Sunday Ops Report: Cyber Ops vs Iran
Plus: an Iranian spy in the Biden admin?; Who will speak for ICE; and NYC's critical mayoral race
Well, we were set to go with analysis of a possible U.S. strike on Iran… but we’ve been overtaken by events.
So was it the right move?
Chris starts us off this week by putting into historical context what the early stages of conflict have looked like throughout America’s history. Then there’s stuxnet — the last “big” strike against Iran….
And whatever became of Robert Malley — you know, the suspected Iranian asset in the Biden administration?
Right now, America may be at war. It’s our focus this week.
As we all know now, the US has made its move, or at least its first move, on Iran. American bombers just flew missions to three nuclear development sites deep within Iranian territory. The two biggest questions are, “Is our intelligence correct?” and “What is the end goal of the Trump administration?”
These two critical questions have caused disasters for the United States in past conflicts, both necessary and unnecessary. Bad intelligence has gotten us into wars, and a vague or changing mission has bogged us down in conflicts for decades.
This is most obvious in our last two wars, which, unfortunately, can’t be qualified as successes despite the hard work and lives of thousands of Americans. Bad intelligence (at best) got us into the war in Iraq. Iraq now remains a shaky entity, uncomfortably close to Iran, after decades of war and the rise of ISIS.
Then there’s the mission in Afghanistan, which was to end the terror camps that 9/11 hijackers trained at. It turned into a twenty-year conflict that morphed from defeating terrorists, to changing the government structure, to nation development, and back to the starting point – all ending in an ignominious retreat.
And that is just recent wars. Before WWI, Wilson’s promise to keep us out of war was an empty one. The US joined The Great War after the potentially false Zimmerman Telegram. Most historians doubt that the Spanish blew up the U.S.S. Maine.
Intelligence failure led to disaster at Pearl Harbor. In 1950, a misstatement by Dean Acheson and lack of intelligence saw North Koreans swarming across the 38th parallel. An unclear mission led to the Chinese joining that war and led to a years-long stalemate.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was misread (intentionally or otherwise) and gave a cause for the Vietnam war. The United States mission there was indecipherable and involved regime change and the death of 58,000 Americans.
The intelligence in Iran seems clearer. Iran has a nuclear program, that is certain. They are the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world and have killed thousands of Americans in recent decades. Those two things are not compatible. It gives us pause that we have been told that Iran is weeks away from fissile material for decades, but their program is a serious threat. The International Atomic Energy Administration had inspectors in Iran for years and confirm the program is real.
Trump has made his move. He has been the most anti-war President in decades, but the bombs dropped yesterday regardless. We hope the intelligence is as correct as it seems. That would make Trump’s action necessary and correct. Hopefully Trump can make this a limited action that doesn’t cost any American blood and little American treasure.
The mercurial Trump has been known to change his outlook on a dime. Let’s hope he has a plan to keep us out of a full-blown war and has a clear and unwavering objective for an end to this conflict.
Do the right thing Mr. President. America supports you.
Robert Malley — Iranian Asset In The Biden Administration?
Iran has been in the headlines for months. The terror-sponsoring nation has rarely been off the front page of newspapers across the country. And today the other shoe has dropped.
Somewhere in an Ivy League office, Robert Malley is looking on in horror. If you recall, Robert Malley was appointed by someone in the shadowy Biden Administration to be the Special Envoy to Iran.
When, in early 2023, it was discovered that he had brought on a team that included some possible agents of Iran and had allowed classified materials to slip out, he was quietly taken off his assignment. The Biden Administration never told anyone about these developments, and Congress only realized it when he stopped showing up for meetings. His top-secret clearance was suspended in April of 2023, and he was placed on unpaid leave in June of 2023 when the affair became public. The FBI started a criminal investigation into his conduct.
Despite his clear misdeeds, Malley was given a cushy teaching position at both Yale and Princeton. If you wonder why Trump is after some Ivy League schools, you should first ask why they are tripping over themselves to hire someone like Malley.
We all know the pace of the FBI’s investigations. We often have to hope the subject of an FBI case doesn’t die of old age before the investigation is concluded.
But Trump has been in office for six months. His new FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have been in place for months. What is Robert Malley’s status now?
It’s exactly where it was in June of 2023. He is on unpaid leave from his position as Special Envoy and his security clearance is still suspended. He hasn’t been fired, and his security clearance hasn’t been revoked. He is still getting a paycheck from Yale and Princeton as far as we know.
We know that Trump, Bondi, and Patel have their hands full with more pressing matters, but this should stay on our radar. We should know if Iran had a spy in the Biden White House, and the results of the investigation. Especially now.
The Last Time We Hit Iran Didn’t Go So Well
So back in the late 2000’s, the United States and Israel pulled off what many consider the first known act of cyber-warfare against a sovereign nation. It was called Stuxnet, a complex computer worm designed to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
It infiltrated systems at Natanz, Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility (currently being bombed by Israel and the U.S.), and sabotaged the centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control.
Stuxnet didn’t bomb a building, it didn’t drop a payload, and no soldiers were deployed. Yet it was one of the most aggressive acts of digital sabotage ever launched by one state against another.
And no one in our media said jack.
The program, reportedly developed by the NSA and Israeli Unit 8200, was carried out under President Barack Obama (the operation was technically called “Operation Olympic Games”). And despite being an act of war in cyberspace, it was met with almost universal silence, or approval, in the American press.
Why? Because the media adored Obama, and anything that could be spun as "strategic" or "smart power" was sold as genius. No hand-wringing, no "what if this escalates into World War III," no prime-time panic or questioning of the president’s mental state. Obama launched the world’s first known state cyber-weapon and got applause.
Was Stuxnet Even Effective?
The narrative surrounding Stuxnet was one of precision and brilliance. It was said to have destroyed roughly 1,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility, setting back Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But here's the truth: Stuxnet’s long-term effectiveness remains, at best, debatable.
Iran’s nuclear program recovered relatively quickly, and by 2012, Iranian officials were publicly declaring that all systems were restored and enrichment was continuing. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) later confirmed Iran’s capabilities were largely intact.
Moreover, Stuxnet eventually escaped into the wild, exposing its code and tactics to hackers and enemy states. What was once a covert, top-secret program became a digital blueprint for future cyberweapons. Countries like China, Russia, and even Iran likely learned volumes from analyzing it.
In other words, the operation:
Cost millions in resources and years of joint intelligence efforts,
Did not permanently halt Iran’s nuclear program, and
Accidentally launched a new era of cyber arms races.
Yet to this day, Stuxnet is mostly remembered as a masterstroke.
Now Imagine Trump Had Ordered It
Flash forward to today, and imagine if President Donald Trump had approved Stuxnet. The media would combust. There would be emergency panels, legal scholars on cable news, op-eds about restraint, cries about destabilizing the Middle East, and nonstop speculation that we were on the brink of World War III.
And to be clear: this wouldn’t be coming from just the left — but from the (admittedly small) percentage of “deep MAGA” who somehow think Iran’s efforts against America will stop if we simply mind our own business.
Not going to happen. And while this space has consistently stood against unnecessary foreign entanglements — including boots-on-the-ground nation-building — the idea that America can simply retreat from the world and expect enduring prosperity is chimerical.
When Trump ordered a drone strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani—a man directly responsible for killing American troops—he was called a madman, a warmonger, a dictator. The same pundit class that yawned through Stuxnet were ready to impeach him over Soleimani.
So why the double standard?
There is the comparatively bloodless nature of a cyber attack, of course. But more than that, it’s the same-old biases. Tariffs turned today’s Dems into instant free-traders. ICE officers wearing masks suddenly turned these dedicated maskers anti-mask. If Trump’s got it — they’re against it.
It’s not a new phenomenon, of course. But back then, it was parody:
Now it’s policy.
Obama could arm rebels in Libya, drone American citizens abroad, and launch state cyberwarfare, all with glowing coverage. Trump tweets the wrong emoji, and it’s treason.
To be clear: Stuxnet probably looked like a good idea at the time — Obama made the right call, as he did with the hit on UBL. Stuxnet was undeniably a bold and precedent-setting attack, and it showed what America and its allies could do in cyberspace.
That’s not the issue here. What is the issue is the U.S. media’s willingness to ignore or sanitize military action when the politics align.
The truth is, Stuxnet cost a fortune, didn’t decisively halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and possibly unleashed a global era of cyber escalation. But because it happened under Obama, it was just another cool chapter in his “no drama” presidency.
If Trump had done the same, you’d still be hearing about it today—on every screen, in every paper, and in front of every congressional committee.
And if the Republicans don’t carry the midterms, expect the second-guessing to crescendo — in performative, interminable committees chaired by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Jasmine Crockett.
A Comparison of Headlines
Think we’re exaggerating? Compare how The NY Post reports yesterday’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities…
… with The NY Times:
With the Post, it’s a one-time strike (which at this point, has the benefit of accuracy). With the Times — we’re in an all-out war.
Will Anyone Speak For ICE?
As we’ve all seen, ICE officers face danger every day—not just from violent criminals on the street, but from the very public officials who should be protecting them. This month, Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell openly defended his office’s decision to dox federal ICE agents, releasing their names after a major immigration operation. Despite warnings from DHS that such disclosures endanger officers and their families, O’Connell stood firm, brushing off the fallout as a matter of “transparency.”
Let’s be clear: this is not just bureaucratic squabbling. This is about lives on the line. ICE agents today are dealing with threats, online harassment, and fears for their families’ safety. One ICE assistant field office director told media that their staff had been actively targeted following the mayor’s move. When local politicians feed anti-ICE sentiment in the name of political points, the consequences are not theoretical—they are immediate and dangerous.
And here’s the bigger problem: these agents have no official union to fight back.
AFGE Abandoned ICE—Over Politics
In 2022, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—the nation’s largest federal workers union—disclaimed interest in representing ICE officers, effectively dissolving their union, known as AFGE Council 118.
Why? Because ICE didn’t fit in anymore with AFGE’s increasingly left-wing political agenda.
Tensions had been boiling for years. ICE’s union had been one of the only federal groups to endorse Donald Trump in 2016. Meanwhile, AFGE’s leadership embraced politicians and platforms calling to, “Abolish ICE,” opposing immigration enforcement altogether. Council 118 accused AFGE of abandoning law enforcement values and promoting anti-ICE sentiment.
The final break came when the ICE union demanded independence and a financial audit of AFGE, claiming mismanagement and retaliation for whistleblowing. AFGE, rather than engage in reform or compromise, simply walked away—leaving ICE agents without collective bargaining rights, without union protection, and without a voice.
Left Politicians Attack ICE—And No One Fights Back
The consequences of this abandonment couldn’t be more obvious. With no union backing them, ICE officers are political punching bags. From New York to California to Tennessee, local officials undercut or obstruct their efforts, often for political gain.
In Nashville, the mayor’s reckless doxing of agents is being investigated by federal and congressional authorities. But without union representation, those agents have no formal mechanism to challenge it—no voice at the negotiating table, no leverage, no public advocate.
It’s no wonder that morale is at historic lows and assaults on ICE officers have spiked more than 400% in recent years. These agents enforce the law, pursue dangerous criminals, and protect national security. But instead of support, they get scapegoated by politicians—and now, abandoned by the very union that was supposed to protect them.
ICE agents are on the front lines of federal law enforcement, but thanks to the political drift of AFGE and the cowardice of left-leaning officials, they are now on their own. As the threats against them increase, so does the urgency for a new form of representation—one that isn’t ashamed to defend law enforcement, one that won’t cave to political pressure, and one that stands with the officers doing some of the hardest jobs in America.
Until then, ICE officers are fighting two battles: one against criminals, and one against their own government.
New York On The Brink
Right now, New York City is something of a bellwether for where America’s cities are headed. Will voters finally wise up and vote for a more moderate path? Or will towns like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc, continue down the suicidal path of hyper-progressivism?
While disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo appears likely to grab New York’s Democratic nomination this year, his toughest adversary may be — for once — a Republican in the general election. And that would be Curtis Sliwa, head of the Guardian Angels, who is running on a solid law-and-order platform.
Never before has Sliwa — who has run for NYC Mayor before — had a better shot at the big seat. And never before has New York needed him more.
Hear why in today’s pod. Click below for a preview — or HERE for the full thing (note: no firewall this week).
And Speaking Of Blue Cities….
Trump has a unique ability. He has the power to make the left support the wildest and most self-destructive viewpoints. This couldn’t be any clearer as we saw more “protests” – read “riots” – in the past two weeks.
We saw Americans waving the flags of foreign nations while decrying their own. Waving the Mexican flag is not a good look, a travesty perhaps, but it is not a crime against humanity.
But this week we saw Americans waving the Iranian flag. That truly is a crime. Iran has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in the past 4 decades. From the embassy bombing in Beirut in 1983, to harboring al Qaeda post-911, to IEDs in Iraq, to missile launches against American warships, to American deaths on October 7th.
For an American to be waving the Iranian flag shows a compete break from reality. It is a sign of support for a terror-sponsoring, oppressive theocracy. The flag is a symbol of death to the west and anyone who doesn’t support their brand of religious militancy.
Is the left really that far gone?
They are.
And finally…
Click the image for the clip:
Let’s hope we don’t need it.
