Tag: iran

NED leader cut off in Congress after boasting of ‘deploying’ 200 Starlinks to Iran amid violence

The National Endowment for Democracy’s president, Damon Wilson, bragged to a House committee of his group’s aggressive efforts to spark unrest in Iran, including by smuggling Starlink terminals and fashioning anti-Iran narratives for the media.

Damon Wilson, the head of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was interrupted by a member of Congress during a House oversight hearing on February 24 after revealing that his agency “began supporting the deployment [and] operation of about 200 Starlinks early on” amid the violence which swept through Iran last month.

Before he could finish the sentence, he was cut off by the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Rep. Lois Frankel, who told Wilson: “You know what, I’m going to interrupt you – we’d better not talk about it.”

Wilson’s comments had been prompted by a question from Frankel, who requested details of what appears to be a new and apparently secret initiative by the State Department to provide Starlink terminals to Iranians.

Wilson appeared to take credit for both the recent unrest and Iran and subsequent media framing of the chaos. “What we’re seeing today, the Endowment has been making investments over years that have ensured that there have been secure communications, including Starlinks… that allowed information to go both in and out of the country,” he stated.

According to the New York Times, the Elon Musk-produced internet systems had been smuggled into the country by a “ragtag network of activists, developers and engineers [who] pierced Iran’s digital barricades.” It is clear now that the NED was at least partly responsible for funding and coordinating that network.

With Starlink emerging as a key weapon in the information war waged against Iran, it’s unclear how anti-government actors have managed to smuggle the devices into the country. But a recent incident in which a senior Dutch diplomat was caught trying to sneak multiple Starlink units and satellite phones through security at Iran’s Imam Khomeini Airport gives a hint.

The National Endowment for Democracy was founded in 1982 under the auspices of then-CIA Director William Casey to topple socialist and independent governments through the direct sponsorship of NGO’s, media organizations and political parties. “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” NED co-founder Allen Weinstein said of the Endowment’s work in 1991. 

Despite its mission of promoting transparency and “fundamental freedoms” abroad, the NED is now a dark money group which conceals the names of its local partners under a “duty of care” policy announced in 2025. During his congressional testimony this February, Wilson insisted the policy was necessary for the security of grantees on the ground.

The NED’s work to smuggle Starlink terminals into Iran is therefore a covert operation aimed at promoting unrest. And according to Wilson, it is now a key part of the Endowment’s most aggressive initiative.

Keep reading

Trump Claims Iran Developing Missiles To Hit US, Contradicting Intel Reports

With nuclear talks hanging in the balance, and the potential for yet another US war of choice in the Middle East, President Donald Trump escalated the rhetoric Tuesday night, warning that Iran is moving beyond just regional missile capabilities and setting its sights farther west by developing missiles capable of hitting the United States.

During his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Trump claimed, “They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.”

It seemed a transparent attempt to make the American people believe they are under direct threat from Tehran, in order to justify potential near-future strikes, however flimsy the case might be. So far Washington’s main talking point has been that Iran simply can never have a nuclear weapon and so something has to be done – and this actually does resonate with some sectors of the American public.

But Tehran setting its sites on directly attacking the US homeland is a huge stretch, with no serious analyst so much as suggesting the Islamic Republic has the capability or is even close.

US intelligence assessments have been very conservative on this. For example, in 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stated that Iran could potentially field a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”

Given US intelligence also has not concluded that such a decision had been made, this means Iran is likely at least a decade away from even being close to possessing such an ultra long range missile.

The US mainland is some 6000 miles away from western Iran, and currently Iran’s longest range missile is said to reach just under 1900 miles – a huge gap.

Iran’s ballistic missile focus has always been developing with an eye on the country’s number one nemesis in the region: Israel. 

There’s a broad understanding even among the Western public that in reality Washington’s anti-Iran stance has much more to do with defending Israel than the US homeland, which is clearly not under immediate threat from Tehran. There’s not so much as been a terror attack carried out by a single Iranian Shia operative on American soil in all of history.

Keep reading

Another Undeclared Unconstitutional War?

From the New York Times this morning:

In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.

The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The ultimate decision on scope of targets is largely up to Mr. Trump, U.S. officials said.

Strangely, nowhere in this article is it mentioned that U.S. military attacks on Iran legally require a Congressional declaration of war. Apparently, it’s all up to Mr. Trump and Israel whether Iran gets hammered soon.

We the people have absolutely no say. The U.S. Constitution simply doesn’t matter.

Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. national security. There is no clear and present danger; no defensible reason to launch yet another attack on Iran. Yet it seems those attacks will soon be coming, as long as Israel has something to say about this (and that country most certainly does).

Why war with Iran? Apparently for “regime change,” apparently for the oil, and apparently for Israel.

A diplomatic settlement appears to be a long shot here. Perhaps more like a “Hail Mary” pass.

No matter how unconstitutional, no matter how unnecessary to national defense, war always seems to find a way. I sure hope I’m wrong here.

Keep reading

War Propaganda and Iran: The Exact Script Used for Every Failed US War Is Hauled Out Again

When President Lyndon B. Johnson decided in 1965 to significantly increase the number of American troops to fight the growing war in Vietnam, he felt obligated to justify this major escalation to the American people (this was from a quaint, obsolete era when Washington believed public support was mildly important for starting or escalating American wars). On April 7 of that year, Johnson went to Johns Hopkins University to present his definitive case for why the U.S. must fight a war on the other side of the world, against a country that had not attacked and could not meaningfully threaten the U.S.

Johnson presented the American war as one of benevolence, selflessness, and a noble desire to liberate the world’s oppressed peoples from a uniquely murderous, tyrannical regime. “Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change,” Johnson proclaimed. He compared American motives in Vietnam to those of the freedom-craving American Founders who waged the Revolutionary War to liberate themselves from the British Crown: ”This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.”

While Johnson invoked some geo-political justifications, he emphasized that the U.S. was deploying and putting at risk tens of thousands of young American soldiers in Vietnam simply because we wanted to help the Vietnamese people be free. “We want nothing for ourselves — only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way,” Johnson said.

Central to this propagandistic narrative was the repeated parading around by the American media of a handful of South Vietnamese activists with deep connections to the West. These camera-ready “natives” assured Americans that the Vietnamese people — on whose behalf they claimed to speak — desperately craved American invasion and bombing of their country in order to liberate them. Individuals like Phan Quang Da, a Harvard-educated physician, and CIA-fronted groups, like The American Friends of Vietnam, were used as battering rams against American opponents of the war to accuse them of being indifferent, even contemptuous, of the desire of the Vietnamese people to have the U.S. military free the population. “The Vietnamese people are asking for this, but you do not care about them,” was the refrain war opponents invariably confronted.

Keep reading

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Don’t Join ‘Em

2026 marks yet another year Americans find themselves watching Washington and its media surrogates prepare the country for war in the Middle East. Speaking on Iran, President Donald Trump said that “either we reach a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough.” He has deployed what he called a “massive armada” to the region and insisted that Iran has only a month to capitulate or face a “very difficult time.” His demands no longer focus solely on the nuclear program; Trump now insists on ending all uranium enrichment, severing Tehran’s ties to regional militias, and placing strict limits on Iran’s ballistic‑missile stockpile. He said a fair agreement would mean “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” Such conditions, issued by a nation with an arsenal of its own, amount to complete disarmament and have led observers to conclude that the administration is setting Iran up to fail so it can justify another round of attacks. Last June he authorized the bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities, yet he now argues that more force will be needed if Tehran refuses to accept total capitulation.

Hard‑line commentators have joined the chorus. Conservative media host Mark Levin spoke gleefully about the United States organizing a major attack on Iran and that “this regime must be destroyed,” even issuing a direct threat to Iran’s supreme leader. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted similar maximalist rhetoric. Netanyahu has signaled he favors the use of force to topple Iran’s government or at least cripple its missile defenses and that he and his advisors believe Washington should exploit Iran’s recent unrest to end the Islamic Republic’s 47‑year rule. At a February conference he demanded that all enriched uranium be removed from Iran and that any deal include dismantlement of enrichment infrastructure and resolution of the “ballistic‑missile issue” – conditions that would leave Iran defenseless. Tehran has said its ballistic‑missile program is a “firmly established” part of its deterrence and not open for negotiation, but Trump echoed Netanyahu’s stance, saying a fair deal means “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” These extreme and shifting demands appear less about arms control than about engineering an impasse that can be used to rationalize war.

Keep reading

Trump says he is ‘considering’ a limited military strike to pressure Iran into nuclear deal

President Donald Trump said Friday he is “considering” a limited military strike on Iran to pressure its leaders into a deal over its nuclear program.

“I guess I can say, I am considering that,” Trump said at a breakfast with governors at the White House, after being asked by a reporter, “Are you considering a limited military strike to pressure Iran into a deal?”

The president on Thursday suggested the window for a breakthrough is narrowing, indicating Iran has no more than “10, 15 days, pretty much maximum” to reach an agreement.

“We’re either going to get a deal, or it’s going to be unfortunate for them,” he said.

Keep reading

Iranian Spies Busted: Three Silicon Valley Engineers Charged with Stealing Google Trade Secrets and Funneling Data to Tehran

A federal grand jury has indicted three engineers for stealing hundreds of confidential files from Google and other tech giants, then smuggling the sensitive data to Iran.

The defendants, Samaneh Ghandali, 41, a U.S. citizen; her sister Soroor Ghandali, 32, an Iranian national on a student visa; and Samaneh’s husband Mohammadjavad Khosravi, 40, an Iranian national and legal permanent resident, were all residents of San Jose at the time of the theft.

Samaneh and Soroor previously worked at Google before joining another unnamed tech firm, while Khosravi, a former member of the Iranian army, was employed at a developer of system-on-chip (SoC) platforms, such as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon series used in high-end Android phones and Apple’s iPhones.

Charged with conspiracy to commit trade secret theft, theft, and attempted theft of trade secrets, and obstruction of justice, the trio allegedly exploited their insider access to steal processor security, cryptography materials, and Snapdragon SoC hardware architecture secrets that serve as valuable intel not readily available to competitors.

The trio routed the files through third-party platforms like Telegram, copied them to personal devices, and even photographed computer screens to dodge digital monitoring.

In a particularly brazen move, just before Samaneh and Khosravi jetted off to Iran in December 2023, she snapped photos of his work screen displaying company secrets.

While in Iran, devices linked to them accessed this pilfered info.

Google caught wind of the scheme in August 2023 when internal security flagged Samaneh’s suspicious activity, leading to her access being revoked.

Keep reading

The US is on the brink of a major new war that Trump has not even bothered explaining

President Trump has spent two months ordering a rapidly expanding and now-massive military buildup near Iran, with a focus on the Persian Gulf and nearby permanent U.S. military bases in close proximity to Iran (Iran, of course, has no military bases anywhere near the U.S.). The deployment includes aircraft carriers and other assets that would enable, at a minimum, an extremely destructive air campaign against the whole country.

The U.S. under both parties has been insisting for two decades that it must abandon its heavy military involvement in the Middle East and instead “pivot to Asia” in light of a rapidly rising China. Yet in the midst of those vows, Trump has now assembled the largest military presence in the Middle East since 2003, when the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq with overwhelming military force.

One of the most striking and alarming aspects of all of this is that Trump — outside of a few off-the-cuff banalities — has barely attempted to offer a case to the American public as to why such a major new war is necessary. This unilateral march to war resembles what we saw in the lead-up to the bombing of Venezuelan boats, culminating in the U.S. invading force that abducted (“arrested”) the country’s President, Nicolas Maduro, and took him and his wife to a prison in New York.

In the weeks preceding the Venezuela operation, we heard a carousel of rationales. It was all necessary to stop the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. We needed to free the repressed Venezuelan peoples from their dictator. Trump’s embrace and expansion of the Monroe Doctrine — now dubbed the Donroe Doctrine — meant that we cannot tolerate communist regimes in “our region.”

But as soon as Maduro was removed, all of those claims disappeared. Contrary to the expectations of many, the U.S. left in place Maduro’s entire regime rather than replacing it with the pro-US opposition (a wise move of restraint in my view, but one that negates the “liberation” rhetoric). Discussions of the drug trade from Venezuela (a source of drugs for the U.S. that was always minor if not trivial, and did not include fentanyl) have completely disappeared. The only real outcome seems to be that the U.S. has more control over that nation’s oil supply, and barrels of it are now being shipped to Israel for the first time in many years.

In sum, we were given a low-effort smorgasbord to enable supporters of Trump’s actions toward Venezuela to mount arguments in favor of the operation, but there was no systematic attempt to convince the country at large. There was not even a live television address to the nation beforehand to explain it. And the role that Congress played was close to non-existent. All of that is similar to what we are seeing now concerning a far riskier, more dangerous, and complex war with Iran.

Keep reading

UK Denies American Use Of Diego Garcia And RAF Fairford For Iran Attacks

The United Kingdom has reportedly refused U.S. requests to utilize key military facilities—RAF Fairford in England and the joint U.S.-U.K. base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean—for any potential strikes against Iran. This decision, driven by concerns over possible breaches of international law, has sparked tensions between Washington and London.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has withheld permission for American forces to operate from these bases in support of preemptive or offensive actions against Iran. Government sources indicate that London views participation in such strikes—particularly without clear legal justification—as risking violations of international norms, which do not distinguish between direct aggressors and those providing knowing support.

The refusal comes amid heightened U.S.-Iran tensions over Tehran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities. President Donald Trump highlighted the strategic importance of these sites in a Wednesday post on Truth Social, stating: “Should Iran decide not to make a deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia and the airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous regime.” He further warned that such an attack could target not only the U.S. but also allies like the United Kingdom, according to reports from The Times and other outlets.

Keep reading

Senators Talk Digital Freedom for Iran While Expanding Surveillance at Home

Three US senators want federal funding to help Iranians bypass censorship and access VPNs. The same three senators have spent years supporting the surveillance systems that track Americans online.

We obtained a copy of their letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio for you here.

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), James Lankford (R-OK), and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) are backing funding for anti-censorship technology and virtual private networks abroad.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), whose privacy record is largely clean, is also supporting the effort. The bipartisan coalition wants to help people circumvent government internet controls. Just not the American government’s internet controls.

Graham’s voting record reads like a blueprint for the surveillance state he claims to oppose overseas. He voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and has supported every major expansion since. When Section 702 of FISA came up for reauthorization, Graham backed it. When Congress considered making Section 702 permanent in 2017 with no sunset clauses and no congressional review, Graham backed that too.

His encryption stance is just as consistent. Graham co-sponsored the EARN IT Act in 2020, which would pressure platforms to weaken encryption to avoid liability.

He also backed the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data (LAED) Act, a bill that would require companies to build backdoors into their security systems. VPNs work because of encryption. Graham has spent years trying to break it.

He’s also pushed to repeal Section 230 protections and supported requiring government licenses for companies offering AI tools. When surveillance mechanisms he championed caught his own communications, Graham complained. Privacy for senators. Mass surveillance for everyone else.

Lankford introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act, which removed restrictions on political speech by religious and nonprofit organizations. That same senator has backed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which will likely require platforms to implement age verification and give regulators the power to pressure companies into removing content.

He called for Section 230 to be “ripped up” and backed a national strategy against antisemitism that includes government coordination on speech. When Edward Snowden revealed the scope of NSA surveillance, Lankford branded him a traitor for telling the public what their government was doing.

Keep reading