Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Monday, September 29, 2025

Mrs. Bill Clinton and her private email server.

I've been a writer for the American Free News Network since its founding in 2022. One of my fellow authors has an excellent piece on Mrs. Bill Clinton and her use of a private email server for official business. 

I've known countless people who had multiple phones during their daily lives. Usually, it's a private phone and your office phone. Also, multiple email address. When I was deployed overseas in Kuwait, I had three official unclassified addresses. plus two collateral (Secret and below) addresses, and two above that. Not counting my personal email, and I had no issue with handling all of them. But we are supposed to believe the smartest women ever, the most qualified person to be nominated for the presidency could not handle two email address. 

Also, being an Army officer for decades, I know at that level you need both classified and unclassified email addresses for your work. The woman fourth in line for the presidency does not have a classified email account? I find that very hard to believe. No, I know that's a lie. John F. Di Leo has an excellent article on this matter, and why she needs to be prosecuted for her crimes. 

Hillary Clinton and the Needle in a Haystack

For over a decade, the press has been minimizing its coverage of the Hillary Clinton email server issue, as Congress and the conservative media have been trying to get to the truth of the matter.

The facts, as shared, are simple enough:  As Secretary of State during Barack Obama’s first term in the White House, Hillary Clinton chose to violate the law and route all of her email traffic, both personal and work-related, through a private email server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. This kept the emails out of the security and record retention protocols of the federal government, and potentially added an additionally severe crime if any of those emails were classified.

It is generally assumed that, logically, the only reason for her to use a private server at the time was to hide communications that included her criminal activity, but without such evidence, she couldn’t be prosecuted for that.  What she could, and should, be prosecuted for, however, was for removing the necessary government security around her job-related communications, which simply had to include at least some classified material.

As the Clinton gang has parsed, and dissembled, and – oh, the heck with it – outright lied, they have tried to give the impression that there was no classified material on the email traffic that the Secretary of State had for four years.  When some emails were finally found that were marked, in the subject line, as classified, the Clinton gang spun it to say that shouldn’t count because those were incoming emails, not outgoing, and therefore not her fault (as if anyone on earth shouldn’t be able to assume that the email address of a Secretary of State would obviously be a secure line).

But even so, they all miss the point. On both sides of the debate, in fact, people are missing the point, perhaps because many don’t fully realize what the role of the Secretary of State is.

It’s conceivable – not likely, but conceivable – that a Secretary of Education, or Energy, or maybe even Veterans Affairs, could go four years without having any classified emails.  It’s possible.  But she was a Secretary of State.  And what does a Secretary of State do, in his or her daily life?

Passports

The State Department issues passports to US citizens, and authorizes and monitors international travel of American passport holders.  While this is rarely particularly secret, if there’s a challenge that needs to go to the Secretary, it would be.

During her four year term, she had to encounter occasions when the department needed her approval to grant a passport to someone of unproven citizenship, or a felon or suspected-felon on a no-travel order, or a person in a witness protection program, or agents with security clearances, etc.  Such issues would have needed her sign-off, and most such discussions would have been classified, some at the highest level.

Visas

The State Department manages inbound visas for foreigners.  If they wind up wanting to stay here, the responsibility is transferred to Homeland Security.  But the question of granting visas – work visas, tourist visas, political sanctuary visas, etc. – is a matter for State.   Again, these are normally not classified, and would not require escalation to a Cabinet Secretary.

But what of the ones that do?  If a visa question goes to the Secretary – politically oppressed people in Russia or China or the middle east, for example, whether dissidents or just victims of homicidal rebellions like ISIS – then such discussions would be secret; the people’s lives would be in jeopardy if it were known at home that they were trying to escape to the United States.  Any communications about such questions that reach the Secretary would have to be classified.

The Embassy Archipelago

There are United States Embassies and Consulates all over the world, located in friendly nations, unfriendly nations, and everything in between.  State manages and staffs these locations, appointing ambassadors and other employees of the foreign service.

While most embassies and consulates include a commercial side (such as an office of the Department of Commerce for import/export outreach and support), the sites are still operated by State.  There are often military and security aspects to these locations as well – a few marines, a few security personnel from other agencies, either publicly acknowledged or clandestine.

Normal staffing matters – “we’re transferring a clerk from the embassy in London to the embassy in Paris” – might not have to be classified, but then, they wouldn’t be escalated to the Secretary anyway.

What about the less normal staffing matters?  What about questions regarding interdepartmental cooperation, like when the CIA asks to put someone in an embassy for a while, or when an ambassador is meeting with a political opposition group or minority, and needs guidance on what American policy supports or opposes?  What about when a prisoner release or exchange is being negotiated, and the Ambassador needs to know what he can or can’t trade?

These are the questions that would make it to the Secretary… and these are the ones that would be classified.

Arms Control

The Export Controls regime of the United States is primarily split between two departments – State and Commerce.  While Commerce handles most controls on dual-use items (such as products that have a legitimate civilian purpose, but could also be abused for chemical or biological weapon proliferation), the State Department handles everything covered by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), in association with the United States Munitions List (USML).

Weapons, weapon parts, and almost anything customized for military use – plus the plans and blueprints, technical specs, molds and dies for manufacturing such things – are therefore controlled by the State Department.

If a defense contractor – say, Northrup Grummon, Honeywell, Ball, General Dynamics, and hundreds of others – is considering outsourcing one of the parts to one of their foreign plants, or is considering selling the parts to one of our allies, they must apply for an export license from State.

Everything about these export license applications – particularly the technology, is confidential.  When a question arises that needs the Secretary’s decision, that email traffic has to be secure.  Our enemies are always trying to get their hands on our defense technology; emails discussing who makes what and how, and who they can share information with and where, are of course classified, or our entire U.S. export control regime is utterly porous.

Treaty Negotiations

One of the key Constitutional responsibilities of the Executive branch is the negotiation of treaties with foreign governments.  The Secretary of State negotiates with the President’s guidance, and then the President submits it to the Senate for their approval or rejection (and, contrary to the practices of the current administration, that’s the only legal way they can be managed).

Some such treaties could, conceivably, be managed without some degree of confidentiality, but not often.  Normally, such treaties – especially since, nowadays, they concern arms control and nuclear non-proliferation efforts – are negotiated based on our own top secret information about what the enemy really has, and what we are really willing to consider giving up.

Such information, of necessity, is obviously confidential.  We cannot allow the enemy – or a third party – to obtain our plans, our internal discussions, our behind-the-scenes evaluations as such treaty negotiations are going on… or for that matter, for many years afterward!

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, there was saber-rattling and more from North Korea and Red China, the virtual evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a string of revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East.

Under the normal rules governing federal government communications, it is inconceivable that the vast majority of emails that reached the level of Secretary involvement wouldn’t have been classified.

Human Rights

As long as the United States of America have served as a City on the Hill for the rest of the world to emulate, our nation has been a beacon of freedom, seeking out information about foreign prostitution rings, human trafficking organizations, foreign crime gangs, and every other violation of basic human rights that we see on the international news from across the globe.

The State Department applies pressure to foreign governments to stand up to such organizations, attempting to encourage third world governments to bear down on the often politically-connected criminals within their own borders, sometimes organizations that own  a few magistrates or legislators themselves.

Such pressure is a delicate matter, often based on secret discussions by our clandestine agents, local whistle-blowers, or relatives of relatives in-country.  Such documentation naturally must be secret to protect the individuals reporting the matter.

And when they reach the desk of the Secretary, it is again inconceivable that the vast majority of such communications wouldn’t be classified.

Lunch and Dinner

These are only the most obviously serious of the many matters that the State Department handles.  There are countless more, as the leviathan has grown – and each cabinet department with it – in over two centuries of expansion.

But the secrecy of a Secretary’s email is not limited to the obviously classified.  We must remember that a Secretary of State is fourth in line to the Presidency, and therefore has security concerns that you and I don’t have to worry about.

If Hillary Clinton was flying through Chicago to attend her high school reunion, she might have planned a lunch with an old friend… if she flew through Los Angeles on her way to the Far East, she might have planned a shopping trip on Rodeo Drive… if she flew through London on her way to a summit in Europe, she might plan a secret meeting while in town with the British Foreign Minister, or perhaps with some foreign exile who’s hiding in London due to a fatwa.

While the latter would likely be designed with top security, the former might make security challenging.  A famous restaurant in Chicago or shop in L.A. can be secured on the spot, but not if an enemy has a week to prepare.

So it is that even the lunch plans and dinner plans of a U.S. Secretary of State are – and must be – confidential matters. Outside of publicly announced events, such as press conferences, summits, and speaking engagements,  a Secretary of State’s schedule must be tightly controlled, with as much of it as possible kept unknown to any but the participants.

A Secretary of State is no longer an individual private citizen; he or she is a negotiator with foreign countries, many of whom want us – or our allies – to be evaporated, and would stop at nothing to gain the advantage in their effort.  And again, that Secretary is fourth in line to the Presidency.  Particularly in a post-9/11 world, we must take such issues seriously.

It Strains Credulity

And yet, in light of everything we know about the office of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton expects us to believe that in four years, she never had an email that was classified… or if one came in that was, she shouldn’t be blamed because it was just inbound, not outbound, as if anyone communicating with a United States Secretary of State shouldn’t be able to safely assume that her communications are secure!

In point of fact… virtually HER ENTIRE JOB was classified. For four years, almost everything she did, almost everything that crossed her desk, had to be recognized as some degree of secrecy, anywhere from a low-level confidentiality to a top secret status.

As we have seen, the State Department may indeed do many things that don’t require confidentiality, but none of them would have often reached the desk of the Secretary.  Of those things that did, about the only ones that weren’t classified might have been her attendance at the occasional foreign funeral. Other than that, practically everything she touched had to be sensitive.

In all this time, the spin has been that nothing she did was classified, so to search for an email that was indeed classified was bound to be a matter of looking for a needle in a haystack.

Ridiculous.  In all likelihood, many thousands of the emails were classified – or should have been, and would have been in any sane and competent administration – and that’s why they scrubbed the server so hard.

It’s virtually impossible for it to be otherwise, unless she slept through her entire tenure in the job.

And whatever she did, to the detriment of the United States and the world, we know that she most certainly did not do that.

Copyright 2015-25 John F. Di Leo

This column was originally published in Illinois Review, here.

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation and trade compliance trainer and consultant.  President of the Ethnic American Council in the 1980s and Chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party in the 1990s, his book on vote fraud (The Tales of Little Pavel), his political satires on the Biden-Harris administration (Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes IIIand III), and his first nonfiction book, “Current Events and the Issues of Our Age,” are all available in either eBook or paperback, only on Amazon.   

Saturday, September 27, 2025

FBI Agents Terminated

I’ve been a cop for almost 30 years and I’ve had tense situations to handle. Small groups (families are always fun) and larger ones (an illegal alien protest in 2019). Each has their issues, but never did I think I will surrender to the protestors. I was in a George Floyd protest in June 2020, and things got very tense. I remember thanking an ACLU lawyer for deescalating around 20 very agitated college students. 

Now I come to this incident. I remember seeing this photo and wondering “WTF?” You kneel like that you are putting yourself in a weak position. More than that, it encourages your opposition by them seeing you not lined up. In a Special Reaction Group, you have your officers in a line, side by side (see a Roman legion). This prevents penetration by an opponent and it is intimidating.

 

Policing must be assertive, and to say the least these agents were not. What I’m seeing is encouraging aggressiveness by the rioters. It looks like preemptive surrender on the field.

 

FBI agents kneeling with demonstrators at a George Floyd protest in Washington, D.C., June 2020.

                             FBI agents kneel during a protest on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., on June 4, 2020, 

                                           over George Floyd's death. Some FBI agents who knelt to honor Floyd had reportedly been fired, 

                                           although it is not clear which ones.  

 

FBI agents fired after kneeling at George Floyd protest in 2020: reports

​The FBI has fired nearly two dozen agents who were photographed kneeling amid the George Floyd protests in 2020, according to reports. 

An estimated 20 agents have been dismissed, according to The Associated Press, which reported that many of those terminated had already been reassigned to lower-profile duties in the years since…

…The photographs at issue reportedly showed a group of agents taking a knee during one of the demonstrations in Washington, D.C., following the May 2020 killing of Floyd in Minneapolis. 

Kneeling was widely used by protesters and supporters after Floyd’s death to signal sympathy with the Black Lives Matter movement and a call for racial justice… 

…The FBI Agents Association condemned the firings as "unlawful," warning they violated civil service protections. 

"This is a dangerous precedent," the group said, arguing the bureau punished employees for a split-second de-escalation decision in a volatile moment.

“Split-second de-escalation decision in a volatile moment.” Excuse me? I see two possibilities, both of which are very bad. One, you could be basically surrendering the field to the rioters. Agents, do I need to remind you that your are there to keep order, not to encourage chaos?

 “Some FBI agents who knelt to honor Floyd?” Are you serious? You are honoring a thug felon like that? Kneeling to “deescalate” (only encouraging the rioters) is an abomination. More to the point you keep your politics out of your work. If you are really honoring a criminal like that you don’t deserve the badge. I said it. 

 

Perhaps (likely) we’re not getting the full story. One thing is sure, like him or not, Director Patel is more law and order minded than his predecessors (hello Mr. Comey). I don’t see him tolerating leftist political operatives in his force (Mr. Strzok). This is a step in the right direction.  

Sunday, September 14, 2025

Traffic Stops And Assertive Policing

“What’s up, my man? You on probation or parole?” 

Officer Dorin Buchanan to Victor Ramirez.

 

One of the major issues coming from the George Floyd riots was the obstruction of aggressive law enforcement. Effective policing must, by its nature, be assertive. Cops must go out, find the bad guys before they commit the crime and prevent it. When law enforcement officers believe (justifiably) they are targeted for politically motivated prosecution, they are not assertive. Then you have these two good police officers showing how it's done.

 

In June 2020, as Democrats were burning cities, two California cops observed a vehicle making multiple traffic violations. They initiated a traffic stop, and Officer Dorin Buchanan remembered the driver as a felon he had dealt with before. Approaching the car, he asked the driver, Mr. Victor Ramirz, “What’s up, my man? You on probation or parole?” Mr. Ramirz admitted he was on parole for weapons violations.

 

This immediately puts cops on edge. Besides using weapons in crime, the driver is a known gang member. Furthermore Officer Buchanan knew he was driving through a rival gang’s territory.  In the traffic investigation, Officer Buchanan asked if he had a “strap” (slang term for a firearm) on him. Ramirez admitted he had one in his glove compartment and he was detained for continued investigation.  Mr. Ramiriz was later charged with felon in possession of firearm and ammunition. 

 

Mr. Ramirz immediately appealed the weapons seizure to the federal district court. His lawyers claimed “asking about his parole status extended the investigation, leading to weapons unrelated to the traffic issues. Therefore the detention violated his 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.” The federal district court denied his appeal, and Ramirez pled guilty, then appealed. 

 

The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the ruling. The 9th Circuit concluded “asking about parole status during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment as it reasonably relates to the officer's safety and imposes a negligible burden.” The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings, saying the delay was not excessive and the inquiry on parole status was linked to officer safety. 

 

A point I would like to make is something that is often attacked by liberal politicians today: policing. Again, good policing must be assertive. Officer Buchanan, had he not known Mr. Ramirez, may not have reasonable suspicion to ask about his parole status. Seeing their previous experience before, Officer Buchanan knew to ask and it led to a felon being convicted of another crime. 

 

What we can contemplate is did this prevent another offense Speculation, I agree, but if Mr. Ramirez was going to commit a crime in a rival gang’s area, the pistol likely would have been used. Or perhaps he wanted to use it for another offence unrelated to gangs. Either way, it was stopped by a cop knowing a bag guy and making a legitimate inquiry, i.e., investigating.   

 

The point of reviewing this incident. Too many politicians are actively hostile to law enforcement. One of Texas’s worst, Jasmine Crockett (soon to be former congressperson) made a complete fool of herself with her wisdom:

 

“I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime. Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se.”

 

Scares me that this idiot is a lawyer. I thought even the bar had some (low mind you) standards. Then again she provided pro bono services to BLM terrorists. But no Ms. Crockett, allow me to enlighten you. Protect and Serve. Remember that phrase? We go out with patrol and other actions to deter criminal activity. If deterrence fails, we investigate and assist with charging a suspect for the crime. Got it? 

 

I’ve posted multiple times, beginning with the Michael Brown incident, police were often “joining the fire department.” By that I mean they would answer their calls for service but do nothing self-initiated. You only do what the department wants you do, less chance you can get into trouble. These cops have families to support, bills to pay, and want to make it to retirement. Seeing what happened to Darren Wilson, Sgt. James Crowley, the Baltimore Police with Freddy Grey, or Derek Chauvin makes us not want to go out and make things happen, 

 

Seeing a court actually support effective policing is a sign some intelligence and common sense is returning to the judicial system. Not a moment too soon. 

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Last month I posted on an updated Battle Damage Assessment of the attacks on the Iranian nuclear program. Now one of my fellow authors from the American Free News Network has an interesting take on the Chines-Iranian relationship. 


Iran: China Bet on the Wrong Horse; Communist Chinese investments in Iran are at risk

Communist China was one of the few nations to side with Iran by publicly condemning strikes on Iranian nuclear capabilities and military targets as a violation of Iran’s sovereignty and urging immediate de-escalation of the conflict. As the outrages of Iranian proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis have captured the attention of the world in recent years, China has become increasingly isolated in its many years of overt support for Iran, which has included jump-starting Iranian nuclear research capabilities in the early 1980s.

The reality is that China is protecting its significant investments in the Islamic Republican of Iran (IRI), both on the economic and diplomatic fronts. By some estimates, communist China has invested at least $40 billion in Iran since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, with emphasis on building Iran’s energy infrastructure that facilitates the exportation of Iranian oil and gas to energy-poor China.

China’s significant investments in Iran could be at risk or at least be problematic for the communists on the diplomatic front. Let us examine the issue.

CHINA AND IRAN SINCE 1979

The previously nonexistent relations between Iran and China began to blossom after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. It is no coincidence that pariah nations seem to find each other and do business together, in one way or another, although Islamists and communists make strange ideological bedfellows. An alignment of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism (for 39 years in a row according to the US State Dept) with a country that has practiced cultural genocide and forced organ harvesting for decades could be construed to be a match made in Hell.

Be that as it may, the relationship started slowly and followed an upward trajectory that paralleled China’s economic and military expansion and outreach that has been greatly accelerated by Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Some of the highlights:

China recognized the IRI in February 1979. Relations improved after China shifted away from supporting global communist revolutions in pursuit of “diplomatic pragmatism” and economic modernization in the 1980s. In Iran’s case, this meant withdrawing support from the communist Tudeh Party in favor of state-to-state diplomatic relations.

China provided approximately $2 billion worth of military hardware to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), including 107mm rockets, aircraft, main battle tanks, and surface-to-air missile systems.

In 1984, the Isfahan Nuclear Research Center was opened with Chinese assistance, which included technical support for the installation of a 30-kilowatt Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR), a Light Water Sub-Critical Reactor (LWSCR), a Heavy Water Zero Power Reactor (HWZPR), a Fuel Fabrication Laboratory (FFL) for producing experimental nuclear fuel, and a Zirconium Production Plant (ZPP) for manufacturing alloys used in nuclear reactors, all of which were vital for Iranian nuclear research.

Formalized in 1990, China signed a covert nuclear agreement to provide Iran with technical assistance and expertise needed to expand the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including for uranium mining, enrichment, and nuclear research.

After having been one of Iran’s main arms suppliers through the 1990s, China ceased signing new arms export agreements with Iran in 2005 to align with international sanctions and various UN Security Council resolutions on Iran. However, past arms sales agreements were honored through 2015 while Iran shifted to domestic production of various Chinese weapons systems such as the HY-2 Silkworm anti-ship cruise missile with Chinese assistance.

On the bilateral trade front, in 2004, Iran signed a 25-year agreement with China’s oil giant Sinopec Group worth a projected $70 billion for the development of its oil and gas industry.

By 2005, China had become the second-largest exporter to Iran by supplying 8.3% of its imports. By 2009, the Tehran Times stated that “China became Iran’s premier trading partner, with bilateral trade worth 21.2 billion dollars.”

As part of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), China agreed to assist in modernizing Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor in support of Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear enrichment under IAEA provisions.

In 2016, China and Iran signed the roadmap for a 25-year “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” that focused on improving energy, infrastructure, regional security cooperation, and overall trade relations between the two countries. This was concluded during Xi Jinping’s trip to Tehran in January 2016.

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year cooperation agreement that focused on international trade in goods, Iranian oil exports to China, and Chinese investments in Iran. China’s goals in Iran aligned with its Belt and Road Initiative: to develop overseas markets for finished Chinese goods while obtaining direct access to raw materials (oil and gas in particular) needed by Chinese industries. Alignment with Iran served China’s geostrategic intentions by positioning Beijing as an alternative to the US in the evolving global order and in the Middle East in particular.

In 2023, China gained significant prestige in the Middle East by brokering a dealto restore diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which enabled the reopening of embassies in Riyadh and Tehran.

On 14 June 2025, in a show of China’s continuing strong diplomatic support for Iran, Reuters reported that China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong “condemn[ed] Israel’s violations of Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and urge[d] Israel to immediately stop all risky military actions.”

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

China has much to lose depending on the outcome of the Israel-Iran war. As the largest buyer of Iranian oil, China imports over 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports. Any disruption of flow of those exports through the Strait of Hormuz, whether through blockage or severe damage to Iran’s oil infrastructure, would be a significant blow to China’s economy.

Israeli and US attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure reminds the world of the important Chinese assistance in support of Iran’s nuclear research and development capabilities. While ostensibly developed for “peaceful use of nuclear energy,” the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center has long been suspected of contributing to Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program, and China was the main player in jump-starting Isfahan when France ended its technical support after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Were any of the 1000+ Chinese who have left Iran since the 14 June attacks began involved in Iran’s nuclear programs in any way?

Finally, in pursuit of its goal to displace the US in the Middle East, China would lose significant diplomatic leverage with Gulf Cooperation Council states if it China sides with Iran in a major way (diplomatically or material support).

The end.

This article originally appeared in Stu Cvrk’s Substack. Reprinted here with permission

 

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

An Opportunity In Thirst.

Iran is running out of water. This is a route to foment an insurrection against the mullahs. 

 

When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.

 

Benjamin Franklin

 

Iraq has a population of 88 million, and almost three quarters of them have no memory of the Shah. An overwhelming majority have only known the mullahs ruling over their nation and running it into the ground. A country with vast energy resources experiences regular electrical brownouts. “Food prices are increasing by double digits per month. In January 2025, the cost of food for a family of four was approximately 58% of the minimum wage. Reportedly 26 million Iranians cannot meet their basic nutritional needs, and that may soon rise to 32 million.” Add to that now, Iran’s running out of water. 

 

From Foreign Policy:

 

Iran’s Taps Are Nearly Empty

 

After five straight years of drought, the country is running dry.

 

Iran’s environmental collapse is no longer the slowly worsening problem that leaders ignored for decades. It’s here, it’s accelerating, and it’s threatening the very survival of the country. This summer’s brutal drought, layered over decades of mismanagement and the regime’s obsession with regional conflict, has laid bare a stark reality: Iran is nearly out of water—and almost out of time...

 

...things have gone from bad to worse, and the country is now in its fifth straight year of drought. What was once a slow crisis is now spiraling fast.

 

From 2003-2019, when Iran’s population was still under 90 million and rainfall was higher than it is today, the country lost nearly 211 billion cubic meters of water. That’s almost twice its renewable supply, the amount of water that is naturally replenished, at today’s levels.

 

Most of that was pumped to grow food, often through inefficient farming. In dry, hot years, renewable supply drops sharply due to faster soil drying, increased evapotranspiration, and reduced aquifer recharge. Meanwhile, consumption rates often remain unchanged, causing the deficit to grow significantly. With weaker rains in the past few years, annual losses have slowed, but pressure on groundwater remains intense as heat rises and droughts worsen.

 

While headlines often focus on Iran’s nuclear ambitions or its proxy wars, the real existential threat lies beneath the surface—literally. The regime that once showcased its engineering prowess with dam-building and water transfer projects now presides over a broken hydrological system. Rivers have dried up. Lakes have disappeared. Aquifers are collapsing....

 

...Across the country, citizens are facing unbearable heat and growing fears of prolonged water shortages. Outside of Tehran, in towns such as Nasimshahr, Sabzevar, and Khomam, protests have recently erupted in the streets. In the past 10 years, water protests have occurred from Khuzestan to Isfahan. Farmers, workers, and families have taken to the streets, asking why their rivers are gone and their wells are empty. With public supplies faltering, some households have turned to private water tankers just to get by.

 

The regime’s response to protests? Tear gas and bullets... 

But a government with people staving, thirsty, and the dark has the resources to spend 400 billion on a nuclear program since 2020. And it shows how corruption is the cause. Under the Shah, they were a first-class nation with schools, power and prosperity. While the population in Iran doesn’t have that now, they do have limited access to the Internet

 

We (hopefully) have been sending in special operations into Iran to foment an insurgency against the mullahs. As younger people see other nations with freedom and prosperity, they will want it for them and their children. They need to be shown the mullahs will starve them before they allow peaceful regime change, and this will drive them to battle the government. To borrow the phrase, we “must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”

 

Remember what convinced Boris Yeltsin that the Soviets could never prevail against the West? He toured multiple grocery stores in the US and was astonished at the variety and quality of the items available to anyone. He knew even high party members didn’t have the selection of foods as the general public in the United States. We need to show the Iranians life is much better away from the mullahs. 

 

Ironically if regime change comes, one of the greatest allies in handing the water crisis just attacked Iran. Israel has been a leader in the desalination process since the 1990s, and now over half of their potable water comes from seawater. Israel now has a water surplus and is looking at exporting supplies. I have no doubt if the mullahs were overtaken today, Jerusalem would assist in providing this technology to the Iranian people. Having a stable and non-hostile Iran is in everyone’s interest.  

 

Twenty years ago I was in a staff meeting at my Army Reserve unit, and the commander made a lucent point. “You think these people will fight over oil. Wait till you see what they will do then they have to fight over water.” We need to feed that anger and get the Iranians willing to fight and die to rid themselves (and the world) of the threat in Tehran. Painful, yes. No revolution is painless. But the threat to the Iranian people, to every other nation, is more painful.