US President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Kash Patel as FBI Director could potentially sharpen US efforts to prevent Iranian influence operations in the United States that have raised alarm since 2023.
Patel, a former prosecutor and senior intelligence official during Trump’s presidency, has been an ardent critic of the Biden administration’s policies toward Tehran, accusing them of empowering the Islamic Republic through financial and strategic concessions.
In an interview with Fox Business in March, Patel said, “President Biden gave Iran $7 billion and opened up the global financial oil trade sector to them to make another $80 billion.”
He was referring to Iranian funds blocked by South Korean banks that the US asked to be released and deposited in special accounts in Qatar after Iran released five Americans held in Iran for several years.
“This allowed all their foreign partners, like the CCP and Russia, to get in on the action," he said referring to the Chinese Communist Party.
"It’s an intentional dereliction of duty to allow Iran back into the global scene and allow Iran to re-enter their nuclear deal. Remember, this program, architected by Obama and Biden and pushed out by Harris, …is meant to give them a nuclear weapon on a timeline,” he added.
Patel, if confirmed, would replace Christopher Wray seven years before the end of his term, underscoring Trump’s willingness to reshape the FBI’s leadership to align with his administration’s priorities.
The FBI director typically serves a single 10-year term to insulate the agency from political influence. However, Trump’s firing of James Comey in 2017 signaled his readiness to exercise authority over the bureau's leadership.
Critics of Patel’s appointment have voiced concerns over the potential politicization of the FBI, noting his close ties to Trump and his outspoken stances on divisive policy matters.
A hawkish perspective on Iran
Patel’s track record suggests his leadership would bring a hawkish approach to countering Iranian influence.
Speaking in March, Patel criticized the Biden administration’s renewal of sanctions waivers on Iran, describing it as a form of appeasement. “You are either for the mullahs and ayatollahs in Iran or you are against them,” he said in another Fox Business appearance.
“The Trump administration was wholly against them, withdrew from the JCPOA, used suffocating sanction to ensure they did not monetize their oil regime to enrich their weapons-grade nuclear program. That’s the ultimate deterrent.”
He further questioned Biden’s assertion that the funds released were intended for humanitarian aid, suggesting they indirectly financed groups like Hamas, which Patel called an Iran-funded organization.
Patel has also drawn attention for his allegations about pro-Islamic Republic operatives embedded within the Biden administration. He pointed to individuals like Robert Malley, Ariane Tabatabai, and Maher Bitar as examples of this influence, citing communications between Tabatabai and Iranian officials.
“Robert Malley, Biden's number one envoy, the guy that's supposed to be keeping us out of war in Iran, had his clearance, security clearance suspended by Chris Ray's FBI... You got to ask why they won't publicly release it.”
“Well, let me tell you why. Because an individual named Arianne Tabatabai, who, by the way, is currently running our special operations office at the Department of Defense was installed there by Robert Malley. Yes, the former presidential envoy to Iran installed this Iranian national to that position in DoD. And do you know what she did in 2014? She emailed the the foreign minister of Iran, Javed Zarif, and asked for permission as a US citizen to take a trip on behalf of the US government,” he added.
If confirmed, Patel could lead the FBI in intensifying its focus on Iranian activities within the US, including efforts to counter espionage, influence operations, and cyber threats.
For Iran, Patel’s nomination would likely signal a heightened US effort to counter its global influence, reinforcing Trump’s legacy of prioritizing Tehran as a primary adversary in American foreign policy.
A notable example of such remarks is former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement advocating for "wiping Israel off the map." Many believe this comment significantly escalated hostility between Iran and Israel, though it was rooted in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s stance toward the Jewish state.
Ahmadinejad is also known for dismissive remarks about the significance of UN resolutions against the Islamic Republic, which ultimately led to economic sanctions that severely affected Iranians' livelihoods for nearly 15 years.
Former reformist lawmaker Mohsen Mirdamadi has emphasized that Iranian officials must refrain from making such statements to support and advance diplomatic efforts with the West.
Although some Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, do not have official spokespersons, Iranian media often publish statements by lower-ranking officials that can undermine state affairs and disrupt the leadership's plans for advancing their agenda.
The absence of an official spokesperson for Khamenei recently sparked controversy in the Iranian parliament over whether Vice President Mohammad Javad Zarif should be dismissed, as demanded by his ultraconservative lawmakers. Earlier, Mehdi Fazaeli, a senior official in Khamenei's office, quoted the Supreme Leader as opposing challenges to Zarif's qualifications. However, ultraconservatives argued that Fazaeli was not an authorized spokesperson for Khamenei, casting doubt on the statement's credibility.
In 2018, the Iranian government under former President Hassan Rouhani went without a spokesperson for 179 days—just one day short of six months. At the time, the conservative Mehr news agency sharply criticized Rouhani, claiming that his failure to appoint a spokesperson signaled an unwillingness to be accountable to public opinion.
However, it is not clear is certain provocative statements are the result of bad judgement or are designed to give mixed signals to both the Iranian public and foreign audiences.
In a recent example of issuing statements seemingly at odds with the government's broader policies, Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, announced, "We have begun injecting gas into several thousand advanced centrifuges, which is part of the nuclear industry's development program, and have put them into operational circuits." This remark appeared to disregard the fact that it directly contradicted a recent IAEA resolution condemning Tehran for violating its international obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal, and the government’s declarations that does not seek nuclear weapons.
The statement was made two days before a meeting with the United Kingdom, France and Germany to reduce the tensions between Tehran and European powers.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has an official public relations office led by a chief who acts as a spokesperson. However, various commanders frequently make incendiary statements that do not necessarily align with the policies of the government or the IRGC itself. In recent months, while Khamenei has occasionally been cautious to avoid provoking Israel or the West, IRGC officers have repeatedly issued threats. At times, total news blackouts on military or nuclear issues suggest that orders for silence may have come from higher authorities. Yet, these periods of quiet are often short-lived, as outspoken officers tend to make remarks at any moment.
In an interview, Mirdamadi emphasized that Iranian officials and military commanders should refrain from making costly remarks, particularly on foreign policy matters. He stated, "They often chant impractical slogans, leaving the nation to bear the heavy consequences of mistakes it did not commit. In the recent incident leading up to the IAEA resolution, some politicians made unnecessary but highly damaging statements."
Mirdamadi was referring to remarks like the one made by former deputy judiciary chief Mohammad Javad Larijani who suggested that Iran can make a nuclear bomb in 24 hours.
Mirdamadi also criticized Iran's approach, stating, "We should neither underestimate nor overrate the country's capabilities. We need to be realistic and recognize that Iran cannot singlehandedly change the world order. There are matters beyond Iran's power or authority, and it is not in our interest to define the country's priorities in a way that necessitates confrontation with other nations, particularly major powers."
Ironically, Mirdamadi himself was one of the leaders of the Iranian students who occupied the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding over 50 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, an incident that set the country on its course of foreign confrontations.
Opposition forces have now advanced towards the outskirts of Hama and Homs, two strategic Syrian cities on the road to Damascus. The potential fall of Damascus and the overthrow of the Assad government is more serious than ever, causing deep concerns for the Islamic Republic and its leader, Ali Khamenei.
The collapse of Assad’s rule would dismantle a cornerstone of Iran’s regional strategy against Israel. It would also threaten the survival of Iran's proxy groups, which rely heavily on Damascus for support. Without Assad’s backing, these groups could struggle to sustain their operations, jeopardizing the Islamic Republic’s influence in the region.
For Khamenei and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), Assad’s government is a vital pillar of the so-called Axis of Resistance. Its potential fall could even endanger the stability of the Islamic Republic itself.
The coming days are pivotal for both Assad’s government and Iran. The defeat in Aleppo dealt a major blow to the morale of the Syrian army and government, but the greater concern for Assad and the Islamic Republic is the possibility of opposition forces advancing toward Damascus after consolidating their power in the north and toppling the government.
The opposition forces now control Aleppo and Idlib near Turkey’s borders and are rapidly advancing in Hama and Homs governorates with reports that they are at the gates of the provincial capitals. Capturing the cities of Hama and Homs would give them a strategic advantage, potentially allowing a push toward Latakia, the Assad family’s power base, or Damascus.
The situation today is starkly different from 2016, when Assad, with robust support from Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran, defeated opposition forces in the battle of Aleppo. Several factors have contributed to the weakening of the Assad government and its supporters:
- Russia's involvement in Ukraine: Russia, a key ally of Damascus, is preoccupied with the war in Ukraine, limiting its ability to provide military support compared to 2016.
- Hezbollah's diminished sway: Iran-backed Hezbollah, a powerful armed ally of Damascus, has suffered significant losses in its conflict with Israel and faces domestic pressure in Lebanon to reduce its involvement in regional conflicts.
- Iran's economic constraints: Tehran’s financial woes made worse by US sanctions have restricted its ability to provide financial and military aid to the Assad government. According to estimates, Tehran has spent tens of billions of dollars in Syria but now finds it hard to continue such support.
- Erosion of the IRGC's manpower and logistics in Syria: Key IRGC commanders, including former chief of IRG's extraterritorial Quds Force Qasem Soleimani, have been killed in recent years and the replacement forces do not have the same capabilities. Additionally, proxy groups such as the Afghan Fatemiyoun Division Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) are less effective than before.
If Assad’s falls, Iran’s regional foreign policy could face a severe crisis. Damascus plays a crucial role in facilitating the transport of weapons, logistics, and financial support to Iran’s proxy groups. Its collapse would likely lead to:
- Disruption of weapons transfers to Hezbollah via Damascus and Latakia airports.
- Reduced support for Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.
- Destruction of smuggling networks for arms and narcotics into Jordan and the West Bank.
For Iran, preserving Assad's government is a matter of strategic survival. While Khamenei and the IRGC are likely to make every effort to prevent its collapse, their resources and influence are far weaker than in the past. Ultimately, Assad’s fall could dismantle the 'Axis of Resistance’ and pose a serious threat to the Islamic Republic’s future.