State Department offering up to $10M for information leading to locating Iran regime officials - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

"Got information on these Iranian terrorist leaders? Send us a tip. It could make you eligible for a reward and relocation," read the post on social media about the bounty.

 

The State Department is offering a reward of up to $10 million for information that leads to locating 10 key regime leaders, including Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

Khamenei’s deputy chief of staff, Ali Asghar Hejazi, Iranian national security official Ali Larijani and Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni are also on the list.

"Got information on these Iranian terrorist leaders? Send us a tip. It could make you eligible for a reward and relocation," read the post on social media about the bounty. 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/state-department-offering-10m-information-leading-locating-iran-regime

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump’s Iran War Strategy: Precision Strikes, Clear Objectives, and a Swift Return to Peace - Fred Fleitz

 

by Fred Fleitz

Trump’s Iran campaign follows the America First formula: crush the nuclear threat, keep U.S. troops out, finish the mission quickly, and end the war before it becomes another endless quagmire.

 

President Donald Trump campaigned on ending endless wars, not starting them. Just over a year into his second term, he is delivering this on his terms. The U.S.–Israeli 2026 military campaign against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which began following Iran’s reckless provocations in the wake of the 12-Day War, has already achieved its strategic goals. With only a small number of remaining nuclear facilities left to neutralize and the Strait of Hormuz on track to be fully secured within the coming weeks, the United States stands ready to proclaim mission accomplished and swiftly conclude major combat operations.

This means no quagmire. No U.S. troops on the ground. No forever war. Just decisive action, goals met, and a return to peace on America’s terms. This is President Trump’s America First approach to U.S. national security in full effect: strength that deters, precision attacks that succeed, and the wisdom to know when the job is done.

Let’s be clear about what the United States set out to do in Operation Epic Fury. The main objective is to eliminate Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons. Other top objectives are preventing Iran from creating a “missile shield” to protect its nuclear weapons development, deterring future aggression against our allies, and restoring U.S. deterrence after years of weakness under the Biden administration.

The military campaign is also designed to open a rare, historic window—one in which the Iranian people themselves can finally reclaim their nation from the grip of their repressive, radical Islamist regime. Should they succeed, the result would mark a huge gain for security and stability in the Middle East and around the world.

The United States will stand firmly beside the Iranian people in their pursuit of liberty once the fighting ends. But the decisive step must come from within: the Iranian people themselves must rise up and overthrow the murderous government that has oppressed them for so long.

The heavy lifting is already done. During the 2025 12-Day War and the 2026 war, U.S. and Israeli forces dismantled the heart of Iran’s program: the underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the deeply buried enrichment facility at Fordow, key production buildings at Isfahan, a heavy-water reactor at Arak, a covert weapons-development compound at Minzadehei, and labs doing nuclear weapons research at the Lavisan 2 complex.

Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity has been completely shattered. The specialized facilities needed to convert enriched uranium hexafluoride gas from centrifuges into metallic form—essential for fashioning nuclear warheads—have been obliterated. Moreover, the small number of incomplete, unfueled nuclear devices that Iran is believed to have kept hidden in deeply buried bunkers has almost certainly been destroyed as well.

Rebuilding Iran’s nuclear program will prove extraordinarily challenging, as its infrastructure relied on components and materials smuggled into the country over many years. Compounding this, a significant portion of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists have been killed. Consequently, Iran’s breakout time to a bomb—once measured in weeks—will now take years, if not decades.

No U.S. Boots on the Ground in Iran

Some pundits are pressing the Trump administration to send special forces into Iran to recover the 9–10 weapons’ worth of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium (in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas) produced during the Biden administration. This would be a grave error and an unnecessarily risky mission—I very much doubt President Trump would order this.

I strongly oppose deploying U.S. ground troops to Iran except in cases of extreme, immediate necessity—such as rescuing a downed American pilot or responding to a direct, imminent threat to U.S. personnel.

The notion of deploying U.S. ground troops to dig through the rubble of bombed nuclear sites in search of surviving enriched uranium stockpiles is fundamentally misguided. Any remaining material is almost certainly either destroyed outright, scattered and irretrievable, or entombed beneath massive debris—none of which would be readily usable for weapons without extensive additional processing that Iran no longer has the capacity to perform.

Risking American lives for such a speculative, low-probability, and low-impact objective is neither necessary nor defensible. Precision airstrikes and other standoff operations have already delivered devastating, long-term setbacks to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Protecting U.S. personnel should take precedence over chasing such uncertain, marginal gains when the strategic mission has already been decisively achieved.

Finishing the Job

This week, the U.S. and Israel are reportedly finishing off Iran’s few remaining nuclear weapons sites. This includes the Taleghan 2 and Parchin nuclear weaponization sites. I believe, over the coming week, the U.S. is likely to target two additional high-value nuclear-linked sites that reportedly have not been attacked: the deeply buried Pickaxe Mountain facility near Natanz and the reinforced underground tunnel complex at Isfahan. These could be struck using advanced bunker-buster munitions to ensure the destruction of hardened underground structures.

The United States faces just a handful of key remaining objectives in Operation Epic Fury, with securing the Strait of Hormuz standing out as the primary one. The U.S. Navy possesses strong, efficient mine countermeasures that can rapidly clear the strait if mining escalates—though current reports indicate only limited mines have been laid so far, with many Iranian minelaying vessels already destroyed preemptively.

The more time-intensive challenge involves neutralizing Iran’s other asymmetric threats, including drone swarms, short-range missiles, and small fast-attack boats. Suppressing these layered dangers will require sustained air superiority, targeted strikes, and possibly convoy escorts, but military assessments suggest this can be achieved effectively within the next couple of weeks.

Once these non-mine threats are adequately degraded and the strait is open to safe commercial transit, U.S. strategic goals—dismantling Iran’s missile arsenal, naval capabilities, nuclear pathways, and proxy threats—will have been decisively accomplished, clearing the way for a swift wind-down of major combat operations.

Operation Epic Fury Is America First, Not a Forever War

The critics of the administration are already sounding the alarm about a “forever war.” They’re missing the bigger picture entirely.

President Trump has consistently rejected nation-building schemes and indefinite military entanglements. He recognizes that once the nuclear threat from Iran is fully eliminated, the strategic rationale for the war has been met.

Iran’s conventional missile arsenal has been significantly weakened. Its proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are in disarray. The regime’s economy is collapsing under the weight of the maximum-pressure sanctions Trump reinstated from day one of his term. Tehran finds itself increasingly isolated, besieged, and fractured from within.

Prolonging operations beyond the essential nuclear mission would simply hand the mullahs the propaganda win they desperately need while squandering American resources that are far better directed toward securing our borders, rebuilding our armed forces, and strengthening the U.S. economy.

This is classic Trump: maximum pressure, minimum footprint, and a clear exit ramp. He did it with ISIS—destroyed the caliphate in record time and refused to stay for endless occupation. He is doing it again here. The same deal-making instinct that brought North Korea to the table and forced NATO allies to pay their fair share will now be applied to the post-strike environment. Once the U.S. finishes off the last Iranian nuclear site, Trump will pivot to deterrence enforcement through sanctions, naval presence in the Gulf, and quiet back-channel messages: “You’re done. Stay down, or the next strike will be even harder.” No boots on the ground in Iran. No trillion-dollar reconstruction. Just peace through overwhelming strength.

The American people elected Donald Trump to put America first. That means defeating threats decisively and then refocusing on home. The Iranian nuclear program—once the single greatest proliferation danger on Earth—will soon be a smoking ruin. The mission will be accomplished. And under President Trump, that means the war ends because we are wise enough to know when we have won.

The mullahs gambled on American hesitation. They lost. Now the world will watch as Trump does what he does best: finish the job, declare victory, and move on to make America greater than ever.

* * *

Fred Fleitz previously served as National Security Council chief of staff, a CIA analyst, and a House Intelligence Committee staff member. He is the vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security. He is the author of “North Korea, Nuclear Brinkmanship, and the Oval Office,” to be released by Texas A&M Press on April 7, 2026.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/13/trumps-iran-war-strategy-precision-strikes-clear-objectives-and-a-swift-return-to-peace/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Spain's Pedro Sánchez and His Extremist Problem - Pierre Rehov

by Pierre Rehov

Sánchez's posture is hardly accidental. It flows directly from the fragile coalition that props up his Socialist Party government. To remain in office, he depends on the even further-left Podemos, a party born of radical activism...

 

• "Spain, as you know, does not have nuclear bombs... We alone cannot stop the Israeli offensive." Critics rightly interpreted the remark as a chilling admission that if Spain did have nuclear bombs, it would have used them against Israel. That a European head of government uttered such a threat against the Middle East's only democracy speaks volumes about the moral rot at the heart of Sánchez's government.

• Sánchez's posture is hardly accidental. It flows directly from the fragile coalition that props up his Socialist Party government. To remain in office, he depends on the even further-left Podemos, a party born of radical activism...

• A former high-ranking Venezuelan official cooperating with America's DEA has confirmed that Caracas and Tehran coordinated efforts to fund emerging radical-left forces in Europe, with Podemos as a prime target. The goal: weaken Western alliances from within by nurturing anti-American, anti-Israeli voices.

• A European government that blocks a vital operation against Iran while maintaining alliances with movements historically tied to Iranian and Venezuelan influence networks has placed itself outside the democratic consensus.

• When a NATO member obstructs action against a regime sworn to the destruction of America and Israel, the question is no longer whether influence exists. The question is how far it reaches — and how much damage it has already done and is planning to do.

"Spain, as you know, does not have nuclear bombs... We alone cannot stop the Israeli offensive." Critics rightly interpreted Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's remark as a chilling admission that if Spain did have nuclear bombs, it would have used them against Israel. That a European head of government uttered such a threat against the Middle East's only democracy speaks volumes about the moral rot at the heart of Sánchez's government. Pictured: Sánchez (center) in Palos de la Frontera, Spain on March 6, 2026. (Photo by Cristina Quicler/AFP via Getty Images)

When the United States and Israel launched their joint operation against the Iranian regime this month, the geopolitical map of the Middle East shifted within hours. Iran's leadership, strategic targets, command centers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ballistic missile launchers and nuclear facilities have been targeted in coordinated strikes aimed at dismantling Tehran's terror machine.

Yet there have been unexpected obstacles — not in Tehran, but in Madrid. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government flatly refused to authorize the use of Spanish airspace or the joint bases at Rota and Morón for American forces. For decades, these installations have been vital logistical hubs for US military operations in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. This time, Madrid said no.

President Donald Trump reacted with fury, warning of serious economic consequences for a NATO ally that chose to obstruct a critical operation against one of the world's most dangerous regimes. The White House message was blunt: when the US confronts a regime openly dedicated to America's destruction and which is responsible for decades of terrorism, "neutrality" is not neutrality — it is a political choice that aids the enemy.

Spain's refusal was no isolated incident. It was the logical climax of a long ideological trajectory that has turned the Sánchez government into one of the most hostile to the US and Israel in Europe.

Madrid's Growing Hostility Toward Israel

Under Sánchez, Spain has repeatedly accused Israel of "disproportionate" and even "genocidal" responses to Hamas while staying noticeably silent on Iran's central role in arming and directing this terrorist group. Spain has also championed diplomatic initiatives to isolate Israel internationally, tolerated and sometimes echoed BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) rhetoric, and blurred the line between policy criticism and outright hostility toward the Jewish state. Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that Madrid's language now mirrors narratives promoted not by democratic partners, but by regimes that openly call for Israel's elimination.

The hostility reached a new low in September 2025, when Sánchez announced a total arms embargo on Israel — banning all exports and imports of defense equipment and dual-use technology — and prohibited ships or aircraft carrying fuel or military material bound for Israel from using Spanish ports or airspace. In the same speech, he openly lamented Spain's military limitations: "Spain, as you know, does not have nuclear bombs... We alone cannot stop the Israeli offensive." Critics rightly interpreted the remark as a chilling admission that if Spain did have nuclear bombs, it would have used them against Israel. That a European head of government uttered such a threat against the Middle East's only democracy speaks volumes about the moral rot at the heart of Sánchez's government.

The Coalition That Keeps Sánchez in Power

Sánchez's posture is hardly accidental. It flows directly from the fragile coalition that props up his Socialist Party government. To remain in office, he depends on the even further-left Podemos, a party born of radical activism whose founders have long been entangled in troubling financial networks linked to regimes hostile to the West — in particular Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.

The Venezuela Connection: CEPS, Millions from Chávez and the Bolivarian Project in Europe

The epicenter of the links between Podemos and Venezuela is the Centro de Estudios Políticos y Sociales (CEPS), the foundation where key Podemos founders — Pablo Iglesias (responsible for strategic analysis), Juan Carlos Monedero, Íñigo Errejón and others —worked for years. CEPS openly advised leftist Latin American governments, including Chávez's Venezuela.

According to official records from Spain's Ministry of Culture (Registro de Fundaciones), CEPS received at least 3.7 million euros from the Venezuelan government between 2002 and 2012 — often representing over 80% of its annual income in certain years. Investigative reports and leaked documents (including one signed by Venezuelan Finance Minister Rafael Isea in 2008) push the total to 7.16 million euros between 2003 and 2011, earmarked for "advisory services," policy analysis, and — crucially — the promotion of the Bolivarian movement in Spain and Europe.

A former high-ranking Venezuelan official cooperating with America's DEA has confirmed that Caracas and Tehran coordinated efforts to fund emerging radical-left forces in Europe, with Podemos as a prime target. The goal: weaken Western alliances from within by nurturing anti-American, anti-Israeli voices.

Direct payments to individuals have also been alleged. UDEF investigations pointed to $272,325 allegedly paid to Pablo Iglesias in 2014 via an offshore account in the Grenadines linked to the Venezuelan regime (though these claims led to a 2025 Supreme Court ruling against OkDiario for defamation, the underlying financial patterns via CEPS remain undisputed). Other founders like Carolina Bescansa, Jorge Lago and Ariel Jerez reportedly received $142,000 through subcontracts tied to Venezuela's state-owned oil and gas company.

CEPS quietly ceased operations in 2016 amid mounting scrutiny. Podemos has consistently denied any illicit funding, instead framing the payments as legitimate consulting fees for academic and advisory work. Yet the scale, the timing (peaking just before Podemos' 2014 launch) and the beneficiaries raise unavoidable questions: was this mere intellectual exchange, or seed money for a political project designed to echo Venezuela's "anti-imperialist" rhetoric in the heart of the European Union?

The Venezuelan link is not isolated — it intersects directly with the Iranian network, forming a Caracas-Tehran axis that funneled resources to the same ecosystem.

The Deep Iranian Penetration: HispanTV, Millions in Cash, and a Propaganda Machine

The Iranian connection is structural and documented by multiple police investigations. The central vector was HispanTV, the Spanish-language propaganda channel created and fully funded by the Iranian regime to spread its narrative across Spain and Latin America. The Iranian businessman in charge of its Spanish operations, Mahmoud Alizadeh Azimi, also controlled the production company 360 Global Media (later renamed Ziba Talents).

According to reports, between 2012 and 2015 alone, approximately 9.3 million euros were injected from Iran into 360 Global Media through 16 shell companies suspected of money laundering. The funds arrived via 67 suspicious transfers, mostly routed through opaque jurisdictions to bypass sanctions. Police sources estimated that 25% of these Iranian funds — 2.4 million euros, or between 600,000 and 700,000 euros per year — was diverted to the "audiovisual communication network" of Podemos: direct payments to Pablo Iglesias, his closest collaborators, and the production companies they controlled.

Iglesias himself hosted and directed the flagship program Fort Apache on HispanTV. Official police figures: 93,000 euros paid to him personally between 2013 and 2015 through 23 separate transfers from the Iranian-linked company. Even more damning: in February 2025, new judicial documents revealed that Iglesias continued to invoice the same Iranian producer in 2016—12,600 euros in six payments between February and July—after he had already become a deputy in the Spanish Congress. The mechanism was as simple as it was effective: inflated invoices for "production services" that allowed Tehran to channel money discreetly to its European political allies.

Podemos has always denied any wrongdoing, calling the revelations "politically motivated smears" by the right. Yet no court has ever cleared the party of these massive financial flows. The pattern remains: millions of euros from the Iranian regime — and parallel flows from Venezuela — landed precisely in the pockets and production companies of the men who founded Podemos and who later became the kingmakers of the Sánchez government.

From Ideology to Foreign Policy

By the time Sánchez formed Spain's governing coalition, anti-American and anti-Israeli positions had moved from the fringes to the heart of government policy. Spain now frames its stance as "principled multilateralism" while displaying selective outrage: furious condemnation of Israel's self-defense, striking leniency toward the Iranian regime, and silence on Venezuela's dictatorship. The refusal to let American forces use Spanish bases during the current Iran operation is therefore not a sudden surprise — it was the predictable outcome of years of ideological and financial capture.

When Anti-Zionism Becomes Something Else

In parts of Europe's radical left, Israel is no longer merely criticized; it is portrayed as a uniquely illegitimate, colonial, genocidal entity. Within this worldview, Tehran's explicit calls for Israel's destruction were downplayed as mere rhetoric. Sánchez's nuclear weapons remark perfectly illustrates how anti-Zionism can slide into something far darker: the open fantasy of possessing weapons of mass destruction to coerce the Jewish state. When the prime minister of a NATO member state publicly regrets not having nuclear weapons to "stop Israel," the mask slips. What remains is not diplomacy, but a dangerous alignment with the eliminationist camp.

A Strategic Question for the Western Alliance

None of this proves direct corruption inside Sánchez's inner circle, but the convergence of ideological sympathy along with documented millions of euros from Tehran and Caracas flowing into his coalition partners' networks, and concrete policy decisions that undermine the West is impossible to ignore. A European government that blocks a vital operation against Iran while maintaining alliances with movements historically tied to Iranian and Venezuelan influence networks has placed itself outside the democratic consensus.

For the US, this is unacceptable. For Israel, it is alarming. For Europe, it raises a question that is actually existential: how deeply have the ideological and financial tentacles of Tehran and Caracas penetrated the continent's political class?

Spain's decision is more than a diplomatic spat. It reveals how far the shadow of the ayatollahs — and their Bolivarian allies — now stretches into the heart of the Western alliance.

When a NATO member obstructs action against a regime sworn to the destruction of America and Israel, the question is no longer whether influence exists. The question is how far it reaches — and how much damage it has already done and is planning to do.

Finally, frightened by the prospect of the measures promised by Trump, particularly regarding the threat of tariffs, the Sánchez government has temporarily abandoned ideology in favor of a provisional form of rationality: Spanish airspace — however late and, to borrow Trump's remarks, "after we've already won" — is once again open to US forces.

Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22340/spain-sanchez-extremist-problem

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Drones are a ‘rapidly evolving’ threat to U.S., and developing countermeasures poses challenges - Kevin Killough

 

by Kevin Killough

The Department of War has known for years that drones present a unique threat on the modern battlefield and for domestic security. Experts say that effective countermeasures require a "system of systems" approach, and some technologies are showing promise.

 

Iran’s Shahed-style drones each cost between $20,000 and $50,000, but they can do a lot of damage. Since the latest conflict began, Iran's drones have killed six members of the Army Reserve at a command center in Kuwait on Sunday, and Iranian drones have wreaked havoc on Middle East petroleum facilities. 

The FBI is now warning that Iranian drones potentially pose risks to targets in California. Some journalists in the legacy media are shocked to discover that the U.S. has limited capabilities to counter these destructive and lethal aerial devices. While it's true that neutralizing drone threats is difficult, it’s a problem the Department of War has been aware of and working to address since long before the conflict in Iran. 

Nearly twenty years ago

In 2007, Tom Rullman, president and CEO of GT Aeronautics, ended up sharing a cab ride with a two-star general in Washington, D.C. GT Aeronautics develops a variety of drones for commercial and defense purposes, and in 2006, it was developing a drone with air to ground capabilities, called a Bandito. The small devices have a wingspan of 16 inches, weigh less than two pounds, and fly at 200 miles per hour. 

During the chance encounter with the general, Rullman discussed the Bandito and showed him charts of the drone. The general was very interested in the technology and invited Rullman to brief the Air Force at the Pentagon on what his Banditos could do. 

A 'Bandito' is fired from a command center during a test in Southern California.

(Courtesy GT Aeronautics)

 

“There were like 40 generals in the room, and I had a 20-minute time slot. That brief turned into three hours,” Rullman told Just the News. Among the questions the generals asked Rullman was if his Banditos could be used to, say, attack the White House. 

“Absolutely,” Rullman told the generals. “We can launch a Bandito outside the window of a truck that's moving, do it 20 miles away and send it to a target on the ground.” 

That got the Pentagon’s attention. The government asked GT Aeronautics to help develop drones that could take out air targets. By 2009, Ruleman was flying Banditos out in the California desert near Point Mugu Naval Air Station and developing the systems that allow them to track targets.

A defining feature of modern warfare

Col. Guy Yelverton is a project manager for the U.S. Army’s counter-unmanned aircraft system (UAS) — what the military and FAA call drones. Yelverton said the Department of War is actively working to address the risk that drones are posing to U.S. troops. The U.S. military has seen a proliferation of low-cost adversarial drones in recent years, and they range from small, commercial-style drones to larger, more capable platforms. “They’re becoming a defining feature of modern warfare,” Yelverton told Just the News. 

These drones increase the ability of our adversaries, as well as “non-state actors,” to conduct reconnaissance, targeting and harassment with little risk to their own personnel, Yelverton said. 

“They can make a drone pretty cheaply and then hang something off of it that could do some damage,” Yelverton said. 

On the battlefield, adversaries’ use of drones provides them with persistent surveillance and enables rapid strokes. This presents a situation for U.S. troops where decision-making timelines are severely compressed. 

Unleashing American drone dominance

In his second term, President Donald Trump recognized the need for better counter-UAS technology. In June, he signed the “Unleashing American Drone Dominance” executive order. The order accelerates commercial drone technology development, but it also contains provisions to facilitate programs for counter-UAS development. 

In August, the Department of War established the Joint Interagency Task Force 401 (JIATF-401), which aims to rapidly deliver counter-UAS capabilities to the U.S. military. Yelverton, who is involved in the JIATF-401 program, has been working in counter-UAS capabilities for over two years. He said he’s in meetings every week at various levels of the Department of War that look at options. 

Members of Congress are also looking into the issue. In June, Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., toured the GT Aeronautics facilities at the Powell Municipal Airport in Powell, Wyoming. “It is great to see a company dedicated to producing remotely piloted and unmanned aircraft systems using 100% USA-made components,” Hageman said on X. 

The challenges of countering drones

Yelverton said there are three main challenges to developing effective systems to counter drone threats. The first is detecting and identifying drone threats at scale. Small drones can be difficult to detect in a cluttered environment, and then, once identified, the intent of the drone has to be determined. When a drone is determined to be a threat, the response requires a quick decision to determine how to engage and neutralize the target. 

The other aspect of a good counter-UAS system, Yelverton explained, is cost and capacity. Using million-dollar missiles to destroy or disable cheap drones that are sometimes deployed in large quantities isn’t a sustainable long-term solution. 

“We're constantly looking at how we can manage the cost of an interceptor, especially when you start thinking about mass threats,” Yelverton said. 

Video file

 

The other aspect of a good counter system is integration. Yelverton called it a “system of systems.” 

This requires a detection system, a command and control system to decide how to defeat a threat, and then a determination of the best means to address such a threat, whether it be electronic warfare, a kinetic option such as bullets, or possibly directed energy, such as lasers or microwaves.  

“I need to sense, decide and act. And I need to bring all that together in a system of systems. But then I also need trained operators to be able to support all that,” Yelverton explained. 

Yelverton said that a good counter-UAS that discerns a threat will require the processing of a lot of information at once. Artificial intelligence might be one tool that can help. It wouldn’t do the work of the operators, he said, but it would give the operators choices to make decisions quickly. 

Yelverton said the Department of War is also looking at systems that can easily integrate into the systems of all branches of the military and the Department of Homeland Security. 

“We're collaborating, but there are pieces and parts. They work together. We can plug and play together,” Yelverton said. 

Drones create threats at home

The attempted assassinations of President Trump and the murder of Charlie Kirk resulted in widespread praise for the perpetrators on social media. That shows that there are people here in the U.S. who are quite comfortable killing those with whom they disagree. It’s not hard to imagine a terrorist using a drone to target a crowd with a pipe bomb. 

Electricity-grid infrastructure is also vulnerable to drone attacks, and U.S. bases could become targets. Last month, there were reports of hundreds of drone incursions over U.S. military installations, and the Pentagon expanded base commanders’ authority to respond to potential threats. No one is entirely sure what the intent of all drones has been. 

Rullman said that the ability to reach malicious drones at range is important, so expanding the commanders' authority to respond outside the base perimeter was a good move. “Most of the engagements are happening right overhead, which is kind of too late. If it's dropping a grenade on you, that's too late,” he said. 

The Bandito satisfies many of the aspects of counter-UAS technology that the military needs, Rullman said, and he is hoping that his designs can satisfy the military's needs for effective counter-UAS. 

During tests in the California desert, the Bandito was able to get within 18 inches of its targets that were 50 miles away.  The targeting system uses existing radar, so it can be integrated into existing air defense systems. The drones are cheap, and every military base could stock thousands of them for costs in the millions of dollars, Rullman said.

"If someone shot 300 drones, and we shot 300 Banditos to take them down, we'd only use up 1/6 of our inventory of munitions," he said. 

Kevin Killough is the energy reporter for Just The News. You can follow him on X for more coverage.

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/drones-are-rapidly-evolving-threat-us-and-developing-counter-measures-poses

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Maryland Dems propose bill targeting nonprofits tied to Judea and Samaria - JNS

 

by JNS

“Legislation like this contributes to the dangerous and salacious narrative that Israel is an oppressive nation,” said Rabbi Ariel Sadwin.

 

Maryland State House in the capital of Annapolis. Credit: Martin Falbisoner via Wikimedia Commons.

Maryland Democrats introduced a bill that would prohibit certain nonprofit organizations registered to solicit charitable donations from supporting “Israeli settlement activity” in Judea and Samaria and allow lawsuits against groups that violate the measure.

Titled the “Not on Our Dime Act,” HB 1184 was introduced on Feb. 11 by Gabriel Acevero, Ashanti Martinez and Caylin Young, Democratic members of the Maryland House of Delegates. At a March 11 hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee, representatives from the Council on American-Islamic Relations debated with Lauren Arikan, a Republican delegate, on whether the legislation should also include charitable organizations that support Iranian-linked causes.

“We’re going to have to have these difficult conversations,” Sean Stinnett, a Democratic delegate, said at the hearing, asking supporters of the bill why Jewish advocacy groups felt it was “singling out Israel.”

“There is no other country that is currently building illegal settlements that is condemned by the United Nations, by the ICJ, by the U.S. Department of State under the Obama and Biden administration,” a CAIR representative responded, claiming that Washington is funding this activity with “billions” of dollars.

The bill says a nonprofit registered with the state “may not knowingly engage in unauthorized support of Israeli settlement activity.”

It describes “unauthorized support” as aiding or abetting actions by the Israeli government or Israeli citizens in what it defines as “the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

Under the proposal, Maryland’s attorney general could file civil lawsuits against nonprofit leaders accused of violating the law and seek “not less than $1,000,000 in damages.” Private individuals could also bring lawsuits seeking injunctions and damages.

Nonprofits found liable would be removed from the state’s registry of charitable solicitations. The state would be required to ensure that organizations that are no longer registered stop soliciting in Maryland, according to a policy note attached to the bill.

Rabbi Ariel Sadwin, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic region of Agudath Israel of America, told JNS that “legislation like this contributes to the dangerous and salacious narrative that Israel is an oppressive nation.”

“In today’s society, where people, especially the young, are educated by click-seekers on social media, it does not take long for opposition to Israel to turn into the full-blown hatred of Jews,” he stated. “Acts of violence directed at Jews in the Diaspora are frightening examples of the highest form of bigotry and hatred.”

Sadwin said it was “deeply troubling to see public officials in Maryland single out Israel—an independent democracy and a close ally of the United States—while using inflammatory language and ignoring the many countries around the world engaged in genuine oppression.” 

JNS 

Source: https://www.jns.org/maryland-dems-propose-bill-targeting-nonprofits-tied-to-judea-and-samaria/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'Trump Derangement Syndrome': The Danger of Hatred Clouding Perception - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

If political discourse becomes so polarized that people can no longer recognize the nature of regimes that repress their own citizens and openly threaten the United States and the Free World, the problem is far larger than any single president.

 

• In the end, the greatest danger of this mindset is not simply unfair criticism of a president. The deeper problem is that it weakens the ability of society to confront serious threats. When political hatred becomes so intense that it overrides basic judgment, it becomes difficult to distinguish between legitimate criticism and reflexive opposition. Perception of reality itself is broken.

• At a moment when the world faces overwhelming security challenges – such as from China – currently developing new deadly pathogens for biowarfare and autonomous robots programmed to kill -- and authoritarian regimes that continue to threaten both their own populations and what they regard as their enemies -- denial and blindness carry serious risks.

• If political discourse becomes so polarized that people can no longer recognize the nature of regimes that repress their own citizens and openly threaten the United States and the Free World, the problem is far larger than any single president. It becomes a crisis that can only be addressed when people step outside their partisan bubbles and confront reality as it truly is.

Iran's leaders have for decades chanted "Death to America" ("The Great Satan") and "Death to Israel" ("The Little Satan"), slogans that are not merely rhetorical flourishes but actual central elements of the regime's ideological identity. Yet, when Trump confronts this very regime, the focus shifts away from the Iranian regime's actions and instead centers entirely on condemning Trump himself. The atrocities committed by the regime fade into the background. Pictured: Iran's then Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei gives a speech on November 1, 2023, televised on Iran's Channel 1. (Image source: MEMRI)

If one steps back from the daily noise of partisan bickering and looks at the broader picture in the United States today, some media outlets and political figures appear so consumed by hostility toward the current president that they seem incapable of evaluating events rationally.

Their reaction to almost anything he does appears automatic and reflexive. This situation, often described as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," has reached such an extreme level that at times these voices appear to be siding — whether intentionally or not — with America's enemies such as the Chinese Communist Party, or the Iranian regime, which, since its inception in 1979, has openly been at war with the United States and for decades has been described by American officials across both political parties as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism 39 years in a row.

The result is a political discourse that seems disconnected from what is right or wrong, but simply whether something was done by President Donald J. Trump.

This disagreement has gone far beyond normal political discord. In any healthy democracy, political leaders and policies can and should be debated and criticized. What we are witnessing now in some corners of the political and media landscape, however, appears to have crossed over into something closer to emotional obsession than rational debate. It is as if the guiding principle has become: if Trump does something, it must automatically be wrong. The logic and context behind the action become irrelevant. Instead of asking whether confronting a hostile regime might serve American interests or international security, the reaction becomes instant opposition, regardless of the circumstances or the stakes involved.

The Iranian regime, for instance, has for decades openly defined itself through hostility toward the United States and its allies. Its leaders have repeatedly chanted "Death to America" ("The Great Satan") and "Death to Israel" ("The Little Satan"), slogans that are not merely rhetorical flourishes but actual central elements of the regime's ideological identity. Iranian leaders, starting with the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, have openly called for the obliteration of Israel and have supported armed groups across the Middle East that target both Israelis and Americans.

Since 1984, the US government — under both Republican and Democrat administrations — has officially designated Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism for its support of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the Houthis; its involvement in attacks across the region and attempted attacks abroad, including involvement in the 9/11 attacks and at least two attempted assassinations on Trump, as well as targeting senior US officials for assasination in his first term.

Iran's regime has killed countless Americans, and continues to pursue policies designed to weaken American influence in the Middle East. It is a regime that has repeatedly demonstrated hostility toward the United States and its allies.

Yet when Trump took a hard stance against Tehran, instead of focusing on the nature of the Iranian regime itself, some critics appeared to focus exclusively on the identity of the president who was confronting it. The issue became less about Iran and more about Trump. His actions, rather than being evaluated on their merits, were filtered through the lens of political hostility. Whatever he does must be greeted with skepticism or condemned.

The hypocrisy is difficult to overlook. Many of the same political movements and advocacy groups that strongly emphasize women's rights and human rights have historically ignored Iran's state abuse of women and dissidents. For decades, Iranian authorities have imposed severe restrictions on women's freedoms, violently suppressed protests, and imprisoned journalists, activists, and political opponents. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been arrested, tortured, or murdered for challenging the regime's authority or for demanding basic freedoms.

Yet, when Trump confronts this very regime, the focus shifts away from the Iranian regime's actions and instead centers entirely on condemning Trump himself. The atrocities committed by the regime fade into the background.

Imagine how different the reaction might be under a different administration. Media coverage might emphasize Iran's human rights abuses, its repression of women, and its support for terrorist groups. Analysts would speak about defending human rights, protecting allies, and standing up to authoritarian governments. The policy would likely be framed as a necessary response to the brutal regime developing nuclear weapons and being a dangerous global threat.

When opposition to a political figure becomes absolute, every action that person takes must be opposed. The debate ceases to be about facts or moral principles and instead becomes a contest of political identity.

Critics who once spoke passionately about human rights abuses in Iran now appear unwilling to acknowledge them when doing so might align them with a policy pursued by Trump. Advocacy for women's rights, democracy, and freedom becomes selectively applied, filtered through the lens of domestic political rivalry.

In the end, the greatest danger of this mindset is not simply unfair criticism of a president. The deeper problem is that it weakens the ability of society to confront serious threats. When political hatred becomes so intense that it overrides basic judgment, it becomes difficult to distinguish between legitimate criticism and reflexive opposition. Perception of reality itself is broken.

At a moment when the world faces overwhelming security challenges – such as from China – currently developing new deadly pathogens for biowarfare and autonomous robots programmed to kill -- and authoritarian regimes that continue to threaten both their own populations and what they regard as their enemies -- denial and blindness carry serious risks.

Democracies function best when their debates are grounded in facts and reason rather than emotional reflexes. If political discourse becomes so polarized that people can no longer recognize the nature of regimes that repress their own citizens and openly threaten the United States and the Free World, the problem is far larger than any single president. It becomes a crisis that can only be addressed when people step outside their partisan bubbles and confront reality as it truly is.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on X (formerly Twitter)

 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a political scientist, Harvard-educated analyst, and board member of Harvard International Review. He has authored several books on the US foreign policy. He can be reached at dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22338/trump-derangement-syndrome-iran

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Protesters set fire to Communist Party building in Cuba, one person shot: report - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

Demonstrators were reportedly chanting, “Down with communism.”

 

Protesters reportedly set fire to the local headquarters of Cuba’s ruling Communist Party in the city of Morón amid demonstrations fueled by a worsening fuel shortage and widespread power outages across the island.

Local reports said residents gathered in Morón, a city in central Cuba, to protest prolonged electricity cuts and mounting fuel shortages that have intensified in recent weeks. During the unrest, some demonstrators set fire to the office of the Communist Party of Cuba, the country’s governing political organization.

Demonstrators were reportedly chanting, “Down with communism.”

One person was shot on the scene, reports said. 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/protesters-set-fire-communist-party-building-cuba-report

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Whistleblower Bernstein says lax gov't oversight made Minnesota 'great environment for fraud' - Sharyl Attkisson

 

by Sharyl Attkisson

The social services fraud in Minnesota is estimated at $9 billion.

 

The web of social services fraud that’s taken place in Minnesota, largely committed by residents from Somalia, siphoned billions of tax dollars meant to help the vulnerable. 

But years before the national headlines, insiders were sounding the alarm about a system primed for abuse on a wide scale. One of them is Faye Bernstein.

“What I was concerned about is that we had very risky practices. We had a great environment for fraud,” Bernstein told "Full Measure" in a recent interview in Minneapolis.

In 2019, Bernstein was a compliance officer for the Minnesota Department of Human Services when she says she spotted red flags. Her job was to make sure welfare-related contracts followed the rules.

“There was not any of the normal guardrails,” she says. “There was nothing that would prevent [fraud]. And then if I did point that out, or anyone else pointed that out, you were immediately targeted, and you were ‘the bad employee.’ And from that point on, there was nothing you could do. Everything you did was wrong.”

Bernstein says managers at the Human Services agency first pegged her as a troublemaker when she refused to approve seven problematic contracts. They totaled over a million taxpayer dollars. A colleague signed off on them anyway, and Bernstein says she faced retaliation.

“My job duties were lessened and lessened," she said. "I realized that I was being excluded.”

Seven years after Bernstein began blowing the whistle, an independent audit in January confirmed ongoing shortfalls. It concluded recently, after the fraud made headlines, that employees at the agency either “backdated or created” documents involving mental health contracts during the audit of their work. 

The audit ultimately concluded the agency “did not comply with most requirements” and “did not have adequate internal controls over grant funds.”

Another red flag: Minnesota’s Medicaid spending on autism services. It surged from about $1 million in 2017 to $343 million in 2024 – without meaningful oversight.

Minnesota state Rep. Kristin Robbins has heard from numerous whistleblowers. She heads up the Legislature’s main fraud-prevention committee.

Robbins says after state audits in 2019 exposed millions in childcare fraud that lack of action kept the system vulnerable to abuse.

“So this big explosive report came out, and rather than saying, ‘OK, go to town, go do all these criminal investigations,’ the criminal investigation unit was shut down, and they were told, ‘No, we're not doing criminal investigations in childcare anymore. You can look at overpayments and then any overpayments you find can get referred to an overpayments committee, and we'll decide if we'll seek reimbursement, but they were no longer pursuing criminal investigation or charges on childcare fraud,” Robbins says.

She also connects the dots between Minnesota’s childcare fraud and the other welfare scandals that have unfolded.

“There was a group of people involved from the Somali community who created a group called the Minnesota Minority Childcare Association," she told "Full Measure." 

“And that group would try to lobby against changes that would tighten the internal controls. So anytime the legislature did come forward with a proposal to say, ‘Oh, well, we should tighten this up or tighten that up,’ this Minority Childcare Association would say, ‘No, we shouldn't do that. That will hurt our families. That's, you know, not gonna work.’ And many of those people who were involved in the Minnesota Minority Childcare Association then later, became defendants and charged and convicted in the Feeding Our Future Scandal. So the childcare led to the Feeding Our Future Scandal."

The “Feeding Our Future scandal” is the nation’s biggest known COVID fraud scheme. Prosecutors say Minnesota nonprofits, vastly run by Somali-Americans or immigrants, “falsely claimed to have served 91 million meals, for which they fraudulently received nearly $250 million in federal funds. That money did not go to feed kids. Instead, it was used to fund their lavish lifestyles.”

Total estimated Minnesota fraud: At least $9 billion tax dollars since 2018 across 14 high-risk welfare or social services programs. Nearly 100 people have been charged so far, the vast majority Somali Americans or immigrants. Two-thirds have been convicted so far in multiple interconnected schemes.

For more on this story, watch "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson” Sunday. Attkisson's most recent book is "Follow the $cience: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails." 

Sharyl Attkisson

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/minnesota-fraud-whistleblower

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Will the US finally get to do ‘littoral warfare’ in the Strait of Hormuz? - analysis - Seth J. Frantzman

 

by Seth J. Frantzman

In the wake of the Cold War, there was a sense that warfare might shift toward smaller joint operations of all forces, known as "littoral operations."

 

A projectile approaches what US Central Command (CENTCOM) says is an Iranian naval vessel, during strikes that included attacks on mine-laying vessels, at a location given as near the Strait of Hormuz, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in this screen grab from video released March 10, 2026.

(photo credit: CENTCOM/Handout via REUTERS)

The US is sending an amphibious assault ship, the USS Tripoli, and its Marine expeditionary unit to the Middle East, a senior US official confirmed to Axios on Friday, as the Iran war continues into its third week.

The deployment offers Marines and the rest of the US military a chance to finally engage in “littoral warfare,” which has been discussed for decades.

During the Cold War, when the concept of two large conventional armies going toe-to-toe with nuclear arms became less relevant, there was a sense that warfare might shift toward smaller operations.

In 1993, Ralph Stokes and Richard Thompson wrote in the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory’s APL Technical Digest that “the end of the Cold War and the potential increase of worldwide regional conflicts have produced a significant change in US military and maritime strategy. Many future conflicts will involve joint operations of all forces and will include situations that culminate in massive and highly coordinated power projection operations from the sea.”

They noted that “littoral operations present many stressing and unique challenges and require some rethinking of the broad range of naval roles and missions. This article examines the naval roles, missions, and implications of littoral operations, and identifies key technologies and capabilities required to meet the objectives with maximum effect and minimum losses.”

US Navy Landing Craft Air Cushion's (LCAC) unload equipment onto the beach as US Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys and CH-53 Super Stallions fly overhead during the America's Marines 250 event at Camp Pendleton's Red Beach on October 18, 2025 in Oceanside, California. (credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

In their paper, they were prescient. They noted that “by definition, littoral warfare involves operations near shore as well as in more confining sea regions, such as the Strait of Hormuz or the Persian Gulf. Near shore means close enough to bring force to bear on the adjacent land, and may range from a few kilometers for covert surveillance or naval gunfire support to hundreds of kilometers for aircraft carrier strike operations.”

Currently, the Strait of Hormuz is in the spotlight, and so is littoral warfare. The US carried out airstrikes on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf on Friday, hitting military sites there.

The island is responsible for more than 90% of Iran’s oil exports, with oil reaching the island via pipelines. There are other small islands that may soon be in the spotlight.

Time magazine noted that “three strategically located islands – Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb – positioned at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz are at the center of a decades-long dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.”

An issue going back decades

Although there are arguments in the media about whether the US planned for Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz, it is clear that the military has been concerned about this issue for decades.

In an article at the US Naval Institute in 2012 by Capt. Robert Carney Powers, he noted that “blockage of the Strait of Hormuz by a hostile power was a frequent scenario. The "US-supported nation" (the "Blue" coalition nation) needed timely reinforcements to succeed. Red could best succeed by using its significant land forces to seize key objectives before the United States could get more troops and equipment into position.

“Breaking through the choke point at the Strait of Hormuz was essential to ensure the flow of logistic, amphibious, and troop ships into Blue ports,” he wrote. “It also was essential to maintain the flow of oil from Middle East nations to the world economy.”

When wargaming how the US Navy or a friendly one would break a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, it became clear the operation would take “weeks, not days.”

As time went by, “this resulted in a logistical bottleneck; troop ships and supplies couldn’t get through the choke point. Large ships piled up waiting for the order to proceed. No oil was transported out of the Persian Gulf. The world economy suffered. Meanwhile, Red ground forces were moving toward their key objectives,” noted Powers in 2012.

The US realized it needed smaller ships, leading to the concept of a “littoral combat ship.” This resulted in two types of vessels, the USS Freedom and USS Independence, launched between 2006 and 2008.

However, the results of investment in the littoral ships didn’t lead to solving the problem.

“As currently configured (weapons, manning, concept), is the LCS [Littoral Combat Ship] up to the tasks it could soon face (in the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere)? The answer is regretfully ‘no,’” noted Powers. “It has taken 17-plus years since the LCS concept was born to come up with a flawed ship.

“What must go to accommodate the systems needed to make it relevant to its tasks?” he asked. “The LCS is, after all, a 3,000-ton ship (much larger than a World War II destroyer escort, and three-fourths the size of a Perry- or Knox-class frigate). The space for needed capability can be found.”

Littoral combat in the Indo-Pacific

Recently, the questions about littoral combat have shifted to focus on the Indo-Pacific, “where China’s militarization of artificial islands, deployment of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, and expansion of naval and coast guard assets have turned the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait into potential flash points,” an article at the US Naval Institute noted in 2025.

Sebastian Bae, who served six years in the Marine Corps, designed a wargame called Littoral Commander to simulate the challenges in the Indo-Pacific.

As noted by Andrew Feickert, who has written about America’s Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR), “in March 2020, the US Marine Corps announced a major force design initiative planned to occur over 10 years, originally referred to as ‘Force Design 2030,’ which is now known as ‘Force Design.’ Under Force Design, the Marines are redesigning forces to place a stronger emphasis on naval expeditionary warfare. As part of the redesign, the Marines originally planned to establish at least three Marine Littoral Regiments (MLRs) organized, trained, and equipped to accomplish a number of missions within contested maritime spaces.”

It’s now possible that the Marines, and the US military in general, may get to engage in the kind of littoral combat that has been discussed for decades.

Dan Lamothe, who writes on military affairs for The Washington Post, noted on X the kind of units being sent to the Middle East today: “A Marine expeditionary unit [MEU], a foundational force for the Marine Corps that typically deploys on ships but also goes ashore as needed.”

He notes that an “MEU typically has an infantry battalion, an aviation unit with jets and helicopters, and a logistics component. In this case, it’s the 31st MEU from Okinawa, Japan. The infantry battalion training with this MEU is 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, of Camp Pendleton. They are assigned on a rotational basis. Total number of personnel in the full MEU: About 2,200 to 2,400.”

It will arrive with the Tripoli Amphibious Ready Group with the “USS Tripoli and two other vessels (in this case, USS San Diego and USS New Orleans),” Lamothe said. “Navy personnel in an ARG typically number about 2,000, though it can vary. Counting the Marines, that’s 4,200 to 4,400 total additional deployers. They work hand-in-hand.”

Decades of American thought, planning, wargaming, and training have gone into this moment. Far from being a scenario that was shocking, the closure of the Straits has been imagined for decades. This is unsurprising considering that the 1980s Iran-Iraq war provided a blueprint for many of the challenges we are seeing today. 

Seth J. Frantzman

Source: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-889902

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

New Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei sends written message, no proof of life shown - Shir Perets

 

by Shir Perets

In his message, Khamenei stated that the Strait of Hormuz must remain closed, and if necessary, other fronts will be opened.

 

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of late Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, attends a meeting in Tehran, Iran, March 2, 2016.

(photo credit: Rouhollah Vahdati/ISNA/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS )

A Thursday message attributed to Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was read out by a newscaster on Iranian state television while a photo of the supreme leader was shown. There have not been any signs of life from Khamenei since his appointment.

In the statement, Khamenei wrote that the Strait of Hormuz must remain closed, and if necessary, other fronts will be opened.

"The will of the masses is to continue the effective and regrettable defense," Khamenei's statement read.

"Also, the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must definitely continue to be used. Studies have been conducted on opening other fronts where the enemy has little experience and will be extremely vulnerable in them, and their activation will be carried out if the war situation continues and based on the observance of interests."

He was quoted as thanking Yemen's Houthis and Hezbollah in Lebanon for their "defending the oppressed people of Gaza," and "coming to the aid of the Islamic Republic despite all obstacles," as well as the Iraqi resistance for their "courage."

Commander of the IRGC Navy Alireza Tangsiri wrote that the IRGC "will deliver the most severe blows to the aggressor enemy," by keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed on his X/Twitter.

Attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and around Iran cause rising oil prices 

Oil prices hit nearly $100 a barrel on Thursday as ships in the region of Iran came under attack. A container ship owned by Germany's Hapag-Lloyd and chartered to Denmark's AP Moller-Maersk became the seventh ship to be hit in the region in the past day, and is one of the at least 19 ships that have been hit or damaged in the Persian Gulf since the beginning of the war, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

In its latest monthly oil market report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that global supply is expected to drop by 8 million barrels per day in March, equal to almost 8% of global demand, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Middle East Gulf countries, including Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, have cut total oil production by at least 10 million barrels per day as a result of the conflict, the IEA said, adding that without a rapid restart of shipping flows, these losses were set to increase.

"Shut-in upstream production will take weeks and, in some cases, months to return to pre-crisis levels depending on the degree of field complexity and the timing for workers, equipment, and resources to return to the region," the agency said.

Continuing strikes against US bases in Gulf states

In the statement, Khamenei reaffirmed that Iran will continue to attack the US bases located within the Gulf, adding that these countries had been "explicitly warned" that such attacks would occur.

"From now on, we will inevitably continue to do so, although we still believe in the need for friendship between ourselves and our neighbors. These countries must make their duty clear to the invaders of our beloved homeland and the murderers of our people. I recommend that they close those bases as soon as possible, because they must have realized by now that the claim of establishing security and peace by America was nothing more than a lie," the statement read. 

Shir Perets

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-889759

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter