A digital strike instead of a shooting war with Iran



Iran has once again violated its obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agency, thumbing its nose at the international community and inching the world closer to open conflict.

In the past, such provocation might have triggered a kinetic military response. But what if President Trump had another option — one that avoids American bloodshed, leverages international law, and puts the mullahs on the defensive using the very tools they rely on to maintain power?

President Trump doesn’t need to invade Iran to change it. He needs only to interrupt it.

Rather than ordering a strike package or putting boots on the ground, Trump could pursue a bold diplomatic gambit.

Under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council can authorize measures “not involving the use of armed force” to enforce its will. These include the “complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication” (my emphasis).

In other words, an embargo. But not just the old-fashioned kind.

A new kind of war

Time is a critical variable in any conflict. Traditional embargoes — naval blockades, sanctions regimes — require months or years to produce meaningful results. But a digital embargo, launched under the auspices of Article 41, could produce near-instantaneous effects on Iran’s command and control, propaganda apparatus, and internal cohesion.

Imagine this: Iranian cell networks silenced. Internet access throttled or shut down entirely. Satellite links disrupted. State television (or what’s left of it) cut off from its viewers. Social media — so often used as a tool of repression and misinformation — rendered inert.

This isn’t science fiction. These capabilities exist. And with international backing, their coordinated use against the Iranian regime would amount to a strategic information offensive — precisely the kind of campaign envisioned by the pioneering concept of SOFTWAR.

The battle for perception

SOFTWAR — short for soft warfare — is the doctrine of using information systems, media, and psychological operations to degrade an adversary’s will and capacity to fight without firing a single shot. The term isn’t just rhetorical flourish. As the progenitor of the U.S. military’s first “virtual unit” — a joint team of California Air and Army National Guardsmen tasked with exploring information dominance — I’ve seen the possibilities firsthand.

In this case, combatant commanders could employ SOFTWAR principles to carry out a tailored, non-kinetic campaign: degrading Iran’s internal communications, disrupting regime propaganda, and flooding the digital space with content that inspires dissent and destabilizes the theocracy’s grip on power.

Article 41 doesn’t just permit such actions — it provides the legal basis for them. The operative word in the U.N. Charter is “interrupt.” That grants flexibility. “Interruption” can mean anything from throttling bandwidth to flipping the narrative script. Every act of suppression by the Iranian regime could be met with a counterstroke that undermines its legitimacy and erodes public confidence.

RELATED: Israel’s strategy now rests on one bomb — and it’s American

Photo by Mehmet Yaren Bozgun/Anadolu via Getty Image

Bursting Iran’s reality bubble

Iran’s clerical regime depends on a tightly controlled narrative to survive. Interrupt that narrative — inject confusion, sow doubt, and amplify internal frustrations — and you begin to unmake the regime from within.

Television broadcasts could be co-opted to present alternative visions of Iranian life. Disaffected youth could receive direct messages from the free world. Clerical edicts could be ridiculed, refuted, or simply drowned out.

In the digital age, perception is reality — and controlling perception is a form of power more potent than many realize.

If executed with precision, coordination, and the right legal cover, such a campaign could avoid the mass casualties, blowback, and open-ended commitment of a traditional military operation. It could also mark a new chapter in U.S. strategy — one that prioritizes data dominance over deadweight tonnage.

A unit ahead of its time

The 1st Joint SOFTWAR Unit (Virtual), which I had the honor of organizing, was established to explore exactly these kinds of strategies. Though the unit now sits in bureaucratic limbo, its mission has never been more urgent — or more applicable — than in the current standoff with Iran.

President Trump doesn’t need to invade Iran to change it. He needs only to interrupt it.

With the Security Council’s approval and the backing of U.S. information forces, he could do just that — and rewrite the rules of engagement for the 21st century.

Letting China Purchase US Land Poses An Even Bigger National Security Risk Than You Think

Chinese entities keep purchasing plots of American land, presenting the Chinese military with a strategic advantage should conflict arise.

What Big Tech Didn’t Want You To See On The Federalist In 2020

Big tech bias is not a trivial issue. It is the difference between a fair election and a corrupted one, between self-rule and a corrupted oligarchy.

Press Secretary Jen Psaki Will Help Joe Biden Lie To America

Obama veteran Jennifer Psaki claims she’ll bring honesty back to the White House, but she helped orchestrate the fake news behind the Iran nuclear deal ‘echo chamber.’

White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah resigns



White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah announced her resignation on Thursday, issuing a statement expressing her pride in being a part of the accomplishments made by the Trump administration.

What are the details?

Farah, 31, entered the administration as press secretary to Vice President Mike Pence in 2017, then transferred to the same role at the Pentagon before returning to the White House to serve as communications director.

In a statement regarding her departure, Farah expressed her gratitude for the opportunity to serve her country. While she did not mention President Donald Trump directly in her statement, she did point to a litany of his achievements and said that working for his administration was "the honor of a lifetime."

"Under this Administration, the ISIS caliphate was destroyed, American hostages were returned home, NATO is stronger than ever, we've brokered historic Middle East peace deals, and I was on the ground in Kabul for the announcement of a historic peace deal between the Afghan Government and the Taliban aimed at ending America's war," she wrote.

"We delivered historic tax cuts, putting money back into the pockets of hard working Americans," Farah continued. "We rebuilt the judiciary with Constitution abiding independent jurists and we worked to create the most inclusive economy in American history - that gives every citizen a real chance to achieve the American dream."

Farah said she was leaving to "pursue new opportunities," and the news is buzzing over where she might end up next.

One America News Network's Alex Salvi reported that "Farah has been interviewing with agents, pursuing a television job after her White House departure."

According to The Washington Post:

Farah's last day is on Friday, and she plans to start a consulting firm focusing on the corporate, political and defense realms. She had initially planned to leave before the election, according to one person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal private discussions.

Prior to joining the Trump administration, Farah worked as an aide on Capitol Hill, first as communications director for former Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) —who is now White House chief of staff — before serving as spokesperson for the House Freedom Caucus.

USC communications prof booted from class for uttering Chinese word that sounds like racial slur in English



It used to be that college professors found themselves in hot water after uttering racial slurs as part of classroom discussions — you know, speech that's part of the learning process.

Well, now it appears that if a professor utters a word in class from a foreign language that sounds like an English-language racial slur, the prof might be toast, too.

What are the details?

Don't believe it? Well, a communications professor at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business is now on a short-term break after saying a Chinese word during an online class that sounded like a version of a well-known racial slur in English, Campus Reform said.

Seems that Greg Patton — a professor of clinical business communication who's an "expert in communication, interpersonal and leadership effectiveness" — was explaining the usage of a Chinese filler word for "that" and comparing it to English fillers such as "like" and "um," the outlet reported.

And when Patton uttered the Chinese word, its pronunciation apparently sounded too close to a version of the N-word.

Here's the clip:

DO YOU THINK THIS PROFESSOR SHOULD BE FIRED? youtu.be

How did USC respond?

USC's Marshall School of Business confirmed to Campus Reform in a statement that Patton isn't teaching his course at present.

"Recently, a USC faculty member during class used a Chinese word that sounds similar to a racial slur in English," the statement noted, according to the outlet. "We acknowledge the historical, cultural, and harmful impact of racist language."

Patton "agreed to take a short-term pause while we are reviewing to better understand the situation and to take any appropriate next steps," the statement added, according to Campus Reform.

The outlet noted that another instructor is temporarily teaching the class.

Oh, and USC is "offering supportive measures to any student, faculty, or staff member who requests assistance" and is "committed to building a culture of respect and dignity where all members of our community can feel safe, supported, and can thrive," Campus Reform added.

'This is a whole new level of stupidity'

The outlet said Patton didn't immediately reply to a request for comment, but other folks who viewed the video were quite enthusiastic about offering their two cents on the kerfuffle:

  • "This is a whole new level of stupidity," one commenter noted.
  • "As someone who speaks Chinese, this is literally another language. No, my people did not think about how it sounded like the N-word when we created it thousands of years ago," another commenter said.
  • "I consider myself a liberal and condemn racial discrimination. However, this professor did NOTHING WRONG!" another commenter noted. "I speak Chinese/Cantonese myself. If this professor cannot show how Chinese people utter, 'em, uh,' then the word 'deal' may not be taught in places that use Cantonese. The word 'deal' literally sounds like the F word in Cantonese! No reasonable Cantonese-speaking person would condemn an English-speaking [person] using the word 'deal' if the speaker is using it in its true meaning. If USC has other motives in firing this professor, they should be clear about it! SHAME ON YOU, USC, AND ALL THOSE STUDENTS WHO CONDEMN THIS PROFESSOR!"