Stop betting Overs like a casual: Take the Under in San Antonio Spurs at Minnesota Timberwolves Game 3

I'm running it back and betting on boring when the Minnesota Timberwolves (1-1) at the San Antonio Spurs (1-1) for Game 3 of the 2026 Western Conference Semifinals Friday at the Target Center.

Betting the Under 218 in Spurs-Timberwolves Game 1 was a rocking chair cover for me as the T-Wolves stole the series opener 104-102. In fact, the final score made Game 1 seem higher-scoring than it was because there were 65 points scored in the fourth quarter.

WHY THE 76ERS ARE POISED TO COVER THE SPREAD IN A MUST-WIN GAME 3 AGAINST THE KNICKS AT HOME

But, I'm utilizing the zig-zag theory, an NBA postseason handicapping strategy where you fade the results of the previous game in a playoff series. Game 2 soared over its 216.5 total when San Antonio beat the brakes off Minnesota 133-95.

VICTOR WEMBANYAMA SETS NBA POSTSEASON BLOCK RECORD IN THE SPURS' LOSS TO THE TIMBERWOLVES

Maybe the offenses hit their stride at the end of Game 1 and I'm stepping in it here. However, there is usually value in the Unders since people like betting Overs because points are exciting and no one wants to watch a boring game. 

Officiating tends to zig-zag in the NBA playoffs, not just teams, and there were a combined 64 free throws in Game 2. These teams averaged a combined 49.9 free throws per game during the regular season and San Antonio led the NBA in defensive FT/FGA rate.

That said, if the refs "let them play" Friday, there should be fewer free-throw attempts.

2026 NBA PLAYOFFS: DENVER NUGGETS AT MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES GAME 4 BEST BET

Also, there could be a lot of long possessions. The Spurs were fifth in offensive turnover rate (TOV%) in the regular season and 26th in defensive TOV%. They led the NBA in defensive rebounding rate, so Minnesota won't score many second-chance points.

Meanwhile, both teams play better defense than offense. The Timberwolves ranked eighth in defensive rating during the regular season and the Spurs ranked third.

'ZIG-ZAG THEORY': HOUSTON ROCKETS WILL COVER AND EVEN SERIES VS. LOS ANGELES LAKERS IN GAME 2

Minnesota’s defense improves at home, too. The T-Wolves are 30-14 to the Under (an NBA-high 68.2%) this season at home with a -6.6 margin vs. the total. 

Plus, the pace slows in playoff games after a blowout because the losing team responds by locking in on defense. Since 2021, the total is 46-30-1 to the Under (60.5%) in the game after a 20-plus-point blowout. When the margin is 30+ points, the total is 19-8 to the Under (70.4%).

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

Going back to the zig-zag theory, the T-Wolves have to slow down the pace in Game 2. They won Game 1 and the pace was 95.9. The Timberwolves got crushed in Game 2 by 38 points on the pace increased to 107.4.

The bottom line is Minnesota cannot beat San Antonio in a fast-paced game. Instead, the T-Wolves need to grind the Spurs down and win a rock-fight, which is what we'll see in Game 3

Prediction: Spurs 108, Timberwolves 102

_____________________________

Follow me on X @Geoffery-Clark, and check out my OutKick Bets Podcast for more betting content and random rants.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/yqpg7e9

Swing-district Republican breaks with Trump, pushes limits on Iran war

A House Republican facing a tough re-election fight is moving to impose strict limits on the Iran war, breaking with the Trump administration’s claim that hostilities have ended. 

Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Mich., introduced a resolution Thursday that would authorize the war through the end of July to permanently degrade Iran’s nuclear program, address "imminent threats," enforce a naval blockade and ensure safe passage of U.S. ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

But the measure would also set stringent guidelines on prolonged military operations by limiting boots on the ground and prohibiting "nation-building" or occupying or seizing Iranian territory.

"Two things have been clear from the very beginning: Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the United States of America cannot be dragged into another endless war," Barrett, an Army veteran who served multiple tours in the Middle East, said. "The commander in chief has the sole authority to lead our troops in wartime, but I’ve lost too many friends on the battlefield to allow that to happen without Congress exercising its constitutional role to clearly define the mission with safeguards and a deadline."

REPUBLICANS HAND TRUMP THE WHEEL ON IRAN — BUT ONE RED LINE EMERGES

"If we don’t learn from our foreign policy failures of the past, we are bound to repeat them," he added.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has also vowed to introduce a similar measure in the upper chamber authorizing the use of military force within strict boundaries, which she has described as a "restraint" on Trump.

Barrett’s measure follows the White House largely shrugging off a 60-day deadline to end the war on Friday by arguing that the ceasefire that began on April 7 effectively stopped the clock on the 1973 War Powers Resolution’s countdown. Under the war powers provision, the administration is required to end hostilities within 60 to 90 days absent congressional approval. 

"For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated," a senior administration official told Fox News Digital last week.

"Both parties agreed to a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, April 7 that has since been extended," the official continued. "There has been no exchange of fire between U.S. Armed Forces and Iran since Tuesday, April 7."

A press release issued by Barrett’s office stated that "U.S. military operations are ongoing."

TRUMP ‘RIGHT TO BE OUTRAGED’ BY EUROPE’S BETRAYAL ON IRAN, SAYS FORMER THATCHER ADVISOR

Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued Tuesday that the 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, and the administration was only complying with parts of it out of respect for Congress.

"We comply with it in terms of, like, notification because we want to preserve good relations with Congress," Rubio told reporters during a news conference. "And we do that."

Trump has repeatedly extended the ceasefire with Iran as both parties are working with mediators to permanently end the war.

Barrett’s resolution would also allow for an additional 30-day "wind-down period" if the Trump administration intended to extend hostilities past the July 30 deadline.

The resolution comes as Barrett, a freshman lawmaker representing a Lansing-area district, is facing a potentially bruising re-election bid ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Bridget Brink, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under former President Joe Biden, and retired Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam are vying in a crowded Democratic primary to unseat Barrett in the swing seat.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates his re-election bid as a "toss-up."

It is unclear whether Barrett will join Democrats in supporting a war powers resolution that would block military action against Iran absent congressional approval when lawmakers return to Washington next week.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/4POM6FY

Trump demands Hakeem Jeffries be charged with 'inciting violence' with 'maximum warfare' rhetoric

President Donald Trump accused House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., of inciting the most recent assassination attempt against him, further escalating his feud with the top Democrat.

Trump argued in a Truth Social post on Thursday that Jeffries should be arrested after promoting "warfare" against Republicans just days before the assassination scare at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in April.

"This lunatic, Hakeem "Low IQ" Jeffries, should be charged with INCITING VIOLENCE!" Trump wrote on social media.

He included images of Jeffries standing with a sign displaying the words "maximum warfare" and the faces of Trump and his aide James Blair alongside an image "three days later" of alleged assassin Cole Allen storming the Secret Service checkpoint at the Washington Hilton.

HAKEEM JEFFRIES DOUBLES DOWN ON 'MAXIMUM WARFARE' RHETORIC, TELLS CRITICS 'I DON'T GIVE A DAMN'

"Should Hakeem Jeffries be charged with inciting violence?" Trump’s post asked his 12.6 million followers to ponder.

A spokesperson for Jeffries referred Fox News Digital to a social media post where the top Democrat labeled Trump’s comments as "another deranged rant" and dinged the president on affordability. 

"Gas prices are sky high, grocery bills are surging and families can't catch a break," he wrote on X. "Democrats are about to take back the House and you're losing your mind."

JEFFRIES LAUNCHES NEW YORK GERRYMANDER PUSH AFTER REDISTRICTING CLASH WITH DESANTIS

The online skirmish came after Jeffries already defended his "maximum warfare" language amid GOP backlash in late April.

"I don’t give a damn about your criticism," he told Republicans.

Jeffries also justified his decision to use the phrase when discussing the nationwide redistricting battle by arguing that an anonymous White House staffer first deployed the phrase to threaten Democrats with GOP-friendly gerrymanders during an interview with The New York Times last year.

"That phrase ‘maximum warfare everywhere, all the time’ came from the White House in the summer of 2025, when they started this redistricting battle, and now they're big mad," Jeffries said at a news conference. "Why? Because Democrats have decided to finish it. Get lost." 

Jeffries has consistently said that he opposes all forms of political violence, while refusing to walk back his fiery language.

He told "Fox News Sunday" last month that lawmakers "set the most appropriate example" in their rhetoric, when asked about the rise in political violence.

"Whatever your ideological perspective is, we all love America, and we all want to make sure that this country is the best that it can possibly be," Jeffries said.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/oJePkXU

DOJ taunts media after Trump scores win in battleground-state ballot fight

The Department of Justice took aim at reporters it viewed as biased on social media on Wednesday after a federal judge sided with the government in a dispute over 2020 ballots and election materials it seized in Fulton County, Georgia, in January.

"Wrong again, MacFarlane," a DOJ communications account wrote in an X post, targeting a MeidasTouch journalist who had speculated the department’s arguments would fail to persuade the judge.

Judge J.P. Boulee had found in a 68-page order that Fulton County did not prove its rights were violated when the FBI seized more than 600 boxes of election records. Boulee, a Trump appointee, denied county officials’ request that the boxes be returned, handing the Trump administration a win in its broader fight to investigate the 2020 election and prompting DOJ to taunt media skeptics online.

"Sorry for your loss, Anna," the DOJ social media account wrote in a separate post about a Lawfare editor.

FBI AGENTS SEARCH ELECTION HUB IN FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

Boulee’s decision marked a win for the DOJ in its nationwide effort to investigate past elections in key battlegrounds that also include Arizona and Michigan, as Trump maintains that the 2020 election was tainted by widespread fraud and aggressively pushes for tighter election security measures ahead of the midterms.

The FBI had seized the boxes, which included 2020 ballots, from the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center after obtaining a court-approved search warrant. An underlying affidavit revealed the bureau was probing allegations of ballot irregularities and record-keeping failures in Georgia, a state Trump lost by a razor-thin margin to President Joe Biden that became ground zero for Trump's election fraud claims in the aftermath of 2020.

FBI SUBPOENAS 2020 ARIZONA VOTING DOCS AS FEDERAL PUSH INTO ELECTION ADMINISTRATION WIDENS

Democrats have widely criticized the investigation, including Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., who called it a continuation of a "sore loser's crusade" upon learning of the probe.

Fulton County Board of Commissioners chairman Robb Pitts, who is named in the litigation over the box seizure, previously called the investigation "yet another act of outrageous federal overreach designed to intimidate and to chill participation in elections.... I will always stand up for our elections workers and for the truth."

NAACP ASKS JUDGE TO LIMIT HOW FEDS USE GEORGIA VOTER DATA SEIZED BY FBI

Pitts and other Fulton County officials had argued the box seizures were unlawful and that the government showed "callous disregard" for the county's constitutional rights. But Boulee rejected those claims while still acknowledging that the underlying affidavit was flawed and contained "troubling" statements.

"While the Affidavit was certainly far from perfect, this is not a situation where an officer left out all the facts that might undermine probable cause or where an officer intentionally lied," Boulee wrote, adding that he "cannot say that the Affidavit was so deficient that its shortcomings rise to the 'high[] threshold' of callous disregard."

Boulee relied in his decision on the fact that the investigation was still in an early phase and emphasized that federal authorities had obtained a valid warrant supported by an affidavit. The affidavit outlined allegations related to missing ballot images, inconsistent recount totals and chain-of-custody problems, among other potential issues.

In response to Boulee's order, Pitts said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital that he agreed with the judge's assessment that the affidavit was "defective" and "problematic." 

"But I strongly disagree with the judge’s denial of Fulton County’s request for the FBI to return the election records it wrongly seized on January 28," Pitts said, adding that county officials would "continue, as always, to stand by our election workers and the voters of Fulton County. We intend to vigorously pursue all available legal options."

Fox News Digital reached out to Lawfare and MeidasTouch for comment.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/z2wSfuZ

Obama-era attorney flips script on Comey indictment naysayers with warning not to bury DOJ yet

Legal experts are pushing back on skepticism surrounding the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, arguing the Department of Justice would not have brought the case without meeting key legal thresholds.

"Lots of folks are saying the case is going nowhere, but, way too early to reach that conclusion," former Democratic U.S. Attorney John Fishwick, who served in Virginia during the Obama administration, said, cautioning against prematurely dismissing the case.

The indictment, brought last month in the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleged Comey, a longtime Trump nemesis, threatened the president and delivered interstate communications containing threats when he posted a photo on Instagram of seashells reading "8647" last year. 

Free speech advocates and leftist critics pushed back against the indictment, accusing the DOJ of infringing on protected speech in the name of prosecuting one of Trump's top political rivals. Comey, whom Trump fired as FBI director in 2017, has been outspoken against the president and profited off sales from his anti-Trump book, while Trump has said Comey is "guilty as hell" on social media and that he should face criminal charges.

BLANCHE TURNS THE TABLES ON COMEY INDICTMENT CRITICS: ‘REST ASSURED’ CASE GOES BEYOND INSTAGRAM POST

"Comey is out for revenge against Trump and has publicly gone after Trump separately from the seashells," Fishwick said, adding that Trump also publicly said he perceived the message as a threat.

Prosecutors must prove Comey’s intent and that the message constituted a "true threat," a high legal bar that has fueled questions about whether the case can succeed, especially in the recent threat environment where Trump has now faced three alleged assassination attempts.

"You prove intent like you always prove intent," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on "Meet the Press" this weekend. "You prove intent with witnesses. You prove intent with documents, with materials. ... This is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months."

Chad Mizelle, former DOJ chief of staff, told Fox News Digital the legal standard for convicting Comey for threatening the president was high but that the indictment suggested there was underlying evidence.

"I don't think the department would have secured the indictment without concrete evidence that Comey did knowingly and willfully threaten the president of the United States," Mizelle said.

Mizelle noted evidence could take many forms, such as nonpublic text messages or emails.

"What was Comey's intent when he said it?" Mizelle asked. "I suspect DOJ has evidence of that, and I'll wager it's not favorable to Comey."

IN TRYING TO SECURE COMEY INDICTMENT, US PROSECUTORS HAVE SHORT WINDOW — AND A DIFFICULT CASE TO MAKE

The term "86" has been used as slang to get rid of someone or something, often in restaurants for an unavailable item or refused customer. Prosecutors alleged that, paired with "47" — a reference to Donald Trump as the 47th president — Comey’s post amounted to a threat.

Before serving as head of the FBI, Comey was a federal prosecutor and deputy attorney general for the Department of Justice. 

Comey, "more than any American, knows not to make threats and what a threat looks like," Fishwick said.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News: "This is a very smart guy. He knows what he’s doing. He’s nobody’s fool. … He knew exactly what he was doing, but hey, he’s going to have his day in court."

The DOJ secured the indictment from a grand jury days after a third alleged assassination attempt on Trump at the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, a point Blanche has drilled down on as evidence that prosecuting threats to the president, regardless of who made them, is a top priority. Fishwick said the political violence would be relevant if the case makes it to trial.

"As background to any trial, jurors in North Carolina will be aware of all the political threats in this country and know that something must be done about it," Fishwick said.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley raised First Amendment concerns, saying if the case rested solely on the image of seashells forming "8647," it could face significant legal hurdles, arguing the image "is clearly protected speech" absent additional evidence.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said "86" could actually mean impeachment and that the charges defied Supreme Court precedent that established the standard for a "true threat."

"The idea that Comey's picture of seashells conveyed a serious intent to harm the president is ridiculous," the group wrote on social media. "The administration should abandon this transparent and unconstitutional attempt to punish a critic."

FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR DAN BONGINO: JAMES COMEY 'BROUGHT SHAME TO THE FBI AGAIN' WITH '86 47' POST

Comey had quickly deleted the post, saying at the time that he did not realize that he had shared something ominous. After the indictment, he said he was "still innocent."

"I’m still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let’s go," Comey said.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton accused "the left media [of] rushing to the defense of James Comey, pretending it's about free speech."

"You don’t have the right to advocate for the killing of the president," Fitton said.

Comey's arraignment is set for May 11 in Greenville. Comey's lawyer did not comment for this story.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/p3eiwGA

OutKick readers sound off: Five more famous rock band replacements we might have missed

We asked and you delivered!

This past weekend, my good buddy Matt Reigle and I put together a list of six bands who got better or more successful after replacing original members.

Now that there is a dedicated comments section to our articles, we were able to see plenty of our readers sound off on who we missed, so now we are going to go through some of the most discussed omissions, according to you, our dear readers.

Without further ado, let's right some wrongs!

FOREIGNER LEAD SINGER KELLY HANSON SURPRISES FANS WITH NEWS ABOUT BAND'S FUTURE

When Journey formed in San Francisco in 1973, they did so with Gregg Rolie pulling double duty on keyboards and lead vocals.

The band spent the next few years toiling away as a jazz fusion group, but when they finally decided to make a change and bring in a dedicated vocalist to allow Rolie to focus solely on keyboard duties, they had no idea the diminutive Steve Perry (no relation) would be the key to unlocking their success.

Every massive hit Journey has ever produced has been with Perry at the helm, and they certainly owe their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction and millions of albums sold to their front man.

NEAL SCHON AND BANDMATE JONATHAN CAIN BATTLE LAWSUITS AND POLITICS AS JOURNEY'S FAREWELL TOUR ROLLS ON

The '80s wouldn't have been the same without the marriage of Steve Perry and Journey, so they deserve a spot on this list.

This one pains me as a Roth-era Van Halen fan, but there is no denying the band found incredible radio success with new frontman Sammy Hagar in the fold.

It could be argued Van Halen was the biggest act in the world by 1985, so it came as a complete shock when they decided to jettison their acrobatic lead singer and go back to the drawing board.

SAMMY HAGAR’S DREAM ABOUT EDDIE VAN HALEN INSPIRED HIM TO WRITE A NEW SONG WITH LATE ROCKER

With hits like "Panama," "Jump" and "Hot for Teacher" catapulting them to superstar status, it was thought that no one would be able to fill the shoes left by Diamond Dave.

Enter Sammy Hagar, the fuzzy-headed solo act behind radio staples like "I Can't Drive 55" and "Your Love Is Driving Me Crazy," and the rest is rock history.

With a slew of radio-friendly hits over the next decade, it's safe to say "Van Hagar" didn't miss a beat with the new guy behind the microphone.

I love both iterations of the band, and while it's hard to argue the band got "better" with Hagar in tow, they were certainly able to at least replicate their success from the '70s and early '80s.

Most of you reading this know Fleetwood Mac thanks to their monster pop efforts from the mid to late '70s like "Rumours" as well as their 1975 self-titled album.

What you may not know is the band started as a blues rock outfit in the late 60s with a man named Peter Green taking lead vocal duties.

FLEETWOOD MAC CO-FOUNDER HOLDS ONTO ‘FANTASY’ THAT STEVIE NICKS AND LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM WILL END FEUD

Green exited in 1970 and the band entered a transitional period before settling on the singer/songwriter duo of Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham.

Nicks and Buckingham's penchant for brilliant and catchy melodies coupled with their creative and romantic tensions made Fleetwood Mac a musical tour de force, and the band became one of the most successful acts of the 1970s.

You couldn't go five minutes without hearing songs like "Go Your Own Way," "Dreams" or "Don't Stop" while flipping through your radio dial, and the addition of the on-again, off-again lovers is a big reason for that.

The Eagles were already one of the most popular bands in America by 1975, so much so that they had a greatest hits album from that year that would go on to be one of the best-selling records of all time.

How do you improve upon that success?

Well, you go out and get Joe Walsh to replace one of your guitarists and then lay down what is, perhaps, the most iconic rock song in music history.

EAGLES GUITARIST'S PARKINSONISM DIAGNOSIS FORCES HIM INTO RETIREMENT

When tensions started to arise between guitarist and founding member Bernie Leadon and the rest of the group, The Eagles put out a "help wanted" sign and ended up with solo act Joe Walsh.

With Walsh on board, the quintet would release two of their most critically and commercially successful albums in their discography, "Hotel California" and "Long Run."

The title track for the former also contains one of the most recognizable guitar solos of the 20th century, courtesy of Walsh and Don Felder.

Just for that contribution alone, Walsh would have found his way onto this list.

If there was one band who got mentioned more than any other in the comments section of our previous article, it was Pink Floyd.

I caught a lot of flak for not including them (though if you took the time to watch our video, we included them in our honorable mentions, but I digress), so here I am to make amends.

It was a crying shame not including the great David Gilmour in our article of band replacements, because he might be the most notable of them all.

Never has there been a more drastic change in trajectory for a band than when Gilmour stepped in for the mercurial Syd Barrett.

ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON'T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!

Under Barrett's lead, the band was a psychedelic outfit that had potential but was a little too eclectic to ever make it to the universal heights they would achieve in their later years.

Gilmour's iconic guitar sound and smooth vocals paired perfectly with the songwriting chops of bassist Roger Waters, and although the two can't stand each other, they made some of the most iconic music in history.

Pink Floyd is arguably one of the most popular and influential rock bands of all time, and they wouldn't hold that distinction if it weren't for the addition of David Gilmour.

I will take my lumps like a man for not including this one on our list. Gilmour is a legend and deserves his place among the pantheon of great rock replacements.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/pcqujWZ

Hegseth shoots down Iran 'kamikaze dolphins' — leaves US question open

War Secretary Pete Hegseth said Iran does not have so-called "kamikaze dolphins" — dismissing an unusual claim that emerged from recent reporting on Iran’s potential tactics in the Strait of Hormuz.

"I can’t confirm or deny whether we have kamikaze dolphins, but I can confirm they don’t," Hegseth said during a Pentagon briefing Tuesday. 

The question stems from a Wall Street Journal report that said Iranian officials have at least discussed reviving a Cold War-era program involving trained dolphins capable of carrying mines toward enemy ships.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine appeared unfamiliar with the claim, reacting with a laugh when asked about it. 

IRAN HOLDS WORLD ENERGY HOSTAGE WITH 'NIGHTMARE' STRAIT OF HORMUZ SEA MINES, FORMER CENTCOM OFFICIAL WARNS

"I haven't heard the kamikaze dolphin thing. It's like sharks with laser beams, right?" he said, referencing the fictional weapon from the "Austin Powers" films.

U.S. military dolphins have been used in combat before — but not as weapons. During the Iraq War, Navy-trained dolphins were deployed to the Persian Gulf to help clear mines from the port of Umm Qasr, using their natural sonar to locate and mark underwater explosives so divers could neutralize them.

The U.S. Navy has long trained marine mammals for missions such as detecting underwater mines and tracking divers, and Soviet programs during the Cold War experimented with more offensive uses.

Iran reportedly acquired dolphins from a former Soviet program in 2000, though there is no confirmed evidence such capabilities are active today.

Military dolphins are trained to detect and mark threats, not strike them — and unlike guided weapons, they cannot be directed in real time once deployed.

The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most heavily trafficked maritime choke points, would make such a tactic especially difficult to execute, given the volume of commercial and military traffic moving through the narrow passage.

The speculation comes amid heightened tensions in the region, where Iran has historically relied on asymmetric tactics such as naval mines, drones and fast-attack boats to threaten shipping.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/dxi4rqU