Connect with us

INTERNACIONAL

Afghan withdrawal refugees had ‘free rein’ on US bases in 2021, sources said, leaving in Ubers untracked

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The tragic Wednesday shooting of two West Virginia National Guardsmen in Washington, and President Donald Trump’s call to reexamine green card holders from «countries of concern» including Afghanistan, was predated by a warning from Fox News host Laura Ingraham about the Biden administration’s announcement amid the withdrawal that they were vetting evacuees on the «back end.»

Advertisement

The identification of a suspect has raised concerns again about the chaotic 2021 Kabul evacuation and previous reports of misconduct by evacuees on U.S. military bases.

Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, originally of Afghanistan and once part of a CIA-linked team fighting the Taliban, was identified as the main suspect in the shooting, which has since claimed the life of West Virginia National Guard Spc. Sarah Beckstrom of Nicholas County, West Virginia.

On Friday, «Ingraham Angle» host Laura Ingraham told Fox News Digital she and other conservatives have been sounding the alarm on failures of Biden-era vetting following the withdrawal ever since the Fox News host exclusively broke the story in September 2021 that members of Congress brought concerns over chaos at Army bases holding refugees directly to the State Department. 

Advertisement

TRUMP ORDER PUTS THOUSANDS OF AFGHAN ALLIES WAITING FOR US RESETTLEMENT IN LIMBO

«Soon after the Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal, it was obvious that their intent was to bring as many Afghans into the U.S. as possible,» Ingraham wrote in an email Friday.

«Conservatives, including myself, raised serious concerns about the cost, the difficulty of assimilation and potential threats posed to no avail,» she said. «The Biden team didn’t care.

Advertisement

«We kept hearing, ‘But we promised,’ — Americans didn’t promise anything — and they shouldn’t be forced to keep paying for previous presidents’ horrendous mistakes.»

In September 2021, Ingraham reported exclusively that a top Republican demanded answers from then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the reports out of Fort Pickett in Blackstone, Virginia, depicting chaos and unvetted, unaccounted for evacuees.

As Ingraham pointed out, Blinken had said the State Department tried to «get as many people out as fast as we can, while we had the airport functioning. We focused on doing just that, and we’re doing accountings on the back end as people arrive in the United States.»

Advertisement

«That’s your Secretary of State admitting that he didn’t care about vetting these folks before we brought them to U.S. Soil,» Ingraham said at the time. 

«And if you thought they would be securely held on US military bases, well, think again.»

Then-Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee exclusively provided Ingraham with a letter he wrote demanding answers from Blinken.

Advertisement

«I’ve recently been made aware from someone at Fort Pickett, Virginia, that Afghan evacuees basically have free rein of the complex and have even been allowed to leave, despite not having completed the vetting process,» Green wrote. 

VETERANS GROUPS URGE TRUMP ADMIN TO CONTINUE AFGHAN ALLY SUPPORT PROGRAM AMID BUDGET CUT CONCERNS

«My sources made shocking allegations, including multiple incidents of sexual assault and several evacuees have been picked up by Uber drivers without any permission from authorities or being cleared to leave.»

Advertisement

Green called upon his own combat service in Afghanistan as an Army special operations flight surgeon to request confirmation or denial of the allegations made by the source, telling Blinken the reports pose an obvious national security risk.

At the time, Ingraham contrasted Green’s letter with Blinken’s public statements. During a news conference at the time, Blinken said that in the administration’s effort to get «as many people out (of Afghanistan) as fast as we can, while we had the (Hamid Karzai) Airport functioning, we focused on doing just that.

DEMS’ RESPONSE TO ISIS LEADER ARREST ‘DISTURBING,’ SAYS FATHER OF MARINE KILLED AT ABBEY GATE

Advertisement

Evacuees pack a Boeing jet from Afghanistan in 2021.  (Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

«We’re doing accountings on the back end as people arrive in the United States,» Blinken told reporters at the time. 

«If you thought they would be securely held on U.S. military bases, think again,» Ingraham said of Green’s revelation.

Advertisement

DOZENS OF HOUSE LAWMAKERS RALLY AROUND FUNDING AFGHAN VISA PROGRAM AS TRUMP VOWS MAJOR SPENDING CUTS

Ingraham added Friday in comments to Fox News Digital that Afghan evacuees from Biden’s withdrawal not only come from a culture hostile to Western values, but they are often «all too dependent on the U.S. taxpayers to support them and their families.»

«This must end — (it’s) yet another calamitous Biden mistake President Trump is forced to address,» she said.

Advertisement

In his discussion with Ingraham after the withdrawal, Green, a member of and later chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee who left public life earlier in 2025, said he was hearing similar reports from bases beyond Fort Pickett, Virginia. 

NAVAL OFFICER SENTENCED IN AFGHAN SIV BRIBERY SCHEME AMID SCRUTINY OF VISA PROGRAM AFTER TERROR PLOT EXPOSED

«DOD is getting its directions on how to handle these situations by the State Department,» Green claimed. «And the State Department is failing to give them adequate information. They’re letting them leave. They can catch an Uber and actually leave the base. They don’t know exactly how many are even there.

Advertisement

«So, they can’t account for someone if they don’t return.»

Green said officials warned evacuees that if they leave the base their visa processing would stop but that such a warning appeared to have little effect on those who may have left.

JD VANCE CLASHES WITH CBS ANCHOR OVER UNVETTED REFUGEES: ‘I DON’T WANT THAT PERSON IN MY COUNTRY’

Advertisement

«Then you get the shocking allegations of harassment and sexual assault, and it’s just horrific,» he said. 

At the time, Ingraham reported many of the evacuees on the planes out of Kabul came with no personal documentation at all, and she questioned how any «vetting» could be done of people who couldn’t begin to prove their own identity.

When contacted by Fox News at the time, the Biden State Department said, as a general rule, it did not comment on communications with Congress.

Advertisement

HEGSETH ORDERS PENTAGON TO LAUNCH COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW INTO ‘CATASTROPHIC’ 2021 AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL

Alejandro Mayorkas, Homeland Security Secretary at the time, told CBS News that the administration was dealing with «very few» evacuees who had given «any cause for concern.»

CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell followed up by pressing the secretary whether he could guarantee none of «thousands» of prisoners released by the Taliban would be coming to America.

Advertisement

«I can guarantee you that we are doing everything possible to make sure that they don’t,» Mayorkas said.

FOUR YEARS AFTER ABBEY GATE, VETERANS WHO SAVED CIVILIANS DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY

By one year after the Afghanistan withdrawal, lawmakers were still focusing on fallout from the apparent chaos.

Advertisement

Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., said on Fox News in September 2022 he had heard similar reports out of Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, in his home state as Green had out of Virginia. 

«Should it be any surprise to the American people that they were misled? This is no different than the Southern border when Secretary Mayorkas came before the (House) Judiciary Committee and lied to us and said the border is secure. A year ago, President Biden said ‘inflation is transitory’. And now, a year later, we find out that they did not vet them,» Tiffany said.

HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE SAYS ‘NATIONAL SECURITY BLUNDERS’ OF PAST 4 YEARS HAVE EMBOLDENED TERRORISTS

Advertisement

Fox News Digital reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

Tiffany said he was at Fort McCoy in Tomah, Wisconsin, when the first 2,000 refugees arrived there.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

«None of them had gone through the SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) process,» he said. «I asked about it.

«People could walk right off from the base without any authorization from the commanding officer. We sounded the warning bell on that. And now, finally, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security is talking about this and saying this is a threat to national security and to our local communities.»

Advertisement

afghanistan,terrorism,military,state department,national security,ingraham angle

Advertisement

INTERNACIONAL

Inside Joe Kent’s abrupt fall as GOP backlash grows over antisemitism accusations, FBI probe

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Joe Kent rose on the right as a combat veteran turned political insurgent — a former Green Beret and CIA officer who channeled his battlefield experience into a critique of America’s «endless wars» and the D.C. establishment that sustained them.

Advertisement

A vocal ally of President Donald Trump and a participant in post-2020 election challenges, Kent became a prominent voice in the populist wing of the GOP.

Now, his recent resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center — and his accusation that the war in Iran was driven by «pressure from Israel» — has triggered a swift GOP backlash, leaving Kent isolated from parts of the political movement that once embraced him.

TRUMP RESURFACES OLD TWEET FROM INTEL OFFICIAL WHO RESIGNED 

Advertisement

Kent’s Tuesday resignation letter laid out a direct challenge to the Trump administration’s justification for the Iran War, stating that «Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation» and arguing that the conflict was driven by «pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.» 

He also alleged that a «misinformation campaign» by Israeli officials and U.S. media had pushed the United States toward war, claims that quickly drew condemnation from lawmakers in both parties.

After Kent’s abrupt resignation, it came to light that he had been under investigation by the FBI for weeks for allegedly leaking classified information. 

Advertisement

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was unaware of the probe, a senior intelligence official told Fox News Digital Thursday. 

Administration officials also told Fox News Kent had been cut out of planning meetings for the current Iran mission, known as Operation Epic Fury, as well as the president’s daily briefings.

Kent’s resignation, now shadowed by a reported FBI investigation into alleged leaks, has thrust a once-rising figure in Trump’s orbit into the center of a growing clash over the administration’s Iran strategy, how intelligence is used in decisions on military action, and internal tensions within the national security team.

Advertisement

Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, is sworn in to the House Homeland Security Committee hearing titled «Worldwide Threats to the Homeland,» Dec. 11, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

A combat veteran turned political figure

Kent’s rise in conservative circles was shaped as much by his military career as by personal loss. 

A 20-year Army Special Forces veteran and former CIA paramilitary officer, he served in multiple combat deployments before entering public life.

Advertisement

His profile grew significantly after the 2019 death of his first wife, Navy Senior Chief Shannon, who was killed in a suicide bombing in Syria. 

Kent frequently has cited her death as a turning point for him, fueling his criticism of what he describes as failed U.S. foreign policy and «endless wars» in the Middle East.

He later entered politics, running for Congress in 2022 and 2024 in Washington state as a Republican aligned with President Donald Trump’s «America First» movement. 

Advertisement

Kent secured Trump’s endorsement during his campaigns and became a prominent voice in the populist wing of the party, combining a hardline stance on national security with opposition to prolonged military interventions.

Shannon Kent

Kent was killed in an ISIS bombing in Syria in 2019.  (US Navy )

Signs of tension inside the intelligence community

Kent’s recent departure has raised questions about internal dynamics within the Trump administration’s national security team, particularly as differences emerge over Iran strategy and the intelligence used to justify it.

While Gabbard has long aligned herself with a more restrained approach to foreign policy, the White House has taken a more aggressive posture toward Iran, raising the possibility of a widening divide over both strategy and the intelligence used to justify it.

Advertisement

Gabbard has responded cautiously in the days since Kent’s resignation, avoiding a direct defense of his claims while emphasizing the role of the president in making final decisions.

In a statement on Iran threats following Kent’s departure, Gabbard did not mention him by name, instead stressing that intelligence agencies provide assessments but that «the president is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat.»

Pressed by senators in a worldwide threat hearing Wednesday over whether she agreed with the White House that Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. prior to strikes that began Feb. 28, she repeatedly declined to say so, arguing it was up to the president to make such a determination.

Advertisement

During a parallel hearing in the House Thursday, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., read portions of Kent’s resignation letter — including his claim that Israeli officials and U.S. media had pushed the United States toward war — and asked whether Gabbard agreed with the statement.

Sec. Pete Hegseth and counterterrorism director Joe Kent

War Secretary Pete Hegseth greets one of Joe Kent’s sons. The former National Counterterrorism Director is a father of two and a Gold Star spouse. (U.S. Army photo by Elizabeth Fraser / Arlington National Cemetery)

«He said a lot of things in that letter,» Gabbard responded, adding that the president «makes his own decisions based on the information that’s available to him.» 

When asked whether Kent’s comments concerned her, Gabbard replied simply: «Yes.»

Advertisement

TOP COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIAL RESIGNS IN PROTEST OF US WAR AGAINST IRAN

Kent’s remarks also have drawn sharp criticism from senior Republicans. 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell described the language in Kent’s resignation letter as «virulent anti-Semitism,» calling it «baseless and incendiary conspiracies» and saying such views have «no place» in government.

Advertisement

In early March, Gabbard’s chief of staff, Matt Baker, left his role, though a senior intelligence official told Fox News Digital Baker’s departure was a long-planned return to the private sector. 

Gabbard also has recently brought on Dan Caldwell, an outspoken advocate of a more restrained foreign policy. Caldwell previously was the subject of a Pentagon leak probe during his time working with War Secretary Pete Hegseth, though the results of that probe have not been publicized and Caldwell insists they are unsubstantiated. 

A source familiar with that move said Caldwell will be doing administration work rather than shaping policy.

Advertisement

Gabbard’s office could not immediately be reached for comment.

Non-interventionist Republicans praised Kent after his departure. 

«Another insider sees what we see: no imminent threat, just lobby pressure. This is why we need to defund and debate,» said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. 

Advertisement

«Joe Kent is a GREAT AMERICAN HERO. God bless him and protect him! He just exposed that the war with Iran is AMERICA LAST and we voted against it,» said former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

A shift in his views on Iran

Kent’s past comments on Iran reflect a more nuanced position than his resignation might suggest. 

During his congressional campaigns, he consistently portrayed Iran as a real and ongoing threat and warned against allowing it to expand its influence across the region.

Advertisement

At times, Kent’s rhetoric went further, reflecting a willingness to use direct force against Iran when he viewed it as necessary. 

In a 2020 social media post following the U.S. strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the elite Quds Force responsible for operations outside Iran. Kent urged the administration to «wipe Iran’s ballistic capability out,» while still calling for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the region.

 The comments highlighted a tension that has defined his foreign policy views —support for aggressive, targeted action against adversaries alongside a deep opposition to prolonged military entanglements.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

By 2024, Kent had coalesced around a doctrine of what he described as «peace through strength,» praising Trump-era policies that combined sanctions, targeted strikes and diplomacy while avoiding large-scale military commitments. 

In a Newsweek op-ed that year, he argued that sending U.S. troops to confront Iran or its proxies would be «a huge mistake,» advocating instead for withdrawing forces from vulnerable positions while continuing to strike adversaries from a distance.

Advertisement

His resignation marks a sharper break: not just opposing escalation, but rejecting the premise that Iran posed an imminent threat at all.

Kent could not be reached for comment. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the FBI for comment on its ongoing investigation. 

Advertisement

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has called the claims in Kent’s resignation letter «false» and «laughable.» 

«There are many false claims in this letter, but let me address one specifically: that ‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.’ This is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over and over,» she wrote on X.

«The absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries, is both insulting and laughable.»

Advertisement

war with iran,tulsi gabbard,counter terrorism,homeland security

Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

Cómo debería Trump salir del embrollo en el que se encuentra con Irán

Published

on


El debate actual sobre si la guerra contra Irán se convertirá en un atolladero no da en el clavo.

El presidente Donald Trump y Estados Unidos ya están sumidos en uno.

Advertisement

Sí, Trump puede dejar de bombardear Irán, pero Irán podría seguir bloqueando el paso del petróleo por el estrecho de Ormuz (incluso mientras sus propios petroleros pasan sin obstáculos).

Los precios del petróleo seguirían disparándose, mientras que los fertilizantes, los medicamentos genéricos, el helio y otros productos que dependen del estrecho escasearían, lo que afectaría tanto a la economía estadounidense como a la mundial.

“La única manera de acabar con esta guerra”, insiste el presidente iraní Masoud Pezeshkian, es que Estados Unidos haga tres grandes concesiones: reconocer “los derechos legítimos de Irán”, presumiblemente a enriquecer uranio; pagar reparaciones de guerra a Irán; y proporcionar garantías internacionales “contra futuras agresiones” contra Irán.

Advertisement

Sospecho que los términos son negociables.

Pero los funcionarios iraníes insisten en que la guerra continuará hasta que tengan la certeza de que no sufrirán ataques en el futuro.

«El fin de la guerra está en nuestras manos», declaró un alto mando militar iraní, añadiendo que esto solo ocurriría si las fuerzas estadounidenses abandonaban el Golfo Pérsico.

Advertisement

Esto no es alentador, y me temo que Trump intentará salir del paso intensificando la situación.

Ha ordenado el traslado de la 31.ª Unidad Expedicionaria de Marines desde el Indo-Pacífico a la zona, y un posible uso de esos aproximadamente 2500 marines sería la toma de la isla de Kharg, base de gran parte de la industria petrolera iraní.

En 1988, Trump declaró a The Guardian que Estados Unidos era demasiado débil y que, de haber estado al mando, «habría tomado la isla de Kharg. La habría conquistado».

Advertisement

Hace unos días, el senador Lindsey Graham, asesor de línea dura de la Casa Blanca, instó a Trump a tomar medidas respecto a Kharg.

«Si Irán pierde el control o la capacidad de operar su infraestructura petrolera desde la isla de Kharg, su economía quedará aniquilada», publicó Graham.

«Quien controle la isla de Kharg, controlará el destino de esta guerra».

Advertisement

Otra opción sería que los Marines tomaran varias islas ocupadas por Irán en el estrecho de Ormuz para mantenerlo abierto.

Escenarios

Pero si bien los Marines podrían apoderarse de territorio iraní, ¿qué sucedería después?

Advertisement

Si Irán no cediera, ¿seguirían los marines ocupando territorio iraní mes tras mes, sufriendo bajas por misiles y drones iraníes?

Mientras tanto, Irán podría seguir bloqueando el paso del petróleo por el estrecho intimidando a los armadores con ataques de drones y misiles, o colocando minas desde pequeñas embarcaciones o incluso dhows tradicionales.

Irán podría intensificar la situación instando a los hutíes de Yemen a bloquear el tráfico marítimo en el Mar Rojo —lo que dificultaría aún más las exportaciones de petróleo y el comercio internacional— y atacando otras infraestructuras petroleras en la región.

Advertisement

Si bien aún no hemos visto muchos ciberataques o ataques terroristas por parte de Irán, sospecho que los habrá.

Trump también parece estar considerando desplegar tropas terrestres en Isfahán para intentar recuperar el uranio altamente enriquecido almacenado allí.

Esto también sería extraordinariamente arriesgado, ya que ni siquiera está claro que el uranio sea accesible (y, en cualquier caso, se cree que solo una parte del uranio se encuentra en Isfahán).

Advertisement

¿Podría la guerra de Trump tener un final feliz?

Nadie puede estar seguro de lo que sucederá.

Irán podría quedarse sin drones ni misiles, nuestras intervenciones podrían funcionar a la perfección, o mañana mismo podría haber un golpe de Estado liderado por oficiales militares iraníes moderados que busquen un acuerdo con Estados Unidos.

Advertisement

Por ahora, Trump parece haber puesto a Estados Unidos en una situación terrible, posiblemente aumentando la amenaza nuclear de Irán.

El anterior líder supremo cometió el error de enriquecer uranio, pero nunca construyó un arma nuclear; en efecto, su programa nuclear llegó lo suficientemente lejos como para provocar sanciones y ataques militares en Occidente, pero no lo suficiente como para brindar protección.

El nuevo liderazgo podría intentar remediarlo acelerando el desarrollo de un arma nuclear para, de hecho, lograr una verdadera disuasión.

Advertisement

La amenaza es real, pero insistir en esta guerra fallida podría hundirnos aún más en este atolladero.

Esto recuerda a 1965, cuando Lyndon Johnson tomó la fatídica decisión de que la intervención estadounidense en Vietnam era un desastre tal que la única forma de recuperar nuestro honor era adentrarnos aún más en tierras lejanas.

Estados Unidos e Israel han cosechado repetidos éxitos tácticos en Irán, sin que estos se basen en una estrategia coherente.

Advertisement

Asesinaron al líder supremo, el ayatolá Ali Khamenei, y nombraron como sucesor a su hijo, de línea dura. Israel asesinó a Ali Larijani, una figura clave del régimen, y ahora podríamos carecer de un interlocutor fuerte con quien negociar la paz.

Con cada éxito, nos hundimos más.

Objetivo

Advertisement

Esta no es la primera vez que Estados Unidos apunta con cautela a Irán y se perjudica a sí mismo.

En la década de 1960, Estados Unidos negoció un estricto acuerdo sobre el estatuto de las fuerzas armadas con Irán para proteger sus intereses militares.

Pero un clérigo chiíta llamado Ruhollah Khomeini denunció el pacto desigual, afirmando que en Irán se trataba a un perro estadounidense como más valioso que un ciudadano iraní; y su crítica contribuyó a impulsarlo al liderazgo de la oposición y, finalmente, a la Revolución Islámica.

Advertisement

En la década de 1990, Estados Unidos negoció la instalación de bases militares en Arabia Saudita, creyendo que esto favorecería sus intereses de seguridad.

Estas bases indignaron a Osama bin Laden y contribuyeron a todos esos años de ataques terroristas contra estadounidenses.

Son cuestiones difíciles de gestionar, pero la lección es emplear siempre tácticas que impulsen los objetivos estratégicos, y redoblar la apuesta por Irán no contribuiría a ello.

Advertisement

“No puedo apoyar que se envíe a la próxima generación a luchar y morir en una guerra que no beneficia en nada al pueblo estadounidense”, dijo esta semana Joseph Kent, director del Centro Nacional Antiterrorista de Trump, al renunciar en protesta por la guerra.

¿Qué demonios debería hacer Trump?

Creo que su mejor opción es hacer prácticamente lo mismo que hizo el año pasado cuando gestionó mal su política hacia China y Yemen.

Advertisement

En ambos casos, proclamó la victoria con audacia y luego negoció frenéticamente.

Estados Unidos salió perdiendo, sobre todo frente a China, pero al menos la situación se calmó.

Trump debería declarar que ha alcanzado sus objetivos bélicos en Irán, convirtiéndose así en el mejor líder en tiempos de guerra desde Winston Churchill.

Advertisement

Luego, debería presionar al primer ministro israelí, Benjamin Netanyahu, para que también ponga fin a las hostilidades, tanto contra Hezbolá como contra Irán.

La Casa Blanca, entonces, suplicaría a Omán que lograra que Irán regresara a la mesa de negociaciones para conversaciones secretas.

No sé si es posible llegar a un acuerdo, y requeriría una gran habilidad. Pero Irán necesita ingresos e inversiones, y una reducción de las sanciones sería muy atractiva; por eso, Irán ofreció lo que parecía un muy buen acuerdo sobre el programa nuclear justo antes de que Trump lo rechazara y atacara.

Advertisement

Probablemente hoy no podríamos conseguir un acuerdo tan bueno, pero tal vez sea posible una pausa prolongada en el enriquecimiento con inspecciones renovadas.

Si se logra un nuevo acuerdo, también se reduciría la probabilidad de ciberataques o ataques terroristas contra estadounidenses en represalia por el asesinato del líder supremo.

Espero que Trump, los líderes iraníes y los árabes del Golfo Pérsico estén tan exhaustos por la matanza y la destrucción que puedan llegar a algún tipo de acuerdo ambiguo, tal vez con documentos en varios idiomas que digan cosas ligeramente diferentes para que todos puedan proclamar la victoria.

Advertisement

La alternativa de intensificar y prolongar esta guerra dejaría a todos como perdedores.

c.2026 The New York Times Company

Advertisement
Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

La inteligencia de Israel cree que el nuevo líder supremo de Irán no controla al régimen: “Una entidad vacía”

Published

on


Mojtaba Khamenei en una reunión en Teherán en octubre de 2024, meses antes de asumir como líder supremo tras la muerte de su padre. Desde que tomó el cargo, no ha realizado ninguna aparición pública. (Hamed Jafarnejad/ISNA/WANA vía REUTERS)

El nuevo líder supremo de Irán, Mojtaba Khamenei, no ejerce control efectivo sobre el régimen y es considerado una figura sin poder real, según fuentes de seguridad nacional israelíes citadas este miércoles por Fox News Digital.

“El nuevo líder es una entidad vacía”, dijo Kobi Michael, analista de defensa del Instituto de Estudios de Seguridad Nacional, al medio estadounidense. “Mojtaba Khamenei no aparece en público, pero también tenemos información confiable de que no controla ni lidera el régimen ni lo que queda de él. El liderazgo iraní actual está roto, confundido y casi en mal funcionamiento”, agregó.

Advertisement

Mojtaba asumió el cargo tras la muerte de su padre, el ayatolá Ali Khamenei, en un ataque israelí el 28 de febrero. Según un audio filtrado al diario The Telegraph, correspondiente a una reunión del 12 de marzo, el hijo escapó por minutos al haber salido a caminar justo antes del impacto del misil. El jefe de protocolo de la oficina de Khamenei, Mazaher Hosseini, es supuestamente escuchado en la grabación informando a altos líderes que Mojtaba sufrió “una lesión menor en la pierna”.

Un cartel en Teherán muestra
Un cartel en Teherán muestra a Mojtaba Khamenei junto a su padre Ali y al fundador de la República Islámica, Ruhollah Jomeini. La imagen fue captada el 12 de marzo, en plena ofensiva estadounidense e israelí contra Irán. (REUTERS/Alaa Al-Marjani)

Desde que fue designado líder supremo, Mojtaba no ha realizado ninguna aparición pública. Sus comunicados han sido leídos por terceros en la televisión estatal iraní, donde advirtió sobre represalias y llamó a las naciones del Golfo a cerrar las bases militares estadounidenses en la región. Otros reportes lo situaron en estado crítico o incluso en coma, aunque funcionarios iraníes insistieron en que se encuentra en buen estado de salud.

Este miércoles, Mojtaba prometió venganza tras la muerte del alto funcionario de seguridad Ali Larijani, eliminado en un ataque israelí en las afueras de Teherán. “Tales actos de terror solo reflejan la hostilidad de los enemigos y fortalecerán la determinación de la nación islámica. Sin duda, se hará justicia”, rezó el comunicado emitido en su nombre.

Así es South Pars, el enorme yacimiento de gas en Irán que fue atacado esta semana

Las declaraciones sobre el estado del liderazgo iraní llegan en medio de una escalada en el conflicto. Irán intensificó sus ataques contra instalaciones energéticas del Golfo Pérsico en represalia por un ataque israelí contra South Pars, el mayor yacimiento de gas del mundo, compartido con Qatar.

Advertisement

Las ofensivas iraníes alcanzaron refinerías en Arabia Saudita, Kuwait y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, y causaron daños severos en la planta de gas natural licuado de Ras Laffan, en Qatar, la mayor instalación de exportación de GNL del mundo. El precio del petróleo Brent trepó hasta los 118 dólares el barril, más de un 60% por encima de los valores previos al inicio del conflicto el 28 de febrero, mientras que el gas natural europeo duplicó su precio en el último mes.

Israel también ha eliminado en días recientes a otros altos mandos iraníes, incluido el jefe de la milicia Basij, Gholamreza Soleimani. El secretario de Defensa estadounidense, Pete Hegseth, advirtió que podrían seguir más bajas entre la cúpula del régimen.

Para Michael, la eliminación sistemática de figuras clave del régimen no es un hecho aislado sino parte de una estrategia deliberada. “Esto no es una nueva fase, sino un esfuerzo continuo, muy exitoso e impresionante, y un componente crucial de la estrategia destinada a debilitar el régimen iraní”, señaló el analista. “En un grado tal que no podrá reconstituirse ni volver a convertirse en una amenaza grave y desestabilizadora para el Medio Oriente en general”, agregó.

Advertisement

Michael apuntó que tanto Washington como Tel Aviv tienen un objetivo más ambicioso que el meramente militar. “Al debilitar el régimen y paralizar sus capacidades, Estados Unidos e Israel están facilitando las condiciones necesarias para que el pueblo iraní derribe al régimen. Esa es la victoria final a sus ojos”, sostuvo.

El conflicto, que ya lleva más de 1.300 muertos en Irán y al menos 13 militares estadounidenses caídos, entró en su tercera semana sin señales de distensión. El presidente Donald Trump afirmó que Israel no volverá a atacar South Pars, pero amenazó con destruir “la totalidad” del yacimiento si Irán continúa golpeando la infraestructura energética de Qatar.



Military Conflicts

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tendencias