The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump warned that Iran is working to build missiles that could “soon reach the United States of America,” elevating concerns about a weapons program that already places U.S. forces across the Middle East within range.

Iran does not currently possess a missile capable of striking the U.S. homeland, officials say. But its existing ballistic missile arsenal can target major American military installations in the Gulf, and U.S. officials say the issue has emerged as a key sticking point in ongoing nuclear negotiations.

Here’s what Iran can hit now — and how close it is to reaching the U.S.

What Iran can hit right now

Iran is widely assessed by Western defense analysts to operate the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East. Its arsenal consists primarily of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with ranges of up to roughly 2,000 kilometers — about 1,200 miles.

That range places a broad network of U.S. military infrastructure across the Gulf within reach.

Among the installations inside that envelope:

IRAN SIGNALS NUCLEAR PROGRESS IN GENEVA AS TRUMP CALLS FOR FULL DISMANTLEMENT

• Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command.
• Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home to the U.S. 5th Fleet.
• Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, a major Army logistics and command hub.
• Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, used by U.S. Air Force units.
• Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
• Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.
• Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, which hosts U.S. aircraft.

U.S. forces have drawn down from some regional positions in recent months, including the transfer of Al Asad Air Base in Iraq back to Iraqi control earlier in 2026. But major Gulf installations remain within the range envelope of Iran’s current missile inventory.

Multiple U.S. officials told Fox News that staffing at the Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain has been reduced to “mission critical” levels amid heightened tensions. A separate U.S. official disputed that characterization, saying no ordered departure of personnel or dependents has been issued.

At the same time, the U.S. has surged significant naval and air assets into and around the region in recent days. 

The USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group is operating in the Arabian Sea alongside multiple destroyers, while additional destroyers are positioned in the eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group is also headed toward the region. U.S. Air Force fighter aircraft — including F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and A-10s — are based across Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, supported by aerial refueling tankers, early warning aircraft and surveillance platforms, according to a recent Fox News military briefing.

Iran has demonstrated its willingness to use ballistic missiles against U.S. targets before.

In January 2020, following the U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. positions in Iraq. Dozens of American service members were later diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries.

That episode underscored the vulnerability of forward-deployed forces within reach of Iran’s missile arsenal.

 Can Iran reach Europe?

Most publicly known Iranian missile systems are assessed to have maximum ranges of around 2,000 kilometers. 

Depending on launch location, that could place parts of southeastern Europe — including Greece, Bulgaria and Romania — within potential reach. The U.S. has some 80,000 troops stationed across Europe, including in all three of these countries.

Reaching deeper into Europe would require longer-range systems than Iran has publicly demonstrated as operational.

Can Iran hit the US?

IRAN NEARS CHINA ANTI-SHIP SUPERSONIC MISSILE DEAL AS US CARRIERS MASS IN REGION: REPORT

Iran does not currently field an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the U.S. homeland.

To reach the U.S. East Coast, a missile would need a range of roughly 10,000 kilometers — far beyond Iran’s known operational capability.

However, U.S. intelligence agencies have warned that Iran’s space launch vehicle program could provide the technological foundation for a future long-range missile.

In a recent threat overview, the Defense Intelligence Agency stated that Iran “has space launch vehicles it could use to develop a militarily-viable ICBM by 2035 should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”

That assessment places any potential Iranian intercontinental missile capability roughly a decade away — and contingent on a political decision by Tehran.

U.S. officials and defense analysts have pointed in particular to Iran’s recent space launches, including rockets such as the Zuljanah, which use solid-fuel propulsion. Solid-fuel motors can be stored and launched more quickly than liquid-fueled rockets — a feature that is also important for military ballistic missiles.

Space launch vehicles and long-range ballistic missiles rely on similar multi-stage rocket technology. Analysts say advances in Iran’s space program could shorten the pathway to an intercontinental-range missile if Tehran chose to adapt that technology for military use.

For now, however, Iran has not deployed an operational ICBM, and the U.S. homeland remains outside the reach of its current ballistic missile arsenal.

US missile defenses — capable but finite

The U.S. relies on layered missile defense systems — including Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot and ship-based interceptors — to protect forces and allies from ballistic missile threats across the Middle East.

These systems are technically capable, but interceptor inventories are finite.

During the June 2025 Iran-Israel missile exchange, U.S. forces reportedly fired more than 150 THAAD interceptors — roughly a quarter of the total the Pentagon had funded to date, according to defense analysts.

The economics also highlight the imbalance: open-source estimates suggest Iranian short-range ballistic missiles can cost in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, while advanced U.S. interceptors such as THAAD run roughly $12 million or more per missile.

Precise inventory levels are classified. But experts who track Pentagon procurement data warn that replenishing advanced interceptors can take years, meaning a prolonged, high-intensity missile exchange could strain stockpiles even if U.S. defenses remain effective.

Missile program complicates negotiations

The ballistic missile issue has also emerged as a key fault line in ongoing diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Iran’s refusal to negotiate limits on its ballistic missile program is “a big problem,” signaling that the administration views the arsenal as central to long-term regional security.

While current negotiations are focused primarily on Iran’s nuclear program and uranium enrichment activities, U.S. officials have argued that delivery systems — including ballistic missiles — cannot be separated from concerns about a potential nuclear weapon.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Iranian officials, however, have insisted their missile program is defensive in nature and not subject to negotiation as part of nuclear-focused talks.

As diplomacy continues, the strategic reality remains clear: Iran cannot currently strike the U.S. homeland with a ballistic missile. But U.S. forces across the Middle East remain within range of Tehran’s existing arsenal — and future capabilities remain a subject of intelligence concern.

Related Article

At a time when so many forces seem to be dividing us as a nation, it is tragic that President Trump seeks to co-opt or destroy whatever remaining threads unite us.

I refer, of course, to the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team winning gold: the kind of victory that normally causes Americans to forget their differences and instead focus on something wholesome, like chanting “USA” while mispronouncing the names of the European players we defeated before taking on Canada.

This should have been pure civic oxygen. Instead, we got video of Kash Patel pounding beers with the players — which is not illegal, but does make you wonder whether the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a desk somewhere with neglected paperwork that might hold the answers to the D.B. Cooper mystery.

Then came the presidential phone call to the men’s team, during which Trump joked about having to invite the women’s team to the State of the Union, too, or risk impeachment — the sort of sexist humor that lands best if you’re a 79-year-old billionaire and not a 23-year-old athlete wondering whether C-SPAN is recording. (The U.S. women’s hockey team also brought home the gold this year, also after beating Canada. The White House invited the women to the State of the Union, and they declined.)

It’s hard to blame the players on the men’s team who were subjected to Trump’s joke. They didn’t invite this. They’re not Muhammad Ali taking a principled stand against Vietnam, or Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising fists for Black power at the Olympics in 1968, or even Colin Kaepernick protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. They’re just hockey bros who survived a brutal game and were suddenly confronted with two of the most powerful figures in the federal government — and a cooler full of beer.

When the FBI director wants to hang, you don’t say, “Sorry, sir, we have a team curfew.” And when the president calls, you definitely don’t say, “Can you hold? We’re trying to remain serious, bipartisan and chivalrous.” Under those circumstances, most agreeable young men would salute, smile and try to skate past it.

But symbolism matters. If the team becomes perceived as a partisan mascot, then the victory stops belonging to the country and starts belonging to a faction. That would be bad for everyone, including the team, because politics is the fastest way to turn something fun into something divisive.

And Trump’s meddling with the medal winners didn’t end after his call. It continued during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, when Trump spent six minutes honoring the team, going so far as to announce that he would award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to goalie Connor Hellebuyck.

To be sure, presidents have always tried to bask in reflected glory. The main difference with Trump, as always, is scale. He doesn’t just associate himself with popular institutions; he absorbs them in the popular mind.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out with evangelical Christianity, law enforcement, the nation of Israel and various cultural symbols. Once something gets labeled as “Trump-adjacent,” millions of Americans are drawn to it. However, millions of other Americans recoil from it, which is not healthy for institutions that are supposed to serve everyone. (And what happens to those institutions when Trump is replaced by someone from the opposing party?)

Meanwhile, our culture keeps splitting into niche markets. Heck, this year’s Super Bowl necessitated two separate halftime shows to accommodate our divided political and cultural worldviews. In the past, this would have been deemed both unnecessary and logistically impossible.

But today, absent a common culture, entertainment companies micro-target via demographics. Many shows code either right or left — rural or urban. The success of the western drama “Yellowstone,” which spawned imitators such as “Ransom Canyon” on Netflix, demonstrates the success of appealing to MAGA-leaning viewers. Meanwhile, most “prestige” TV shows skew leftward. The same cultural divides now exist among comedians and musicians and in almost every aspect of American life.

None of this was caused by Trump — technology (cable news, the internet, the iPhone) made narrowcasting possible — but he weaponized it for politics. And whereas most modern politicians tried to build broad majorities the way broadcast TV once chased ratings — by offending as few people as possible — Trump came not to bring peace but division.

Now, unity isn’t automatically virtuous. North Korea is unified. So is a cult. Americans are supposed to disagree — it’s practically written into the Constitution. Disagreement is baked into our national identity like free speech and complaining about taxes.

But a functioning republic needs a few shared experiences that aren’t immediately sorted into red and blue bins. And when Olympic gold medals get drafted into the culture wars, that’s when you know we’re running out of common ground.

You might think conservatives — traditionally worried about social cohesion and anomie — would lament this erosion of a mainstream national identity. Instead, they keep supporting the political equivalent of a lawn mower aimed at the delicate fabric of our nation.

So here we are. The state of the union is divided. But how long can a house divided against itself stand?

We are, as they say, skating on thin ice.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”