channels — more than 50, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Comedy Central.

Many in Hollywood fear that the consolidation of two historic studios will bring thousands of layoffs and contribute to a bleaker employment picture. Ellison’s Skydance Media’s takeover of Paramount a year ago resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs.

Some have opposed the Warner Bros. deal, saying one family shouldn’t be allowed to control two significant news operations: CBS News and CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.

“There has been speculation about my politics, my loyalties, my intentions,” Ellison wrote.

“Unfortunately, I can’t give anyone a view into my heart and mind, but I can share this: I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans,” Ellison said. “And when it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views. I believe that news should be based on facts and truth.”

“Great news organizations like CNN and CBS News are here to tell it straight down the middle,” he said. “That requires newsrooms that reflect the whole world, not one side of it. And it requires independence. Our journalists will continue to answer to the facts and to all the people they serve — not to any party or cause.”

“These were founding principles for both CNN and CBS News, for legends like Ted Turner and Edward R. Murrow, and it is exactly that kind of independence that has always fueled the greatness of “60 Minutes,” Ellison wrote.

Fired “60 Minutes” correspondents, including Cecilia Vega, have complained that since Bari Weiss became editor-in-chief of CBS News last fall, journalists have been asked to tilt the presentation of controversial news events, including protests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions earlier this year in Minnesota, which led to the deaths of two Americans.

Paramount has pushed back saying the plaintiff states have defined markets that fail to factor in the rise of technology companies, including Netflix, Google’s YouTube and Amazon Studios, which also attract significant swaths of viewership.

The Writers Guild of America has separately sued to block the merger, saying the deal would lead to less opportunities and lower pay for writers struggling to stay in the industry.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, who is overseeing the high-profile case, issued a temporary restraining order to block the merger from finalizing while the two sides hash out the evidence. Late last month, Paramount agreed to delay the merger until after a trial — or until June 1, whichever date comes first.

In court documents filed Friday, Bonta and his coalition of 11 other Democratic attorneys general proposed having a two- to three-week trial in April to weigh the evidence.

Ellison’s Paramount pushed back, saying the media company would like to start the courtroom action on Nov. 4.

Now the judge must schedule the court date.

“The states claim this deal will give one company too much influence over theatrical releases and cable operators, while the W.G.A. argues that our combined market power will hurt writers,” Ellison said in the opinion piece. “Both suits imagine a Hollywood that no longer exists — an industry ruled by a handful of legacy studios.”

Just over one month into the war on Iran, US President Donald Trump made an apocalyptic threat that raised the alarm in Washington and Middle Eastern capitals alike, attached to a tight deadline.

If Iran didn’t immediately reopen the critical Strait of Hormuz, Trump warned on April 7, “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”.

Tehran didn’t blink. And with two hours to the deadline, Trump walked back the threat and instead announced a two-week ceasefire, brokered by Islamabad.

Since then, the US president has repeated this pattern multiple times. It goes like this: Trump ups the ante, shaking up the markets, and then dials it back down at the 11th hour, apparently hoping this strategy will influence negotiations.

On Monday, Trump again insisted that negotiations were close to ending the war – and, yet again, gave “duplicitous” Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer catastrophic strikes.

For its part, Tehran denies any ongoing talks with the US, saying it is only talking to Oman about how to manage the Hormuz strait, the closure of which has caused oil prices to soar amid havoc in energy markets around the world.

The war is now in its 23rd week, with no end to hostilities in sight, and both Washington and Tehran are more entangled than before, with additional variables in the conflict that could determine its direction.

So, how many times has Trump given Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer the consequences, before walking his threat back? And how many times have we heard from the US president that a deal is just around the corner?

The times Trump threatened heavy attacks – before backing down

There have been several times since February 28, when the US and Israel launched their first joint attacks on Iran, that Trump has threatened an attack but did not follow through.

March

Less than a month into the war, Trump threatened Tehran over its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, saying the US would strike Iran’s power plants if the critical waterway was not reopened. Two days later, he postponed the strikes for five days, citing “progress” in talks.

As the delayed deadline neared on March 26, Trump delayed the strikes again, this time for 10 days, claiming that Tehran requested it.

April

Then came the April 7 threat that a whole “civilisation will die”, before Trump called off those strikes and announced a two-week ceasefire, to give Iran a chance to reach a peace deal.

No deal emerged. And then, after threatening to strike Iran “harder”, and in the final hours of the ceasefire, on April 21, Trump announced an indefinite ceasefire, saying Pakistani mediators had asked him to do so.

May

With those talks making no progress, Trump returned to his threats to strike Iran on May 17, saying “nothing will be left” of Iran if Tehran did not make a deal with the US.

But the next day, Trump again told reporters that he had decided to “put it off for a little while, hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little while, because we’ve had very big discussions with Iran”.

By May 27, US strikes were back on after negotiations faltered, once again.

June

On June 11, after two days of back-and-forth strikes, Trump threatened the US would take “total control” of Iran’s oil and gas industries. But then, a few hours later, he posted on social media, claiming there had been a breakthrough in negotiations and called off the attacks.

On June 17, the US and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), announcing a ceasefire and a 60-day period to complete negotiations for a lasting peace. Within days, that had fallen apart over the glaring gaps in the two sides’ positions over the contents of the MoU, triggered mainly by who had control of the Strait of Hormuz – and both sides returned to tit-for-tat, widening strikes.

July-August

On July 27, Trump halted the strikes, claiming the “perimeters of a deal” had been agreed to, but noting that Washington “is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II”.

On Monday this week, Trump told reporters again that negotiations were close to ending the war and that this was Iran’s “last chance before decapitation”. The US has not followed up on this latest threat yet.

Iran denies it is talking to the US, although it may be holding indirect talks via mediators, analysts say.

The times Trump said Iran peace deal was imminent

Trump has insisted that Iran is “desperate” to cut a deal, or that a deal is imminent, multiple times since the start of the war.

March

Two days after launching the first attacks on Tehran on February 28, which the US initially appeared to believe would be a quick operation, Trump seemingly conceded it might take a bit longer when he said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks [to end Iran war], but we can go far longer than that.”

The US president changed tack again on March 9, when he told CBS that “the war is very complete, pretty much”, and that the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Later the same day, he shifted his stance again, saying the war is “both complete and just beginning”. And later that day again, he said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough.”

On March 23, Trump told reporters outside Air Force One that “major points of agreement, I would say – almost all points of agreement” had been reached with Iran. Tehran was denying that it was party to negotiations at this point.

Two days after that, Trump repeated that Iran wanted to “make a deal so badly”. The next day, he also told a cabinet meeting that Iran was “begging to make a deal”.

April

On April 7, Trump said, again, that Washington was “very close to a deal” with Iran, before threatening to blow up a “whole civilisation”, but then walked back on that to announce a ceasefire the next day.

Over the following days, throughout April, Trump reiterated that the war was, in fact, pretty much over. But it continued.

Trump repeatedly claimed on separate occasions that Iran had “agreed to everything”, that “I think we will get a deal in the next day or two”, and that “I don’t think there’s too many significant differences” between the US and Iranian positions.

May

On May 23, Trump said the administration was “getting a lot closer” to a deal, which was “largely negotiated, [and] subject to finalisation”.

June

On June 8, Trump called for “total victory” in the next two weeks and claimed Iran was “willing to give us everything”. Still, no peace deal has materialised and the conflict began again in July.

August

On Monday this week, Trump again told reporters that Iran was “desperate” for a deal and warned Tehran it had “one last chance” before “decapitation” to make an agreement. Iran denies it is even holding talks with the US, saying that it is only speaking with Oman about management of the Strait of Hormuz.

CHICAGO — The Dodgers added catching depth on Monday with a familiar name.

They acquired journeyman backstop Ben Rortvedt from the Mets for right-hander Chayce McDermott, the team announced hours before the trade deadline.

The move marked the third time in a little over a year that the Dodgers have acquired Rortvedt. They also traded for him before the deadline last year and claimed him off waivers for several days in February.

The Dodgers designated McDermott for assignment on Friday in the midst of a reliever shuffle to prepare for a bullpen game.

The team felt comfortable with backup catcher Dalton Rushing taking on the bulk of the catching duties while catcher Will Smith continues to work back from a lingering neck injury that’s kept him sidelined since early June. But depth at the physically taxing position is always valuable.

That point was highlighted Sunday, when the Dodgers scratched Rushing from the lineup with what they called minor arm irritation.

In Rortvedt, the Dodgers bring in an experienced catcher who is familiar with their pitching staff back into the organization. Not on the Mets’ 40-man roster, Rortvedt has spent the season in Triple-A Syracuse, where he posted a .733 OPS.

Also Monday, the Dodgers acquired left-handed pitcher Kris Bubic from the Kansas City Royals for right-hander Carlos Duran, according to a person familiar with the but not authorized to speak publicly. Bubic, who is on the 60-day injured list with left elbow soreness, last pitched on May 14 against the Chicago White Sox. He made 20 starts last year for the Royals, going 8-7 with a 4.11 earned-run average.

WASHINGTON — Two Republican senators who threatened to block acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s bid to lead the Justice Department said Monday that they will vote to advance his nomination, ending an impasse over plans to create a fund to compensate allies of President Trump.

The statement from Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis came after Blanche issued an order late Sunday formally rescinding the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate people who believe they were unfairly prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Cornyn and Tillis, whose votes Blanche needs to advance through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, had said they would not endorse his nomination without written confirmation that the fund is dead.

“We want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon,” Cornyn and Tillis, who are not returning to the Senate next year, said in a statement.

DOJ order says ‘beyond any doubt’ that fund is dead

In a statement accompanying the order, the Justice Department said that “although the Acting Attorney General has repeatedly advised Congress through testimony, including under oath, as well as in written responses, that the Fund is not moving forward, and the Department has repeatedly represented to district courts that the Fund is not moving forward, today’s Order officially rescinds the May 18, 2026 Order.”

Since the settlement of the president’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order says. “This order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

The document released by Blanche on Sunday night also limits the scope of another provision of the settlement that provided broad immunity for Trump and members of his family from tax audits.

The deal clarifies that the tax audit immunity agreement “applies by its terms only retroactively” to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect the president from examination of future tax filings.

Cornyn, who lost reelection this year after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, and Tillis, who is retiring when his term ends in January, have blocked Blanche’s nomination as many of their GOP colleagues have criticized the fund.

The Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on Blanche’s nomination that had been scheduled for Thursday morning after Tillis and Cornyn said they needed more from the administration before they could provide the necessary votes.

The two senators have repeatedly said the Justice Department seemed interested in reaching an agreement, but the White House wouldn’t budge even to aid the confirmation of Trump’s loyal former personal attorney, who has aggressively pursued the administration’s priorities as acting attorney general.

“I think as far as Blanche and the Department of Justice, we were pretty much on the same page,” Cornyn said Thursday. “But then when the president got wind of it, he wasn’t willing to go along with it.”

Trump continues to express support for his settlement

The two sides have been negotiating for weeks, but Trump has said repeatedly during the talks that he thinks the fund should go forward and threatened to move forward with it if Blanche was not confirmed.

After the Thursday vote was delayed, Trump said in a social media post that he might pull Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after Cornyn and Tillis leave office next year.

On Sunday evening, Trump said that people who had faced charges from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and could have benefitted from the fund had “their lives destroyed.”

“This would be a reimbursement for the pain that they suffered,” Trump said. “A lot of people like it.”

Jalonick and Richer write for the Associated Press.