The Islamic Republic of Iran may have more than eight American citizens and residents in its captivity, Fox News Digital can reveal based on information from sources outside the Trump Administration who are well-versed with Tehran’s hostage-taking policy system.

Information shows that the total number of Americans citizens and residents held hostage by the Iranian regime could exceed the open-source data listing five American hostages in Iran.

Iran’s regime arrested a U.S. citizen, Kamran Hekmati, a 70-year-old from Great Neck, New York, who went to Iran to visit family members last May. Iranian authorities arrested Hekmati in July 2025 and charged him with ‘making a trip to Israel’ 13 years prior to his visit to Iran. Hekmati, a Persian Jew who was born in Iran, traveled to Israel in 2012 to attend his son’s Bar Mitzvah.

Iran bans Iranians from traveling to the Jewish state and any relations with Israel. Tehran considers Hekmati an Iranian citizen because the regime does not recognize dual citizenship.

The regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Court sentenced Hekmati to four years in prison, and he is being held in Iran’s infamous Evin Prison — a complex that is reportedly used to torture political prisoners and dissidents. The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) noted Hekmati has also been held at an intelligence ministry facility in Tehran. CNN reported that Hekmati suffers from bladder cancer.

The regime arrested another U.S. citizen, Afarin Mohajer, on Sept. 29, 2025 at Imam Khomeini International Airport. The human rights group, HRANA, said there was no information about the charges leveled against the Californian resident. 

According to U.S. government outlet Radio Farda that reports on Iran, Mohajer has an inoperable brain tumor and was told by ‘a doctor before going to prison that she does not have long to live,’ citing her son. She visited Iran to take care of her husband’s finances following his death, the son said. While released in December on bail, she is not allowed to leave Iran.

The authorities arrested an unnamed Iranian American woman in December 2024. She was released from prison, but the authorities seized the passports of the dual national, and she is also barred from leaving Iran.

The former Radio Farda journalist Reza Valizadeh traveled to Iran in March 2024 to visit relatives, according to a report by United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI) on American hostages held in Iran.  

The U.S. government outlet Voice of America, like Radio Farda, reports on Iran, said Valizadeh was reportedly arrested in September 2024 and charged with ‘collaborating with overseas-based Persian media.’

The charge was later changed to ‘collaborating with a hostile government.’ UANI noted that ‘VOA cited sources claiming that Valizadeh was arrested for not cooperating with the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization and Iran’s intelligence ministry and for not expressing regret for his journalism.’

The regime arrested Shahab Dalili, a permanent U.S. resident who lives in Virginia, in 2016.

The UANI report stated that Taghato, a Farsi-language news outlet operated by Iranians living in the U.S., posted on Twitter (now X) that the Iranian regime arrested Dalili in March 2016. He went to Iran after his father’s death. The opaque Iranian regime judicial system sentenced him to 10 years in prison for ‘allegedly cooperating with a hostile government.’

A U.S. State Department official told Fox News Digital that ‘As Secretary Rubio has said, President Trump is working to secure the release of detained Americans around the world. The Iranian regime has a long history of unjustly and wrongfully detaining other countries’ citizens as hostages for use as political leverage. Iran should release these individuals immediately.’

The U.S. official added that ‘Due to security considerations with respect to ongoing cases, we do not disclose specific numbers of hostages.’

Barry Rosen, a former American diplomat and survivor of the Iran hostage crisis that took place in 1979 when Islamist revolutionary students took a group of 66 Americans captive, told Fox News Digital, in the wake of the nationwide revolts against the regime, ‘We are in a very intractable situation right now’ and expressed skepticism about bringing the hostages back under the current situation.

The nationwide strikes and demonstrations to topple the regime with respect to securing the hostage’s release ‘make it even more complicated,’ Rosen said, adding that hostage diplomacy ‘has always been complicated.’ Rosen was eventually released having spent 444 days in captivity.

‘Quiet diplomacy is the best way to go, but I don’t think there is any way for quiet diplomacy right now,’ he said.

When discussing ‘quiet diplomacy,’ Rosen said he was ‘talking about dealing with the hostage situation with Iran, given all our differences on the nuclear situation between both countries. But when it comes to the uprising in Iran, we need to loudly support a democratic Iran.’

Rosen, who considers Iran his second home, said, ‘I want to see the Iranian people do what they are doing now, so the Iranian regime implodes by itself.’ He said, ‘Support for uprisings (and protests) is the right way to go. I am fearful of any military operations that could cause chaos in the country.’

Rosen co-founded the non-government organization Hostage Aid Worldwidewhich provides current information on hostages held outside the U.S.

Navid Mohebbi, who worked as a Persian media analyst for the U.S. State Department’s Public Affairs Bureau, wrote a booklet on ‘Breaking the Trend: How to Combat the Hostage-Taking Business in Iran’ for the U.S.-based National Union for Democracy in Iran.

He told Fox News Digital, ‘Iran’s hostage-taking is not a series of isolated cases; it is a systematic state policy designed to extract political and economic concessions. The Islamic Republic has learned that detaining Americans and other Western nationals carries little cost and often produces tangible rewards — whether sanctions relief, access to frozen assets or asymmetric prisoner swaps. As long as this behavior is treated as a humanitarian problem rather than a coercive strategy, Tehran will continue to rely on hostage-taking as a core tool of statecraft.’

He continued, ‘To reverse this pattern, the United States must impose consequences that are measurable, cumulative and irreversible. Every hostage-taking case should trigger automatic penalties: targeted sanctions on judges, prosecutors, interrogators, prison officials and intelligence officers involved; permanent confiscation — not escrow — of regime assets tied to hostage diplomacy; and coordinated diplomatic consequences with allies, including travel bans, removal of regime officials from international bodies and the pursuit of Interpol red notices where applicable. The message must be unambiguous: hostage-taking will leave the regime worse off, not better.’

Mohebbi urged that, ‘The U.S. should formally designate Iran as a state that engages in hostage-taking, ban the use of U.S. passports for travel to or through Iran and maintain a public registry of regime officials involved in these crimes. At the same time, Washington must provide stronger, more transparent support to families of hostages and ensure sustained public naming and shaming. Only by raising the cost across legal, diplomatic, financial and reputational fronts can the United States begin to dismantle Iran’s hostage-taking business,’ he said.

House and Senate lawmakers unveiled a new funding package on Sunday night totaling roughly $80 billion in federal spending, but questions still loom about averting another government shutdown at the end of this month.

The package combines two of Congress’ 12 annual appropriations bills in what’s called a ‘minibus.’ It covers funding for the State Department and related national security, as well as federal financial services and general government operations.

Notably excluded from the package, however, is funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — which had been expected to be part of the legislation earlier this month.

It comes as Democrats threaten to hold up DHS funding in the wake of an incident in Minneapolis where an ICE agent shot a U.S. citizen in her car. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and other GOP officials have accused the woman of being at fault and of hitting the agent with her vehicle, while Democrats are charging ICE with a reckless and unprovoked use of force.

While a DHS funding bill only needs a simple majority to pass the House, any spending legislation needs at least 60 votes in the Senate — meaning Democratic support is critical for passage.

The package released totals just over $76 billion in federal funds and is expected to get a House vote sometime this week.

The State Department and national security bill includes $850 million for an ‘America First Opportunity Fund,’ aimed at giving the Secretary of State funding to respond to potential unforeseen circumstances.

Both Republicans and Democrats touted different victories in the legislation, with a summary by House Appropriations Committee Republicans stating that the bill supports ‘President Trump’s America First foreign policy by eliminating wasteful spending on DEI or woke programming, climate change mandates, and divisive gender ideologies.’

Democrats said the bill ‘supports women globally’ by ‘protecting funding for bilateral family planning and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)’ and pointed to $6.8 billion for a new account ‘that supports the activities previously funded under Development Assistance.’ 

The bill also provides millions in security assistance for Israel and Taiwan, among other global partners across the world.

The latter bill provides just over $13 billion for the U.S. Treasury for the remainder of fiscal year 2026, while also including a provision that stops the IRS ‘from targeting individuals or groups for exercising their First Amendment rights or ideological beliefs,’ according to Republicans.

It also provides $872 million for the Executive Office of the President and $9.69 billion in discretionary funding for the Federal Judiciary.

‘With this package, we are advancing President Trump’s vision of a golden age defined by security, responsibility, and growth. Our financial system will be protected, small businesses and entrepreneurs supported, and consumer freedom safeguarded,’ House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said in a statement.

‘We shield our nation across every front — strengthening cyber defenses and dismantling the financial and criminal networks that enable terrorism, drug trafficking, and bad actors. Guided by peace through strength, we realign our diplomacy and national posture to deter threats before they reach our shores.’

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said the bill ‘continues Democrats’ rejection of extreme cuts proposed by the Trump White House and Republicans in Congress.’

A source familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital that negotiators are aiming to include the DHS funding bill in a separate minibus that also covers defense spending, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Transportation, among other agencies.

Current federal funding levels expire after Jan. 30. Any potential shutdown would only be a partial one at this point, given Congress is on its way to passing at least half of its dozen spending bills by then.

Senate Appropriations Committee member Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., did not rule out a shutdown over the DHS funding standoff in comments to NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday.

‘[Republicans] control the House, the Senate and the presidency. If they don’t want to work with Democrats and shut down the government, that’s up to them,’ Murphy said.

But Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Fox News on Friday that he does not believe there will be a shutdown but criticized Democrats’ threats to DHS funds.

‘I am concerned about that, and we should not be limiting funding for homeland security at a dangerous time. We need public officials to allow law enforcement to do their jobs,’ Johnson said. 

Asked whether leaders could prevent a shutdown, he said, ‘I think we will.’ 

The U.S. military launched strikes against Venezuela and captured its dictator, Nicolás Maduro, on Jan. 3 — emerging from the operation largely unscathed as it handicapped Venezuela’s defense systems and potentially conducted cyber operations against Caracas. 

Altogether, more than 150 aircraft — including U.S. bombers and fighter jets — were involved in the operation, successfully completing a ‘large-scale strike’ against Venezuela, according to President Donald Trump. Additionally, Caracas, Venezuela, suffered power outages early Jan. 3 — an indication of a potential cyber operation. 

Trump signaled that the U.S. may have been behind the blackout in Venezuela but did not provide details regarding the nature of a possible cyber operation targeting Venezuela’s civilian infrastructure. 

‘The lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have,’ Trump said. 

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ defense and security department, said that while it’s unclear what exactly U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and Space Command (SPACECOM) contributed to the operation, they may have penetrated some of Venezuela’s infrastructure.

‘We don’t really know what cyber did, some of the lights did go out, and Caine did talk about it,’ Cancian told Fox News Digital Wednesday. ‘It’s possible that (they) got into some of their command and control systems.’ 

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that as U.S. helicopters with the extraction force and other law enforcement assets started to approach Venezuela’s shores, the U.S. ‘began layering different effects provided by SPACECOM, CYBERCOM, and other members of the inter-agency to create a pathway.’ 

According to Caine, U.S. aircraft involved in the operation included F-22, F-35, F/A-18 and EA-18 fighter jets, E-2 airborne early warning aircraft, B-1 bombers and ‘other support aircraft, as well as numerous remotely piloted drones.’ 

‘As the force began to approach Caracas, the joint air component began dismantling and disabling the air defense systems in Venezuela, employing weapons to ensure the safe passage of the helicopters into the target area,’ Caine told reporters. 

​​These aircraft involved in the mission also likely employed weapons including the AGM-88 HARM, or high-speed anti-radiation missile, which neutralizes radar-equipped enemy air defense systems and other air-to-ground munitions to take out Venezuela’s air defense systems, according to Cancian. 

A spokesperson for SPACECOM said that the command could not comment on the specific details of support SPACECOM provided to Operation Absolute Resolve, due to operational security concerns. But the spokesperson added that space-based capabilities including positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) that the military uses to support electronic warfare, in addition to other things, as well as satellite communications are ‘foundational to all modern military activities.’ 

‘To protect the Joint Force from space-enabled attack and ensure their freedom of movement, U.S. Space Command possesses the means and willingness to employ combat-credible capabilities that deter and counter our opponents and project power in all warfighting domains,’ the spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News Digital Friday.

CYBERCOM did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Other factors that contributed to the U.S. military’s success undermining Venezuela’s defenses were that CIA assets had been on the ground leading up to the raid, according to Cancian. Trump confirmed in October 2025 that he had authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela. 

‘They gave detailed descriptions of Maduro’s headquarters, and I’m sure located all of the air defense batteries around Caracas,’ Cancian said. ‘So we had an excellent sense about where everything was, combining that with overhead surveillance and also electromagnetic intelligence.’

Although Venezuela ‘on paper’ has powerful air defense systems, Cancian said that success pulling off the operation stemmed from solid efforts from the U.S. military to destroy and disrupt Venezuela’s air defense system, in conjunction with poor training for Venezuela’s military. 

Venezuela is equipped with Russian S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile systems, as well as Buk-M2E and Pechora-2M medium-range surface-to-air missile systems, according to the Modern War Institute at West Point. 

Of the more than 150 U.S. aircraft involved in the operation, only one was hit, and zero were shot down. An administration official told Fox News Digital that seven U.S. service members were injured during the operation, but were ‘well on their way to recovery.’

‘Seems those Russian air defenses didn’t quite work so well, did they?’ Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told reporters in Newport News, Virginia. 

Trump announced that U.S. special forces conducted a strike against Caracas, Venezuela, and seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The two were taken to New York and appeared in a Manhattan federal court Jan. 5 on drug charges. Both pleaded not guilty.

The raid came after months of pressure on Venezuela amid a series of strikes in Latin American waters targeting alleged drug traffickers in alignment with Trump’s effort to crack down on the influx of drugs into the U.S.

The Trump administration repeatedly stated that it did not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state and insisted he was the leader of a drug cartel. Trump also said in December he thought it would be ‘smart’ for Maduro to step down. 

The Trump administration has since claimed that its actions seizing Maduro were justified as a ‘law enforcement’ operation, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said congressional approval wasn’t necessary since the operation didn’t amount to an ‘invasion.’

Even so, lawmakers primarily on the left have questioned the legality of the operation in Venezuela, which was conducted without Congress’ approval.

‘This has been a profound constitutional failure,’ the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a statement Jan. 3. ‘Congress — not the President — has the sole power to authorize war. Pursuing regime change without the consent of the American people is a reckless overreach and an abuse of power.’ 

‘The question now is not whether Maduro deserved removal. It is what precedent the United States has just set and what comes next.’

Fox News’ Morgan Phillips contributed to this report. 

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez declared Sunday that the island nation would defend itself ‘to the last drop of blood,’ responding to pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to strike a deal with Washington. 

President Trump had spoken about Cuba in a Truth Social post earlier in the day, urging that ‘they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.’

‘Those who blame the Revolution for the severe economic shortages we suffer should hold their tongues out of shame. Because they know it and acknowledge it: they are the fruit of the draconian measures of extreme strangulation that the U.S. has been applying to us for six decades and now threatens to surpass,’ the Cuban wrote on X, according to a translation of the Spanish-language post. 

‘#Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. No one dictates what we do. Cuba does not aggress; it is aggressed upon by the United States for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the Homeland to the last drop of blood,’ he wrote in another post, according to the translation.

U.S. Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., who was born in Cuba, responded to the foreign figure’s post.

‘You dictators, henchmen, and executioners of the Cuban nation think you own the island. You don’t have much time left,’ he declared, according to the translation of his post, also written in Spanish.

Trump declared in a Truth Social post on Sunday, ‘Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided ‘Security Services’ for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Most of those Cubans are DEAD from last weeks U.S.A. attack, and Venezuela doesn’t need protection anymore from the thugs and extortionists who held them hostage for so many years.

‘Venezuela now has the United States of America, the most powerful military in the World (by far!), to protect them, and protect them we will. THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,’ he warned.

Rep. Gimenez thanked the president.

‘I was born in Cuba & forced from home shortly after the Communist takeover. Today, I represent my community in Congress. Thank you, President Trump, first Venezuela & next is Cuba. We will be forever grateful. Our hemisphere must be the hemisphere of liberty,’ the lawmaker wrote in a post on X.

Normally, the Supreme Court hears cases that deal with matters of law. 

But on Tuesday, Jan. 13, the justices will also be dealing with basic science. Not only that, they’ll be debating fundamental truth, as I can personally testify. 

The stakes couldn’t be higher in the case, West Virginia v. B.P.J. The specific question facing the court is simple: Should transgender boys be allowed to compete on girls’ sports teams? But you can’t really answer this question without asking a more important one: Can a young boy or a girl actually change genders? 

I asked this question myself, starting at age 12. I gave the wrong answer.

I was a classic tomboy — a girl who didn’t act and dress the way other girls did. I never felt like I fit in. But instead of realizing that I was in a normal phase of life, I got sucked into the world of social media and video games. That’s where I met people who told me that no, I wasn’t actually a girl. They told me I was a boy. That I should change my body to reflect who I ‘really was inside.’ 

I believed them. I went to doctors who gave me puberty blockers, blocking my normal development. Soon after, they started me on cross-sex hormones, so that I’d start to look more like a boy. Then, at age 15, the doctors gave me a double mastectomy. I figured that without a girl’s chest, I’d finally be happy. As a boy, why would I want to keep my breasts? 

By age 16, I realized how wrong I was. But I couldn’t go back. The puberty blockers and hormones changed my body, to the point that I no longer recognized myself in the mirror. And the chest surgery — how do you undo that? I’m now in my early 20s, and to this day, I have bandages where my breasts used to be. 

I know the truth now: I’m a girl. I always have been. I always will be. I can’t change that — because it’s scientifically and biologically impossible. No matter how many drugs or surgeries they get, kids who think they’re transgender really aren’t. They’re just confused. And in their confusion, doctors and activists are pushing them down a road of even more confusion. It’s also a road of unspeakable grief, worse than anything I ever experienced when I was 12 and felt like I didn’t fit in.

These deeply confused kids are at the center of the case before the Supreme Court. We’re talking about boys who are competing against girls, which is deeply and obviously unfair. Even a boy who’s taken puberty blockers and hormones is going to have an advantage over girls. It’s basic science, written into their biology. No medical treatment can change who they are. Sex-change treatments just cover up the truth under a veneer of self-deception and socially acceptable lies. 

The justices must see through it all. No doubt, the lawyers on the transgender side will try to trick them with arguments about equal treatment and human rights. But this isn’t about rights — it’s about the deep and profound wrong that is child transgenderism.

The only rights that are being violated are girls’ rights to compete fairly, without being forced to go up against boys. And states have a right — and a duty — to protect girls. For that matter, states have a duty to protect all children from transgender treatments of any kind. The Supreme Court has already given states the green light to keep kids safe from radical activism masquerading as medicine. Now the justices should extend that logic by protecting girls’ sports. 

Because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about law. It’s about science and truth. And that’s why the Supreme Court must reject the transgender lie. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Sunday spoke out against President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran, warning that such an attack may backfire as the U.S. government monitors the Middle Eastern country’s response to widespread protests.

During an appearance on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Paul said he is unsure that striking Iran ‘will have the effect that is intended.’

‘I don’t think I have ever heard a president say they may take military action to protect protesters,’ Paul said. ‘Certainly, with Soleimani, when the Trump administration hit him, there were massive protests against America. But they are shouting ‘death to the Ayatollah.”

‘We wish them the best,’ he added. ‘We wish freedom and liberation the best across the world, but I don’t think it’s the job of the American government to be involved with every freedom movement around the world.’

Paul also stressed concern about how the Trump administration would distinguish Iranian protesters from law enforcement if the president were to seek military action.

‘How do you drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd or a protest and protect the people there?’ Paul asked.

The Republican lawmaker also warned that attacking Iran may unintentionally rally protesters behind the Ayatollah.

‘If you bomb the government, do you then rally people to their flag who are upset with the Ayatollah, but then say, ‘Well, gosh, we can’t have a foreign government invading or bombing our country?” Paul said.

‘It tends to have people rally to the cause,’ he continued. ‘So, I think the protests are directed at the Ayatollah, justifiably so.’

Paul added: ‘The best way is to encourage them and say that, of course, we would recognize a government that is a freedom-loving government that allows free elections, but bombing is not the answer.’

The liberty-minded senator also affirmed that presidents cannot strike other countries without the approval of Congress.

‘There is this sticking point of the Constitution that we won’t let presidents bomb countries just when they feel like it,’ Paul emphasized. ‘They’re supposed to ask the people, through the Congress, for permission.’

Protests erupted in Iran in recent weeks over the country’s economic free fall, and many have begun to demand total regime change as the demonstrations continue.

Thousands have been arrested, according to reports. Agencies have been unable to confirm the total death toll because of an internet blackout as the country’s leaders seek to quell the dissent, but The Associated Press reported that more than 500 were killed.

Trump warned Iranian leaders on Friday that they ‘better not start shooting, because we’ll start shooting, too.’

‘Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!’ Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

Paul has opposed Trump in various instances in recent months when it has come to military strikes, including against Iran and Venezuela.

He helped the Senate advance a resolution last week that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela after the U.S. military’s recent move to strike the country and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro, which the Kentucky Republican said amounts to war.

‘I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is, by all definitions, war,’ Paul told reporters before the vote last week. ‘Does this mean we have carte blanche that the president can make the decision any time, anywhere, to invade a foreign country and remove people that we’ve accused of a crime?’

Paul has also criticized the administration’s military strikes on boats near Venezuela it accuses, without evidence, of carrying narco-terrorists, raising concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people. The senator previously cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded on suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

Iran is not merely experiencing another wave of street protests. It is facing a crisis that strikes at the core of the Islamic Republic—and, for the first time in years, places the regime’s survival in real doubt.

Across Iran, demonstrations sparked by economic collapse and corruption have rapidly transformed into direct challenges to clerical rule. Security forces have responded with live fire, mass arrests, and communications blackouts. International reporting cites hundreds of people killed and thousands detained. Internet shutdowns point to a regime determined to suppress not only dissent, but proof of it.

Iran has behaved this way before. What has changed is the strategic environment—and the growing sense among Iranians that the system itself is failing.

Still, one must be clear-eyed: Iran’s leaders will not go quietly. They do not see themselves as ordinary autocrats clinging to power. In their own theology, they see themselves as executing Allah’s will.

A Regime That Sees Repression as Divine Duty

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has framed its authority through velayat-e faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist. Under this doctrine, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not simply a political figure. He is the guardian of an Islamic revolution believed to be divinely sanctioned.

That theological worldview directly shapes how the regime responds to dissent. When Iranian security forces fire into crowds, the regime does not see itself as suppressing political opposition; it sees itself as crushing heresy, sedition, and rebellion against God’s order. Protesters are routinely labeled ‘corrupt on earth,’ a Quranic phrase historically used to justify severe punishment.

Public condemnation and moral appeals alone will not move Tehran. Its rulers believe endurance, sacrifice, and violence are virtues—especially when used to preserve the revolution.

Even regimes driven by religious certainty can collapse once their power structures fracture.

Why this moment differs from 2009—or 2022

Iran has seen mass protests before. In 2009, the Green Movement threatened the regime after a disputed election. In 2022, nationwide protests erupted following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman who died in morality-police custody after being detained for allegedly violating Iran’s hijab rules. Each time, the regime survived.

Several factors suggest this moment is different.

First, the economy is far worse. Iran faces sustained currency devaluation, unemployment, and inflation that has crushed the middle class and hollowed out state legitimacy. That pressure is compounded by a deepening water crisis that has crippled agriculture, strained urban life, and fueled unrest in multiple provinces. Economic despair is no longer peripheral; it now sits at the center.

Beyond economics, Iran’s external deterrence has eroded. The war with Israel in 2025 inflicted real damage. Senior Iranian commanders were killed. Air defenses were penetrated. Missile and drone infrastructure was disrupted. Iran’s aura of invulnerability—carefully cultivated over decades—was badly shaken.

At the same time, Iran’s proxy network is under strain. Hamas has been devastated. Hezbollah has suffered significant losses and now faces domestic pressure in Lebanon. The Houthis remain disruptive but isolated. Tehran’s so-called ‘axis of resistance’ looks less like an unstoppable force and more like a series of costly liabilities.

Most importantly, the regime’s coercive apparatus is under stress. And this is where the future of Iran will be decided.

Watch the IRGC and the Basij—the outcome may hinge on their choices

No institutions matter more right now than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary arm, the Basij.

Often described as the regime’s ‘eyes and ears,’ the Basij are not a conventional military force but a nationwide population-control and internal surveillance network. Embedded in neighborhoods, universities, factories, and mosques, they monitor dissent, identify protest organizers, and move quickly to intimidate or detain them—often before demonstrations can spread. 

During past unrest, including the 2009 Green Movement and the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests, Basij units played a central role in suppressing resistance through beatings, arrests, and close coordination with IRGC security forces. Their value to the regime lies not in battlefield strength, but in omnipresence and ideological loyalty.

Their mission is to control dissent at the local level—before it becomes national. As long as the Basij remain loyal and effective in towns, neighborhoods, and campuses, the regime can contain unrest. If they hesitate, defect, or stand aside, Tehran’s grip weakens rapidly.

The Basij are the real instrument of population control. If the regime is forced to deploy the IRGC widely for internal order, it signals that local control has failed—and that the system is under far greater strain.

The Trump administration should be careful not to hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The IRGC, by contrast, controls the military and functions as an economic empire. Beyond internal security, the IRGC also shapes Iran’s foreign policy—overseeing missile forces, regional proxies, and external operations. It exists to defend the revolution abroad, while the Basij exists to control society at home.

Over the past three decades, the IRGC has embedded itself in Iran’s most important industries—energy, construction, telecommunications, transportation, ports, and black-market finance. Entire sectors of the Iranian economy now depend on IRGC-controlled firms and foundations.

This creates a decisive tension. On one hand, the IRGC has every reason to defend the regime that enriched it. On the other, prolonged instability, sanctions, and economic collapse threaten the very assets the Guards control. At some point, self-preservation may begin to compete with ideological loyalty.

That is why Iran’s future may depend less on what protesters do in the streets—and more on whom the IRGC ultimately chooses to back.

Three outcomes appear plausible.

The first is repression. The Basij could maintain local control while the IRGC backs the Supreme Leader, allowing the regime to crush dissent, and impose order through overwhelming force. This would preserve the Islamic Republic, but at the cost of deeper isolation and long-term decay.

The second is continuity without clerical dominance. A ‘soft coup’ could sideline aging clerics in favor of a military-nationalist leadership that preserves core power structures while shedding the regime’s most unpopular religious figures. The system would remain authoritarian—but altered.

The third is fracture. If parts of the Basij splinter or stand aside—and the IRGC hesitates to intervene broadly—the regime’s internal control could unravel quickly. This is the least likely outcome, but the most transformative—and the one most favorable to long-term regional stability.

Revolutions tend to succeed not because crowds grow larger, but because security forces eventually stop obeying orders.

America’s strategic objective: clarity without ownership

The United States must be disciplined about its goal.

America should not seek to ‘run Iran,’ redraw its culture, or impose a leader. That approach has failed elsewhere. But neither should Washington pretend neutrality between an abusive theocracy and a population demanding dignity.

Our strategy is clear:

Prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

End Iran’s export of terrorism and proxy war.

Push Iran toward regional stability rather than disruption.

Encourage a government that derives legitimacy from its people, not coercion.

Achieving that outcome requires pressure without provocation.

What the Trump administration and allies should do now

First, expose repression relentlessly. Iran’s internet blackouts are a weapon. The U.S. and allies should support every lawful means of keeping Iranians connected and atrocities visible.

Second, target the regime’s enforcers—not the public. Sanctions should focus on specific IRGC units, Basij commanders, judges, and security officials responsible for killings and mass arrests. Collective punishment only strengthens regime propaganda.

Third, signal consequences—and off-ramps. Those ordering violence must know they will be held accountable. Those who refuse unlawful orders should know the world is watching—and remembering.

Fourth, deter external escalation. Tehran may try to unify the nation through confrontation abroad. Strong regional missile defense, maritime security, and allied coordination reduce the regime’s ability to change the subject with war.

Finally, do not hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The bottom line

Iran’s rulers believe they are carrying out divine will. That makes them dangerous—and stubborn. But it does not make them immortal.

Every revolutionary regime eventually faces a moment when fear stops working, money runs out, and loyalty fractures. Iran may be approaching that moment now.

The outcome will not be decided by speeches in Washington, but by choices in Tehran—especially inside the IRGC.

If the Guards conclude their future lies with the people rather than the clerics, Iran could finally turn a page. If they do not, repression will prevail—for a time.

America’s task is not to force history, but to shape the conditions under which it unfolds—with care, strategy, and moral clarity.

Because when the Islamic Republic finally faces its reckoning, the world must be ready—not to occupy Iran, but to ensure that what replaces the tyranny is not simply the same regime in a different uniform.

The Trump administration’s renewed interest in tapping Venezuela’s mineral reserves could carry with it ‘serious risk,’ an expert on illicit economies has warned in the wake of the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

A day after the U.S. military captured Maduro in Caracas, Trump administration officials highlighted their interest in the country’s critical mineral potential.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Jan. 4, ‘You have steel, you have minerals, all the critical minerals. They have a great mining history that’s gone rusty,’ he said aboard Air Force One alongside President Donald Trump.

Lutnick also said that Trump ‘is going to fix it and bring it back – for the Venezuelans.’

‘Venezuela’s gold, critical mineral and rare earth potential is substantial, which makes mining resources very much on the menu for Trump,’ Bram Ebus told Fox News Digital.

‘But this illicit economy involves extreme violence,’ he said, before describing abuses that include forced labor, criminal control of mining zones and punishments such as ‘hands being cut off for theft.’

Ebus cautioned that without strict safeguards, transparency and security, Trump’s efforts to tap Venezuela’s mineral wealth could entangle the U.S. in criminal networks.

‘The sector is already dominated by transnational crime syndicates, deeply implicated in human rights abuses, and intertwined with Chinese corporate interests,’ Ebus, the founder of Amazon Underworld, a research collective covering organized crime, said. ‘If corporations or foreign private security firms were to become directly involved in mining in Venezuela’s Amazon region, the situation could deteriorate rapidly and violently.’

Despite the renewed focus on oil and mineral wealth, ‘when it comes to mining, the situation is more complex than oil,’ Ebus added. ‘The illicit extraction of gold, tungsten, tantalum, and rare earth elements is largely controlled by Colombian guerrilla organizations, often working in collaboration with corrupt Venezuelan state security forces. Much of this output currently ends up in China.’

Ebus also described dire conditions inside mining zones. ‘Mining districts are effectively run by criminal governance,’ he explained. ‘Armed groups decide who can enter or leave an area, tax legal and illegal economic activity, and enforce their own form of justice.’ He also described how ‘punishments for breaking rules can include expulsion, beatings, torture or death.’

‘We have documented summary executions, decapitations, and severe physical mutilation, such as hands being cut off for theft,’ he added. ‘Sexual exploitation, forced labor, and torture are widespread with crimes not limited to non-state actors.’ 

He also noted that ‘Venezuelan state forces, including the army, National Guard, and intelligence services are deeply involved and work in direct collaboration with organized crime groups.’

Ebus described how Colombia’s largest guerrilla organizations, including the ELN and factions such as the Segunda Marquetalia, along with Venezuelan organized crime groups operating locally – or ‘sistemas’ – dominate illegal mining operations, noting that ‘there are at least five major ‘sindicatos’ operating across Bolívar state alone.’

‘Together, all these actors make up the core criminal panorama of Venezuela’s mining sector,’ Ebus added.

In 2016, Maduro established the Orinoco Mining Arc, a 111,843-square-kilometer zone rich in gold, diamonds, coltan and other minerals.

The area has since become synonymous with illicit mining and corrupt officials.

In 2019, the U.S. sanctioned Venezuelan gold exports with at least 86% of the country’s gold reportedly being produced illegally and often controlled by criminal gangs.

However, from a U.S. perspective, Ebus said, the objective behind critical minerals could be limiting China’s access.

‘With gold prices expected to peak around 2026, access to gold represents a major benefit for national economies and government investment stability,’ he said. ‘Beyond gold, controlling critical mineral supply chains offers enormous geopolitical leverage for the U.S., especially if it allows it to deny access to China.’

A viral story from a man claiming to have witnessed the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro states that the U.S. used sonic weapons during the mission to incapacitate opposing forces.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the eyewitness interview on X, encouraging her followers to read the statement. The witness in the interview claims to be a guard who was serving at the Caracas military base where the U.S. captured Maduro.

‘We were on guard, but suddenly all our radar systems shut down without any explanation,’ the witness said. ‘The next thing we saw were drones, a lot of drones, flying over our positions. We didn’t know how to react.’

The witness then described watching roughly 20 U.S. soldiers deploy out of roughly eight helicopters over the base.

‘They were technologically very advanced,’ the guard said. ‘They didn’t look like anything we’ve fought against before.’

‘We were hundreds, but we had no chance,’ he said. ‘They were shooting with such precision and speed; it felt like each soldier was firing 300 rounds per minute.’

The witness then describes the U.S. deploying some sort of sonic weapon against Venezuelan forces.

‘At one point, they launched something; I don’t know how to describe it,’ he said. ‘It was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside.’

‘We all started bleeding from the nose,’ he added. ‘Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move. We couldn’t even stand up after that sonic weapon — or whatever it was.’

‘Those twenty men, without a single casualty, killed hundreds of us,’ the witness claimed. ‘We had no way to compete with their technology, with their weapons. I swear, I’ve never seen anything like it.’

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital when asked whether Leavitt’s sharing of the post constituted confirmation of its veracity. The Pentagon also did not immediately respond when asked if the U.S. deployed sonic or energy weapons in Venezuela.

A federal judge in Washington state on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of an executive order that sought to change how states administer federal elections, ruling the president lacked authority to apply those provisions to Washington and Oregon.

U.S. District Judge John Chun held that several provisions of Executive Order 14248 violated the separation of powers and exceeded the president’s authority.

‘As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, ‘[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,’’ Chun wrote in his 75-page ruling.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in a statement: ‘President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.’

Washington and Oregon filed a lawsuit in April contending the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March violated the Constitution by attempting to set rules for how states conduct elections, including ballot counting, voter registration and voting equipment.

‘Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,’ Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in response to the Jan. 9 ruling, according to The Associated Press. ‘The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.’

Executive Order 14248 directed federal agencies to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and sought to require that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.

The order also instructed the attorney general to take enforcement action against states that include such ballots in their final vote tallies if they arrive after that deadline.

‘We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters and will continue to advocate for inclusive and equitable access to registration while protecting the integrity of the process. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted,’ said Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs in a statement issued when the lawsuit was filed last year.

‘We will work with the Washington Attorney General’s Office to defend our constitutional authority and ensure Washington’s elections remain secure, fair, and accessible,’ Hobbs added.

Chun noted in his ruling that Washington and Oregon do not certify election results on Election Day, a practice shared by every U.S. state and territory, which allows them to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots were postmarked on or before that day and arrived before certification under state law.