On the eve of Davos, the annual gathering of world leaders and Loro-clad business titans where the future of the free world is plotted out, President Donald Trump lobbed a grenade: an angry text, sent to Norway’s prime minister, that ratcheted up tensions between the United States and Europe, while revealing the calculus that’s driving his hostile campaign to acquire Greenland.
In the text, Trump rejected an overture from Norway’s Jonas Gahr Store to “de-escalate” his demands that Greenland be sold to the United States or taken by force. “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump wrote in the text, which was first reported by PBS News.
“That’s rhetoric that we’ve never seen from a US president before,” Ambassador Mike Carpenter, a senior director for Europe on the Biden administration’s National Security Council, told Vanity Fair. “He’s essentially saying, if you read between the lines, ‘you didn’t give me the Nobel Peace Prize, so I’m going to use coercive force to take territory from one of your neighbors.’”
The text was so striking that some on social media doubted its authenticity. But it is real. A European official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me the text was forwarded to their ambassador in Washington. The text is one of those Donald Trump era shockers that unites the right and left in slack-jawed horror. Even before it was first reported, the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board had published a piece decrying the Greenland campaign as “reckless” and “nonsensical.”
“This is the fucking Mad King tweeting and it’s just remarkable how many senior people in this administration have no fucking balls, no fucking spine, and are peddling this crap like it’s rational,” said one incensed former NSC official I spoke with Monday morning, who declined to be named in order to speak candidly. “Truly, those names need to be kept on a sheet of paper and remembered in the future, what they said and did at this moment.”
What of Trump’s case for why the United States needs Greenland? “The world sees this as the Mad King pontificating,” the anonymous official reiterated. “And it’s only a certain narrow circle of Americans, somehow, that is trying to gaslight themselves into believing that it’s true. It’s crazy.”
John Bolton and Donald Trump on February 12, 2019.
Capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro would be a “hollow victory” if his regime remained in power, according to John Bolton, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump.
Newsweek reached out to political analysts via email on Monday night for comment.
Why It Matters
The capture of Maduro by U.S. forces represents a significant shift in American foreign policy toward Venezuela and underscores the geopolitical complexity of the region.
The developments highlight potential uncertainty surrounding tensions among major international stakeholders, affecting U.S. relations with Russia, China and Cuba, and raises questions about the direction of U.S. engagement in Latin America.
What To Know
Maduro was apprehended during a U.S. military operation in Caracas alongside wife Cilia Flores over the weekend. Both face charges in a New York City federal court, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy and weapons offenses. During his arraignment, Maduro pleaded not guilty, insisting on his innocence and asserting that he remains the president of Venezuela. Flores also pleaded not guilty and was reported to have suffered injuries during the capture.
Following Maduro’s removal, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was declared acting president, as several Maduro-aligned officials, including Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino and National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, are in power in Caracas as well.
In an interview with NBC News on Monday, Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been in contact with Rodríguez.
In an interview with NewsNation following Maduro’s capture, Bolton said: “I’m delighted that we’ve grabbed Maduro, I wish we’d done it back in 2019.”
He added, “Let’s be clear, there’s a big difference between getting Maduro and removing the regime. Right now, facts are scarce, that’s for sure, but the regime is still in power.” Bolton continued to note Trump’s swipe at Nobel Peace Prize winner and opposition leader Maria Corina Machado.
“I think there’s a lot of lack of clarity to say the least in Trump’s thinking on this, and it would be a hollow victory indeed if we snatched Maduro but left his regime in place,” Bolton said.
Trump’s former national security adviser added that he doesn’t necessarily have a problem with the president previously saying the U.S. would run Venezuela in the interim as long as he has a plan for executing such an endeavor.
What People Are Saying
Bolton, on X Monday: “The White House should recognize the opposition as the rightful leaders of Venezuela. The political legitimacy for the United States to execute this attack is supported when we go with the opposition, instead of reinstating the same group that has ruled as dictators over the country for 30 years, coordinated with our enemies to make Venezuela the hub for terror in the Western Hemisphere, and waged narcoterrorism against the U.S..”
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, on X Monday: “As of this evening, the Trump Administration has now given 20 bipartisan briefings to Congress on Venezuela alone. Today’s briefing confirmed that the successful capture of narco-terrorist dictator Maduro — who was sending deadly drugs and gang members into our country — was one of the most stunning displays of military might and competence in history. Our military professionals were safely in and out with speed, precision, power, and zero American casualties. This is about the safety, security, freedom, and prosperity of the American people. This is America First, and the definition of peace through strength.”
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, on X Monday: “Democrats are focused on lowering costs for Americans, while Donald Trump and Republicans are spending all of their time on foreign wars, on ballrooms, and on private jets. How is this America first?”
What Happens Next
Maduro and his wife are being held in detention in Brooklyn pending their next court appearance scheduled for March 17.
President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton was indicted on Thursday. Also, the rise of lab-grown diamonds and what it means for jewelry.
President Trump is reacting to news that John Bolton, his former national security adviser, was indicted by the Department of Justice in Maryland. CBS News’ Rebecca Roiphe reports.
Trump might get his wish. While Bolton resides firmly on Trump’s enemies list, the indictment returned against him Thursday in federal district court in Maryland also bears substantial hallmarks of legitimacy. Trump surely takes retributive delight in Bolton’s prosecution, and has encouraged it in unsubtle ways. At the same time, the Bolton indictment appears to have genuine merit.
Listen to The Counsel podcast
Join a team of experts — from former prosecutors to legal scholars — as they break down the complex legal issues shaping our country today. Twice a week, Elie Honig and other CAFE Contributors examine the intersecting worlds of law, politics, and current events.
Subscribe on:
The indictment charges Bolton with eighteen federal crimes: eight related to transmitting sensitive national defense information and ten more for improperly retaining the same. The information at issue contained deadly serious government secrets. Bolton allegedly disclosed to outsiders information about “future attack” plans by foreign adversary groups; details of impending missile launches by foreign adversaries; information about sensitive intelligence sources; and assessments about leaders of foreign countries. Apparently, Bolton would type up notes based on information he learned as National Security Advisor. He’d then use his personal AOL account (which was eventually hacked by Iran) to email “diary-like entries” to two people – both relatives of his – who had no security clearances. Bolton also allegedly kept highly sensitive documents in his private home.
There’s no doubt that Bolton, a onetime U.S. ambassador and National Security Advisor, was well aware of the rules governing handling of classified information. As the indictment notes, he said publicly in 2017, “If you’re conscious of the need to protect classified information you’ll remember what the rules are. If I had done at the State Department what Hillary Clinton did, I’d be wearing an orange jumpsuit now.” More recently, in 2025, Bolton railed against various public officials who committed the “original sin” (as Bolton then phrased it) of communicating about sensitive national security matters over the Signal app. The legal takeaway: A defense of ignorance or lack of intent won’t fly.
Bolton, through his attorney, categorically denies wrongdoing.
While we now have a clear sense of the prosecution’s theory of criminality, we don’t yet have a definitive read on the strength of the proof, or on Bolton’s defense. That’ll come in time, as the Justice Department turns over discovery to the defense, as the parties file motions in court, and eventually when the case goes to trial.
But for now, we can look at a series of reliable collateral indicators that suggest this prosecution is legitimate. Consider, first, that the Justice Department’s instant investigation of Bolton reportedly escalated during the Biden administration. Trump surely was delighted to find it waiting for him when he took office, but – unlike the cases against James Comey and Letitia James – this one wasn’t originated by the President and his band of gleeful political enforcers.
It also appears that the Bolton matter arose organically, and not because some official decided to root around for dirt buried in the mortgage files of a disfavored subject. According to public reporting and court documents filed in connection with search warrants conducted at Bolton’s home and office in August, the criminal inquiry began when U.S. intelligence officials learned that Bolton’s AOL email account had been hacked by a foreign government. The New York Timesreported that those emails contained “sensitive information that Mr. Bolton, while still working in the first Trump administration, appeared to have sent to people close to him on an unclassified system.” (The indictment confirms this). The case arose, then, in the ordinary course of intelligence and law enforcement business, and not as a targeted inquiry aimed at Bolton.
We also know that career, nonpolitical DOJ prosecutors at one point sought more time to review the evidence against Bolton, and now are on board with a prosecution. Again, note the contrast to the Comey and James indictments, which prompted a string of resignations by (and terminations of) dissenting prosecutorial professionals who saw no good faith basis to indict.
Prosecutors are hardly alone in concluding that substantial evidence exists to establish that Bolton committed a crime. Before the Justice Department executed search warrants at Bolton’s Maryland home and Washington, D.C. office in August, prosecutors had to obtain authorization from two federal judges (one in each jurisdiction). We know, as a matter of law, that those judges concluded that prosecutors established at least probable cause that a crime had been committed and that the searches would likely uncover evidence of that crime. And we know that a grand jury heard the evidence and found probable cause to issue the indictment.
The probable cause standard is, of course, lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden that prosecutors must ultimately satisfy at trial. But it’s not nothing, either. I can attest from experience that, while grand juries can be pushovers, judges do scrutinize search warrant applications fairly closely – particularly if the target is a high-profile former public official.
Nor can Bolton claim differential treatment, given other semi-recent cases involving potential mishandling of classified information. After Hillary Clinton used a private email server as Secretary of State, she became the subject of a prolonged criminal investigation that culminated with a 2016 election-eve public announcement by the FBI director – the aforementioned Comey, as history remembers – that she had been “extremely careless” but would not be indicted. When the public learned that Joe Biden kept classified documents at his private home and office, the Justice Department (under Biden himself) appointed a special counsel, Robert Hur, who investigated for over a year and concluded in early 2024 Biden had “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” but, on balance, should not be charged. And when Trump took classified documents to Mar-A-Lago, he got indicted by DOJ special counsel Jack Smith. That case could’ve landed Trump in prison, had he not won the 2024 election. Bolton’s conduct, if proved, is more serious than all of those recent examples – especially given his systematic and intentional dissemination of the government’s most sensitive secrets to two outsiders.
There’s no question Trump despises Bolton (and vice versa). And Trump plainly has been giddy at the prospect of Bolton’s indictment. But the Bolton case appears to differ in kind from the recent prosecutions of Comey and James. This one relates to far more serious conduct, and it arose under less dubious circumstances. Ultimately this is a problem Trump has created with his payback spree: It’s increasingly hard to tell the bogus cases against his political antagonists from the valid ones.
Former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton was charged Thursday in a federal investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information.
GREENBELT, Md. (AP) — John Bolton, who served as national security adviser to President Donald Trump during his first term and later became a vocal critic of the Republican leader, was charged Thursday with storing top secret records at home and sharing with relatives diary-like notes about his time in government that contained classified information.
The 18-count indictment also suggests classified information was exposed when operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian regime hacked Bolton’s email account and gained access to sensitive material he had shared. A Bolton representative told the FBI in 2021 that his emails had been hacked, prosecutors say, but did not reveal he had shared classified information through the account or that the hackers now had possession of government secrets.
The indictment sets the stage for a closely watched court case centering on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019 and publishing a scathingly critical book about the president.
The case, the third against a Trump adversary in the last month, will also unfold against the backdrop of concerns that the Justice Department is pursuing the president’s political enemies while at the same time sparing his allies from scrutiny. Bolton foreshadowed that argument in a defiant statement Thursday in which he denied the charges and called them part of an “intensive effort” by Trump to “intimidate his opponents.”
“Now, I have become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts,” he said.
Even so, the indictment is significantly more detailed in its allegations than earlier cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Unlike the other two cases filed over the last month by a hastily appointed U.S. attorney, this one was signed by career national security prosecutors. And though the investigation burst into public view in August when the FBI searched Bolton’s home in Maryland and his office in Washington, the inquiry was already well underway by the time Trump took office a second time this past January.
Sharing of classified secrets
The indictment, filed in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, alleges that between 2018 and this past August, Bolton shared with two relatives more than 1,000 pages of information about his day-to-day activities in government.
The material included “diary-like” entries with information classified as high as top secret that he had learned from meetings with other U.S. government officials, from intelligence briefings or talks with foreign leaders, according to the indictment. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.
The indictment says that among the material shared was information about foreign adversaries that in some cases revealed details about sources and methods used by the government to collect intelligence. One document related to a foreign adversary’s plans for a missile launch, while another detailed U.S. government plans for covert action and included intelligence blaming an adversary for an attack, court papers say.
The two family members were not identified in court papers, but a person familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss non-public details, identified them as Bolton’s wife and daughter.
“There is one tier of justice for all Americans,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Anyone who abuses a position of power and jeopardizes our national security will be held accountable. No one is above the law.”
The indictment also suggests Bolton was aware of the impropriety of sharing classified information with people not authorized to receive it, citing an April news media interview in which he chastised Trump administration officials for using Signal to discuss sensitive military details. Though the anecdote is meant by prosecutors to show Bolton understood proper protocol for government secrets, Bolton’s legal team may also point to it to argue a double standard in enforcement since the Justice Department is not known to have opened any investigation into the Signal episode.
Bolton’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that the “underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago.”
He said the charges stem from portions of Bolton’s personal diaries over his 45-year career in government and included unclassified information that was shared only with his immediate family and was known to the FBI as far back as 2021.
“Like many public officials throughout history, Amb. Bolton kept diaries — that is not a crime. We look forward to proving once again that Amb. Bolton did not unlawfully share or store any information,” Lowell said.
The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer had classified information.
“These charges are not just about his focus on me or my diaries, but his intensive effort to intimidate his opponents, to ensure that he alone determines what is said about his conduct,” Bolton said in a statement.
Bolton also served in the Justice Department during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and was a State Department point person on arms control during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Bolton was nominated by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but the strong supporter of the Iraq war was unable to win Senate confirmation and resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush recess appointment. That allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.
In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security adviser. But his brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine.
Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure, with Trump announcing on social media in September 2019 that he had accepted Bolton’s resignation.
Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to Ukraine to that country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of his family.
Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”
___
Tucker and Durkin Richer reported from Washington.
The FBI searched former national security adviser John Bolton’s house in Bethesda, Maryland, early Friday morning, the bureau confirmed to CBS News. Ed O’Keefe reports.
John Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser for a little over a year in the President’s first term, is under investigation for illegally possessing and/or sending classified files
Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton arrives at his Maryland home August 22, 2025Photo: AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
According to NBC News, F.B.I agents began to search Republican former Trump national security advisor John R. Bolton’s Maryland home on Friday at 7 a.m. The attorney and Trump critic is being investigated for illegally sharing or possessing physical classified files, which prompted the F.B.I. to search his home and Washington office. Donald Trump incited an investigation against Bolton after the genesis of his 2020 book, “The Room Where it Happened”. During his first term, President Trump tried to block the publishing of the manuscript, which was rejected by the courts. Now, Bolton is under investigation once again, not only for the materials that he collected for his book, but for his actions in the past four years.
Trump was the fourth president for whom Bolton was a national security advisor, and he was fired, according to Trump, or resigned, according to Bolton, based on disagreements regarding military action. One of Trump’s first actions in his second term was to remove security detail from Bolton, meaning that the Secret Service agents who kept a round-the-clock surveilled eye on Bolton’s home were removed. Now, federal law enforcement is back at the Bolton residence, but it may be retaliatory, rather than protective.
John Bolton recently criticized Trump’s Alaska summit with Putin in a Tuesday CNN “Situation Room” interview. He stated that he believes that Putin strategically crafted a deal proposition that appealed to Trump’s desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize by ending Russia’s war with Ukraine.
“That’s the way to Trump’s heart,” Bolton stated.
Current Republicans in the White House have added to the conversation on Bolton since the raid. As F.B.I. agents descended on the former national security advisor’s residence, Kash Patel posted a message on X that alluded to the F.B.I. raid on the home.
“NO ONE is above the law… @F.B.I. agents on mission”, Patel posted.
— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) August 22, 2025
Scroll to continue reading
Patel was publicly clear about his mistrust of the former security advisor. In his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters”, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation named Bolton as one of the 60 federal government officials that are allegedly a part of the “deep state”, a group that is a secret conspiracy against Trump. During Patel’s confirmation hearing for his new position as Director of the F.B.I., Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar called this an “enemies list”, a phrase that has been repeated by other Democratic critics as well on Patel’s new position. Patel vehemently denies that the list of names in his book’s glossary is an enemies list.
Another Republican voice in office surrounding Bolton was J.D. Vance, in his Friday exclusive interview with NBC News. Vance stated that the former national security advisor was not targeted due to his criticism of Trump, and is instead being investigated under fair pretenses.
“We are investigating Amb. Bolton, but if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determine that he has broken the law,” Vance stated. “We’re going to be careful about that. We’re going to be deliberate about that, because we don’t think that we should throw people — even if they disagree with us politically, maybe especially if they disagree with us politically — you shouldn’t throw people willy-nilly in prison. You should let the law drive these determinations, and that’s what we’re doing.”
It’s not like he was hiding the plan. When Donald Trump campaigned for a return to the White House in 2024, he openly embraced a platform of revenge and retribution against his political enemies. Even when allies practically begged him to swear off the idea of using the Presidency as a tool of personal vengeance, Trump was explicit about his intentions. I have often thought back to an interview he did in June of last year, in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom, with the TV shrink Phil McGraw, known as Dr. Phil, a Trump fan and supporter. “You have so much to do,” McGraw said to him. “You don’t have time to get even. You only have time to get right.” Trump’s response was to smirk. “Well, revenge does take time. I will say that,” he said. “And sometimes revenge can be justified. Phil, I have to be honest. You know, sometimes it can.”
On Friday morning, the revenge vibes were strong when the news broke of an F.B.I. search at the Maryland home and D.C. office of John Bolton, Trump’s third first-term national-security adviser, who has since become one of his most frequent and acerbic public critics. Details about the raid were sparse, but initial reports suggested that officials were looking for evidence that Bolton had disclosed classified information to reporters and in his 2020 memoir, “The Room Where It Happened.” (Trump’s first-term Justice Department tried unsuccessfully to stop publication of the book—a best-selling account of the discord and dysfunction that marked Trump’s foreign policy during his initial White House stint.) Bolton could hardly have been surprised that the attack on him was renewed. In a new edition of the book that came out in January of 2024, he had warned, “Trump really only cares about retribution for himself, and it will consume much of a second term.”
So let’s stipulate that whatever comes of the F.B.I. raid on Bolton, legally speaking, there is a certain awful predictability to it. In his first months back in office, Trump has made clear that his vengeful threats were not simply campaign-season bluster. He has stripped security clearances (including Bolton’s) and fired career civil servants for having ties to his opponents; he has demanded Justice Department investigations of them. Earlier in August, Trump’s D.O.J. launched probes of two of his most outspoken legal adversaries—the California Democrat Adam Schiff, who led the House’s first impeachment inquiry of Trump, in 2019, and the New York attorney general Letitia James, whose office successfully prosecuted Trump in a civil-fraud case. We don’t know yet where this will all end up—it’s far from certain that these investigations will lead to prosecutions, let alone a prison wing full of Trumpian “enemies of the people.” But we can already say for sure that he wasn’t just bluffing with his campaign-season threats; how is it possible that, so many years into this Trump era, there is not a more precise vocabulary for describing how it is that we are constantly being surprised when Trump and his advisers do exactly what we have expected them to do?
A worrisome indicator for how this will all turn out is how unabashedly Team Trump now pursues its vengeance agenda—they are no longer really even trying to hide it. Back in January, when Kash Patel still needed the votes of a few not-fully-Trumpified Republican senators to win confirmation as F.B.I. director, he insisted that he had no intention of allowing America’s chief law-enforcement agency to be drawn into the messy work of carrying out Trump’s vendettas. “There will be no retributive actions taken by any F.B.I. should I be confirmed as F.B.I. director,” Patel said—under oath, I would point out—at his confirmation hearing. When asked about an appendix to his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters”—which named sixty people who were part of a supposed “Executive Branch deep state” arrayed against Trump, with Bolton, and many others who’ve already drawn Trump’s second-term fire, included—Patel said, “It’s not an enemies list. It’s a total mischaracterization.” Yet there he was on Friday morning, tweeting even before the news of the Bolton raid was public: “NO ONE is above the law… @FBI agents on mission.” Will we hear from any Republicans other than the two who voted against him that Patel has made a mockery of his sworn Senate testimony? Don’t count on it.
Asked about the raid, Trump himself denied any specific foreknowledge. Sort of. “He’s not a smart guy, but he could be a very unpatriotic guy, we’re going to find out,” he told reporters on Friday morning. “I know nothing about it; I just saw it this morning. They did a raid.”
Just a week earlier, on August 13th, Trump had been quite explicit about his anger toward Bolton, complaining on Truth Social that his onetime national-security adviser remains one of the media’s favorite “fired losers and really dumb people” to quote with attacks on him. It is certainly true that Bolton has continued to speak out against Trump at a time when many other former Trump Administration officials have fallen silent, despite having previously called him everything from a “threat to democracy” to a textbook “fascist” who “prefers the dictator approach to government.”
The timing is notable: Trump’s Truth Social post about Bolton had nothing to do with classified information and everything to do with the fact that Bolton was one of the loudest reality checks on television about the President’s embarrassing summit a day earlier with Vladimir Putin, in Alaska. “Trump did not lose, but Putin clearly won,” Bolton said on CNN right after the two leaders abruptly ended their meeting with no deal to announce. This was precisely the statement that triggered Trump’s post: “What’s that all about?” the President complained. “We are winning on EVERYTHING.” Bolton has continued to offer sharp-edged assessments of Trump’s so-far-unsuccessful efforts to bring about an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine; he appeared on CNN Thursday night—hours before the F.B.I. raid, in fact—giving an interview in which he attributed the “confusion” about Trump’s negotiations with Putin to the Administration’s failure to say clearly what has been discussed, and called out “the White House’s concern that Trump didn’t stand up to Putin in Alaska.”
I don’t know whether getting Bolton to shut up in public is a goal of this F.B.I. raid or merely a possible ancillary benefit for Trump. Either way, it represents a direct attack on one of the President’s most informed and unrelenting critics, a lifelong conservative whose direct-from-the-Situation-Room account of Trump’s ignorance, perfidy, and willingness to betray the national interest in service of his own self-interest provides an important counterpoint to the daily stream of pro-Trump propaganda now embraced by most of the American right.
As I was digesting the news of Friday morning’s raid, a historian friend sent along a quote from Huey Long, the populist Louisiana politician who showed the political potential of an American-style demagogue, winning his state’s governorship and a seat in the Senate at a time when right-wing fascism was ascending in Europe, in the late nineteen-twenties and early thirties. Long had observed that the imposition of American-style fascism would not require a military takeover but “would only have to get the right President and Cabinet” to emerge as “a hundred-per-cent American movement.” What’s more, he had added, “it would be quite unnecessary to suppress the press. A couple of powerful newspaper chains and two or three papers with practical monopolies of certain fields would go out to smear, calumniate, and blackmail opponents into silence, and ruthlessly to eliminate competitors.”
Long’s uncomfortably relevant assessment is a reminder that Trump’s actions do not exist outside history. The tools that worked so effectively to silence critics in the brutal dictatorships of the twentieth century—or in Putin’s Russia, for that matter—work just as well when they are deployed by America’s vengeful President. ♦
The Maryland home of former UN Ambassador John Bolton has been raided by the FBI, according to multiple reports.
FBI Director Kash Patel posted a cryptic message early Friday morning, possibly pointing to the raid.
“NO ONE is above the law…@FBI agents on mission,” Patel wrote.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi reposted shortly after with her own message.
“America’s safety isn’t negotiable. Justice will be pursued. Always,” Bondi posted on X.
During the president’s first term, Bolton served as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor between 2018 and 2019. He also served as the U.S. ambassador to the UN during George W. Bush’s administration between 2005 and 2006.
There are unconfirmed reports that the raid is part of an investigation into the handling of classified documents.
Bolton fell out of favor with Trump, authoring a book, “The Room Where It Happened,” critical of the president’s first administration.
Bolton has not commented on the reported raid; however, he posted a message as the raid was ongoing, renewing his criticism of the president’s handling of Russia.
“Russia has not changed its goal: drag Ukraine into a new Russian Empire. Moscow has demanded that Ukraine cede territory it already holds and the remainder of Donetsk, which it has been unable to conquer. Zelensky will never do so. Meanwhile, meetings will continue because Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, but I don’t see these talks making any progress,” Bolton posted on X.
FBI agents raided the Bethesda, Maryland, home and D.C. office of John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, early on Friday morning as part of an investigation into whether he illegally handled classified information. Bolton, who became an outspoken Trump critic after leaving his first administration, has not been detained or charged with any crimes, according to an AP source.
Federal investigators have not given any official statement on why Bolton’s home and residence were searched. “The FBI is conducting court authorized activity in the area. There is no threat to public safety. We have no further comment,” a spokesperson for the bureau said, per the Washington Post.
However, shortly before the New York Postbroke news of the raid, FBI director Kash Patel posted on X:
Attorney general Pam Bondiretweeted Patel’s post, adding, “America’s safety isn’t negotiable. Justice will be pursued. Always.” FBI deputy director Dan Bongino did the same, writing, “Public corruption will not be tolerated.”
Bolton has yet to comment on the raids. He was spotted in D.C. on Friday morning, according to the AP:
After the search at Bolton’s home started, he was spotted Friday morning standing in the lobby of the Washington building where he keeps an office and talking to two people with “FBI” visible on their vests. He left a few minutes later and appeared to have gone upstairs in the building. Agents were seen taking bags into the office building through a back entrance.
FBI agents work outside the home of John Bolton on August 22, 2025 in Bethesda, Maryland. Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
While the searches were being conducted, Bolton posted a message about Trump’s handling of Russia’s war in Ukraine on X. This is typical of Bolton’s criticism of Trump’s foreign policy and may have been a scheduled post:
Bolton was George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations during the Iraq War and Donald Trump’s national security adviser from March 2018 until he was fired via Twitter in September 2019. Nine months after exiting the first Trump administration Bolton published a best-selling book criticizing the president. The president repeatedly bashed Bolton during this time, tweeting at one point that he “should be in jail”:
Shortly after the release of Bolton’s book, the Trump Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into whether Bolton unlawfully disclosed classified information in the memoir. The investigation was closed without charges in 2021, during the Biden administration.
Trump claimed on Friday morning that he was unaware of the raid, and reiterated that he considers Bolton a “low life”:
The FBI searched former national security adviser John Bolton’s house in Bethesda, Maryland, early Friday morning, the bureau confirmed to CBS News.
“The FBI is conducting court authorized activity in the area,” the FBI said in a statement. “There is no threat to public safety. We have no further comment.”
Sources familiar with the search told CBS News it is related in part to a classified documents investigation.
FBI agents walk outside the home of John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser, after conducting a court-authorized search on Aug. 22, 2025 in Bethesda, Maryland.
PEDRO UGARTE/AFP via Getty Images
Bolton did not respond to multiple attempts to reach him. The New York Post first reported Bolton’s home was being searched by the FBI.
File: Former U.S. security adviser John Bolton speaks at the Hotel Petit Palace Savoy Alfonso XII, on Sept. 23, 2024 in Madrid.
Jesus Hellin/Europa Press via Getty Images
Bolton served as national security adviser during President Trump’s first term, but resigned — or was asked to resign by Mr. Trump — after serving in the job for 17 months.
During Mr. Trump’s first term, Bolton wrote a book about his tenure as national security adviser, “The Room Where It Happened,” which portrayed Mr. Trump in an unflattering light. The first Trump administration tried to stop the publication of the book and later sued him for the profits. The Justice Department opened a criminal inquiry into whether Bolton had published classified information, claiming he had failed to complete a prepublication review.
In November 2020, Mr. Trump claimed that Bolton “illegally released much Classified Information” in his book. He called Bolton “a lowlife who should be in jail, money seized, for disseminating, for profit, highly Classified information,” in another social media post.
The Biden administration later closed the investigation into Bolton and dropped the lawsuit against him.
Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” where he worked with Brennan for two years on the broadcast. Rosen has been a producer for several CBS News podcasts, including “The Takeout,” “The Debrief” and “Agent of Betrayal: The Double Life of Robert Hanssen.”
“He could’ve smiled. He could’ve looked benign,” Bolton said on CNN. “Instead he looks like a thug.”
Donald Trump’s booking photo, taken at the Fulton County Jail on August 24, 2023. (Photo by Fulton County Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images)
Bolton, who served as national security advisor under Trump, said the image was likely carefully staged, as most things are around Trump.
“I think it’s intended to be a sign of intimidation against the prosecutors and the judges,” he said.
Bolton also had harsh words for most of the other Republicans seeking the presidential nomination after six of eight participants in Wednesday night’s debate said they would support Trump if he wins the primary even if he’s convicted.
“I think there were six wrong answers and two right answers,” Bolton said. “You cannot believe in a law-and-order philosophy and say it applies to everybody except Donald Trump.”
He added: “In any sane society, somebody who’s a convicted felon should step aside.”
Bolton said the Republican National Committee should have a rule forcing a convicted candidate off the ticket.
Like many who served under Trump, Bolton released a tell-all book bashing his former boss and has made regular appearances in the media speaking out against the ex-president.
Trump has fired back by calling him a “liar,” a “dope” and a “sick puppy.”
Bolton has said in the past that he voted for Trump in 2016, but not in 2020, when he wrote in the name of a conservative candidate instead. He added that he would do the same next year if Trump is the Republican nominee.
Escalating his mounting criticisms of Donald Trump, former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr called the former president “a consummate narcissist” and a “fundamentally flawed person” in a scathing interview on Sunday. Once a staunch Trump ally, Barr has been a vociferous critic in the weeks following Trump’s federal indictment on charges of illegally possessing classified information.
“He’s like a defiant 9-year-old kid who is always pushing the glass towards the edge of the table, defying his parents from stopping him from doing it,” Barr said in an interview with CBS News’s “Face the Nation,” adding that “our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.” Last week, Barr told Fox News that “if even half” of the 49-page indictment is true, Trump “is toast.”
A second former Trump administration official spoke out on Sunday. In an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union,” former defense secretary Mark Esper called Trump’s alleged possession of classified documents an “irresponsible action that places our service members at risk, places our nation’s security at risk. You cannot have these documents floating around.” According to the special counsel’s indictment, Trump allegedly kept sensitive documents in a public ballroom, bathroom, and bedroom at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
“People have described him as a hoarder when it comes to these types of documents. But clearly, it was unauthorized, illegal and dangerous,” Esper added.
Barr and Esper’s Sunday comments add to a growing chorus of denunciations from former Trump administration officials, even as much of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates have largely avoided discussing the indictment or have actively come to the former president’s defense.
Last week, former Trump national security advisor John Boltoncalled the indictment a “potentially catastrophic turn of events” for Trump, and said that if the allegations are proven to be true, “it should put Trump in jail for a long time.”
Also last week, former Trump chief of staff John KellytoldThe Washington Post that Trump was “scared s—tless” over his legal troubles, adding that “for the first time in his life, it looks like he’s being held accountable.” Trump retaliated on Friday morning in a post on Truth Social, writing that Kelly “pretended to be a ‘tough guy,’ but was actually weak and ineffective, born with a VERY small ‘brain.’”
In addition to their recent criticisms of the former president, Barr, Esper, Bolton, and Kelly all have one thing in common: an early departure from the Trump administration. Barr resigned in December 2020, just a few weeks before January 6; Esper was fired by a Trump tweet a month prior; Bolton was fired in 2019, also by tweet; and Kelly was out less than two years into Trump’s term.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claims in his upcoming memoir that former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley plotted with former President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner to try to become Trump’s vice president, according to an excerpt of the book obtained by CNN.
Pompeo, in his book “Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love,” takes several shots at potential 2024 Republican rivals, including Haley and former national security adviser John Bolton, as the onetime Kansas congressman and CIA director fuels speculation about his own presidential ambitions.
Pompeo writes that he was told by John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff at the time, that Haley had scheduled a meeting with the president to discuss what she claimed was a personal matter and then came to the Oval Office meeting with Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who were serving as White House senior advisers.
“As best Kelly could tell, they were presenting a possible ‘Haley for vice president’ option. I can’t confirm this, but he was certain he had been played, and he was not happy about it. Clearly, this visit did not reflect a team effort but undermined our work for America,” Pompeo writes in his book.
CNN has reached out to Kelly for comment on Pompeo’s claim.
Haley refuted Pompeo’s allegations on Thursday, saying she “never had a conversation with Jared, Ivanka, or the president about the vice presidentship.”
“Pompeo even says he’s not sure if it’s true,” the former South Carolina governor told Fox News, dismissing the claim as “gossip” and saying “there is no truth to it.”
“What I’ll tell you is it’s really sad when you’re having to go out there and put lies and gossip to sell a book,” Haley said. “I don’t know why he said it but that’s exactly why I stayed out of DC as much as possible – to get away from the drama and get away from the gossip.
But a White House source from that time has backed Pompeo’s claim, adding more context by recalling how Kushner and Ivanka Trump were pushing Haley to be secretary of state to succeed Rex Tillerson, who had objected to Kushner getting involved in foreign relations too often and in ways Tillerson disagreed with.
But the president was not enamored with the idea and went with Pompeo, with whom he got along better and whom he liked more, the source said.
After that switch, Trump began talking negatively about his vice president, Mike Pence, who he thought was too often trying to convince him to back off controversial statements or actions. Kushner and Ivanka Trump began pushing Haley again, the source said. Kelly tried to talk the president out of it, arguing that Pence had helped win him the support of evangelical Christian voters in 2016. Kelly was surprised, the source said, that Pence lasted through the 2020 election.
Pompeo, whose book will be published next week, is also scathing in his assessment of Bolton, who has said he may launch a presidential bid to stop Trump from getting a second term in office.
Pompeo takes issue with Bolton’s 2020 book “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir” and claims the former Trump national security adviser divulged classified information and should be prosecuted.
“His self-serving stories contained classified information and deeply sensitive details about conversations involving a sitting commander in chief,” Pompeo writes. “That’s the very definition of treason.”
“John Bolton should be in jail for spilling classified information. I hope I can one day testify at a criminal trial as a witness for the prosecution,” Pompeo writes.
When Bolton wrote the book, there was significant controversy over security reviews of the book before it was published.
“My book was fully cleared in the prepublication review process conducted by the cognizant career NSC Senior Director, whose home agency was the National Archives,” Bolton told CNN in response to Pompeo’s claims.
“Pompeo’s comments tell you more about his character than about my book,” he added.
John Bolton, former national security adviser to Donald J. Trump and longtime foreign policy hawk, said Monday he was prepared to jump into the 2024 presidential contest if he did not see enough pushback within the Republican Party to Trump’s recent call to scrap the U.S. Constitution.
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet The Press Now,” Bolton said he was worried by Trump’s post on his social media platform over the weekend in which the losing candidate in the 2020 election said he should be reinstalled as president or get a do-over election because he felt there was fraud.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump posted. He reposted the statement later in the day.
The U.S. Constitution contains no provisions for reinstalling a losing presidential incumbent in the White House or allowing a do-over of the quadrennial general election, and experts have said there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
“I think to be a presidential candidate, you can’t simply say, ‘I support the Constitution.’ You have to say, ‘I would oppose people who would undercut it,’” Bolton told NBC News’ Kristen Welker.
He then approvingly invoked the since-disbanded House Un-American Activities Committee, seen by many historians as the epicenter of anti-Communist Red Scare paranoia following World War II and a precursor to Sen. Joe McCarthy’s demagogic rise in the early 1950s.
“You know, we used to have a thing in the House of Representatives called the House Un-American Activities Committee. I think when you challenge the Constitution itself the way Trump has done, that is un-American.”
Bolton served under Trump as his national security adviser for a little over a year, from spring 2018 to fall 2019. But his tenure may best be known for how it intersected with the first effort to impeach and remove Trump from office, stemming from Trump’s attempt to withhold aid from Ukraine to pressure the country’s president to announce an investigation of Joe Biden.
Bolton was asked to testify at the impeachment trial about what he knew about the plan but declined to, citing an ongoing dispute between him and the National Security Council over whether his then-unpublished memoir contained classified information. Critics saw his move as a dodge, and when the book came out, it included Bolton saying he and other top officials had tried to convince Trump several times to release the aid but that Trump had refused.
Bolton was also a key figure in the George W. Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 while he was serving as an undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. He also flirted with a presidential run in 2012 but ultimately passed on it.
“I actually think most Republican elected officials in Washington disagree with Trump on this, but they’re intimidated. This is the time where there’s strength in numbers. The more people who tell the truth, the easier it is for everybody else,” he told Welker on Monday.
Bolton said he’d look for “Shermanesque” statements of opposition to Trump’s stance from potential 2024 GOP nominees before making up his mind on whether to run.
“If I don’t see that, then I’m going to seriously consider getting in,” he said. “This is serious business.”
John Bolton, who was former President Donald Trump‘s national security advisor for more than a year, said Monday he is “absolutely” considering launching a 2024 presidential bid — in large part to challenge Trump.
Bolton, speaking on NBC News’ “Meet The Press Now,” said the “one thing” that would spur him to run would be “to make it clear to the people of this country that Donald Trump is unacceptable as the Republican nominee.”
Bolton called it “un-American” for Trump to “challenge the Constitution” when he suggested over the weekend that the nation’s supreme law could be terminated in order to put him back in the White House.
Bolton, who has periodically been a vocal Trump critic since departing his administration in September 2019, called the former president’s declaration “an existential threat to the republic itself.”
Trump, who has regularly spread false claims of widespread election fraud since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020, claimed in a social media post Saturday that, “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Trump appeared to walk back that statement earlier Monday, saying it was “Fake News” to claim he “wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution.” In follow-up posts, Trump declared in all caps that “IF AN ELECTION IS IRREFUTABLY FRAUDULENT, IT SHOULD GO TO THE RIGHTFUL WINNER OR, AT A MINIMUM, BE REDONE.”
Bolton rejected Trump’s clarifications, saying his sentiment is “not merely wrong and outrageous, it is disqualifying.”
“Donald Trump, if he were to take the oath of office again, God forbid, would either be lying about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, or maybe he wouldn’t say it at all,” Bolton said. “You can’t have this kind of approach. It’s not something one can disagree with. This is foundational to the republic.”
Bolton called on GOP leaders to denounce Trump, who is currently the only Republican to announce his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election. Numerous other Republicans, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Trump’s ex-Vice President Mike Pence, are expected to be gearing up to run for the GOP nomination.
The Biden administration said attacks on the Constitution should be “universally condemned.” Many top Republicans, however, have avoided publicly addressing Trump’s remarks when asked for comment.
Bolton, noting that many Republican leadership roles are currently up for consideration, said that every prospective candidate should repudiate Trump’s remarks.
“And honestly, if they don’t, there’s one thing that would get me to get into the presidential race, which I looked at in prior elections, it would be to make it clear to the people of this country that Donald Trump is unacceptable as the Republican nominee,” Bolton said.
When pressed on those remarks, Bolton confirmed he would “absolutely” consider getting into the 2024 race. To be a presidential candidate, he said, one must not only declare support for the Constitution but also opposition to “people who would undercut it.”
Referencing the defunct House Un-American Activities Committee, Bolton said, “I think when you challenge the Constitution itself the way Trump has done, that is un-American.”
He challenged other Republicans to say the same. “I don’t see why they aren’t saying it right now,” he said.
Nearly all GOP voters “disagree that Donald Trump is more important than the Constitution,” Bolton said. “What does a candidate have to lose by appealing to 95% of the base of the Republican Party?”
He said he wanted to see “Shermanesque statements” denouncing Trump from other potential candidates, and if he does not, “then I’m going to seriously consider getting in.”
Asked for his views on the 2024 race and what his potential campaign might look like, Bolton predicted that national security issues will dominate that election cycle “The isolationist virus that Trump has let loose needs to be addressed, as well,” he added.
Bolton contrasted Trump, a “whiner,” with the late GOP President Ronald Reagan’s more “optimistic” message. The former national security advisor said his possible presidential platform might be “very Reaganesque.”
Bolton described his politics as “pretty libertarian” and said he was “not a social conservative.”
He added that he believes the 2024 presidential field will be “very crowded,” and that he might make a decision on whether to run “earlier than some would think.”
BERLIN — On a balmy September evening last year, an Azeri man carrying a Russian passport crossed the border from northern Cyprus into southern Cyprus. He traveled light: a pistol, a handful of bullets and a silencer.
It was going to be the perfect hit job.
Then, just as the man was about to step into a rental car and carry out his mission — which prosecutors say was to gun down five Jewish businessmen, including an Israeli billionaire — the police surrounded him.
The failed attack was just one of at least a dozen in Europe in recent years, some successful, others not, that have involved what security officials call “soft” targets, involving murder, abduction, or both. The operations were broadly similar in conception, typically relying on local hired guns. The most significant connection, intelligence officials say, is that the attacks were commissioned by the same contractor: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In Cyprus, authorities believe Iran, which blames Israel for a series of assassinations of nuclear specialists working on the Iranian nuclear program, was trying to signal that it could strike back where Israel least expects it.
“This is a regime that bases its rule on intimidation and violence and espouses violence as a legitimate measure,” David Barnea, the head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, said in rare public remarks in September, describing what he said was a recent uptick in violent plots. “It is not spontaneous. It is planned, systematic, state terrorism — strategic terrorism.”
He left out one important detail: It’s working.
That success has come in large part because Europe — the staging ground for most Iranian operations in recent years — has been afraid to make Tehran pay. Since 2015, Iran has carried out about a dozen operations in Europe, killing at least three people and abducting several others, security officials say.
“The Europeans have not just been soft on the Islamic Republic, they’ve been cooperating with them, working with them, legitimizing the killers,” Masih Alinejad, the Iranian-American author and women’s rights activist said, highlighting the continuing willingness of European heads of state to meet with Iran’s leaders.
Alinejad, one of the most outspoken critics of the regime, understands better than most just how far Iran’s leadership is willing to go after narrowly escaping both a kidnapping and assassination attempt.
“If the Islamic Republic doesn’t receive any punishment, is there any reason for them to stop taking hostages or kidnapping or killing?” she said, and then answered: “No.”
Method of first resort
Assassination has been the sharpest instrument in the policy toolbox ever since Brutus and his co-conspirators stabbed Julius Caesar repeatedly. Over the millennia, it’s also proved risky, often triggering disastrous unintended consequences (see the Roman Empire after Caesar’s killing or Europe after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo).
And yet, for both rogue states like Iran, Russia and North Korea, and democracies such as the United States and Israel — the attraction of solving a problem by removing it often proves irresistible.
Even so, there’s a fundamental difference between the two spheres: In the West, assassination remains a last resort (think Osama bin Laden); in authoritarian states, it’s the first (who can forget the 2017 assassination by nerve agent of Kim Jong-nam, the playboy half-brother of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, upon his arrival in Kuala Lumpur?). For rogue states, even if the murder plots are thwarted, the regimes still win by instilling fear in their enemies’ hearts and minds.
That helps explain the recent frequency. Over the course of a few months last year, Iran undertook a flurry of attacks from Latin America to Africa. In Colombia, police arrested two men in Bogotá on suspicion they were plotting to assassinate a group of Americans and a former Israeli intelligence officer for $100,000; a similar scene played out in Africa, as authorities in Tanzania, Ghana and Senegal arrested five men on suspicion they were planning attacks on Israeli targets, including tourists on safari; in February of this year, Turkish police disrupted an intricate Iranian plot to kill a 75-year-old Turkish-Israeli who owns a local aerospace company; and in November, authorities in Georgia said they foiled a plan hatched by Iran’s Quds Force to murder a 62-year-old Israeli-Georgian businessman in Tbilisi.
Whether such operations succeed or not, the countries behind them can be sure of one thing: They won’t be made to pay for trying. Over the years, the Russian and Iranian regimes have eliminated countless dissidents, traitors and assorted other enemies (real and perceived) on the streets of Paris, Berlin and even Washington, often in broad daylight. Others have been quietly abducted and sent home, where they faced sham trials and were then hanged for treason.
While there’s no shortage of criticism in the West in the wake of these crimes, there are rarely real consequences. That’s especially true in Europe, where leaders have looked the other way in the face of a variety of abuses in the hopes of reviving a deal to rein in Tehran’s nuclear weapons program and renewing business ties.
Unlike the U.S. and Israel, which have taken a hard line on Iran ever since the mullahs came to power in 1979, Europe has been more open to the regime. Many EU officials make no secret of their ennui with America’s hard-line stance vis-à-vis Iran.
“Iran wants to wipe out Israel, nothing new about that,” the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told POLITICO in 2019 when he was still Spanish foreign minister. “You have to live with it.”
History of assassinations
There’s also nothing new about Iran’s love of assassination.
Indeed, many scholars trace the word “assassin” to Hasan-i Sabbah, a 12th-century Persian missionary who founded the “Order of Assassins,” a brutal force known for quietly eliminating adversaries.
Hasan’s spirit lived on in the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the hardline cleric who led Iran’s Islamic revolution and took power in 1979. One of his first victims as supreme leader was Shahriar Shafiq, a former captain in the Iranian navy and the nephew of the country’s exiled shah. He was shot twice in the head in December 1979 by a masked gunman outside his mother’s home on Rue Pergolèse in Paris’ fashionable 16th arrondissement.
In the years that followed, Iranian death squads took out members and supporters of the shah and other opponents across Europe, from France to Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and Austria. In most instances, the culprits were never caught. Not that the authorities really needed to look.
In 1989, for example, Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, a leader of Iran’s Kurdish minority who supported autonomy for his people, was gunned down along with two associates by Iranian assassins in an apartment in Vienna.
The gunmen took refuge in the Iranian embassy. They were allowed to leave Austria after Iran’s ambassador to Vienna hinted to the government that Austrians in his country might be in danger if the killers were arrested. One of the men alleged to have participated in the Vienna operation would later become one of his country’s most prominent figures: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president from 2005 until 2013.
Not even the bad publicity surrounding that case tempered the regime’s killing spree. In the years that followed, the body count only increased. Some of the murders were intentionally gruesome in order to send a clear message.
Fereydoun Farrokhzad, for example, a dissident Iranian popstar who found exile in Germany, was killed in his home in Bonn in 1992. The killers cut off his genitals, his tongue and beheaded him.
His slaying was just one of dozens in what came to be known as Iran’s “chain murders,” a decade-long killing spree in which the government targeted artists and dissidents at home and abroad. Public outcry over the murder of a trio of prominent writers in 1998, including a husband and wife, forced the regime hard-liners behind the killings to retreat. But only for a time.
Illustration by Joan Wong for POLITICO
Then, as now, the dictatorship’s rationale for such killings has been to protect itself.
“The highest priority of the Iranian regime is internal stability,” a Western intelligence source said. “The regime views its opponents inside and outside Iran as a significant threat to this stability.”
Much of that paranoia is rooted in the Islamic Republic’s own history. Before returning to Iran in 1979, Khomeini spent nearly 15 years in exile, including in Paris, an experience that etched the power of exile into the Islamic Republic’s mythology. In other words, if Khomeini managed to lead a revolution from abroad, the regime’s enemies could too.
Bargaining chips
Given Europe’s proximity to Iran, the presence of many Iranian exiles there and the often-magnanimous view of some EU governments toward Tehran, Europe is a natural staging ground for the Islamic Republic’s terror.
The regime’s intelligence service, known as MOIS, has built operational networks across the Continent trained to abduct and murder through a variety of means, Western intelligence officials say.
As anti-regime protests have erupted in Iran with increasing regularity since 2009, the pace of foreign operations aimed at eliminating those the regime accuses of stoking the unrest has increased.
While several of the smaller-scale assassinations — such as the 2015 hit in the Netherlands on Iranian exile Mohammad-Reza Kolahi — have succeeded, Tehran’s more ambitious operations have gone awry.
The most prominent example involved a 2018 plot to blow up the annual Paris meeting of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an alliance of exile groups seeking to oust the regime. Among those attending the gathering, which attracted tens of thousands, was Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s lawyer.
Following a tip from American intelligence, European authorities foiled the plot, arresting six, including a Vienna-based Iranian diplomat who delivered a detonation device and bombmaking equipment to an Iranian couple tasked with carrying out an attack on the rally. Authorities observed the handover at a Pizza Hut in Luxembourg and subsequently arrested the diplomat, Assadollah Assadi, on the German autobahn as he sped back to Vienna, where he enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
Assadi was convicted on terror charges in Belgium last year and sentenced to 20 years is prison. He may not even serve two.
The diplomat’s conviction marked the first time an Iranian operative had been held accountable for his actions by a European court since the Islamic revolution. But Belgium’s courage didn’t last long.
In February, Iran arrested Belgian aid worker Olivier Vandecasteele on trumped-up espionage charges and placed him into solitary confinement at the infamous Evin prison in Tehran. Vandecasteele headed the Iran office of the Norwegian Refugee Council, an aid group.
Following reports that Vandecasteele’s health was deteriorating and tearful public pleas from his family, the Belgian government — ignoring warnings from Washington and other governments that it was inviting further kidnappings — relented and laid the groundwork for an exchange to trade Assadi for Vandecasteele. The swap could happen any day.
“Right now, French, Swedish, German, U.K., U.S., Belgian citizens, all innocents, are in Iranian prisons,” said Alinejad, the Iranian women’s rights campaigner.
“They are being used like bargaining chips,” she said. “It works.”
Amateur hour
Even so, the messiness surrounding the Assadi case might explain why most of Iran’s recent operations have been carried out by small-time criminals who usually have no idea who they’re working for. The crew in last year’s Cyprus attack, for example, included several Pakistani delivery boys. While that gives Iran plausible deniability if the perpetrators get caught, it also increases the likelihood that the operations will fail.
“It’s very amateur, but an amateur can be difficult to trace,” one intelligence official said. “They’re also dispensable. They get caught, no one cares.”
Iranian intelligence has had more success in luring dissidents away from Europe to friendly third countries where they are arrested and then sent back to Iran. That’s what happened to Ruhollah Zam, a journalist critical of the regime who had been living in Paris. The circumstances surrounding his abduction remain murky, but what is known is that someone convinced him to travel to Iraq in 2019, where he was arrested and extradited to Iran. He was convicted for agitating against the regime and hanged in December of 2020.
One could be forgiven for thinking that negotiations between Iran and world powers over renewing its dormant nuclear accord (which offered Tehran sanctions relief in return for supervision of its nuclear program) would have tamed its covert killing program. In fact, the opposite occurred.
In July of 2021, U.S. authorities exposed a plot by Iranian operatives to kidnap Alinejad from her home in Brooklyn as part of an elaborate plan that involved taking her by speedboat to a tanker in New York Harbor before spiriting her off to Venezuela, an Iranian ally, and then on to the Islamic Republic.
A year later, police disrupted what the FBI believed was an attempt to assassinate Alinejad, arresting a man with an assault rifle and more than 60 rounds of ammunition who had knocked on her door.
American authorities also say Tehran planned to avenge the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, the head of its feared paramilitary Quds Force who was the target of a U.S. drone strike in 2020, by seeking to kill former National Security Adviser John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, the former Secretary of State, among other officials.
Through it all, neither the U.S. nor Europe gave up hope for a nuclear deal.
“From the point of view of the Iranians, this is proof that it is possible to separate and maintain a civilized discourse on the nuclear agreement with a deceptive Western appearance, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to plan terrorist acts against senior American officials and citizens,” Barnea, the Mossad chief said. “This artificial separation will continue for as long as the world allows it to.”
Kremlin’s killings
Some hope the growing outrage in Western societies over Iran’s crackdown on peaceful protestors could be the spark that convinces Europe to get tough on Iran. But Europe’s handling of its other favorite rogue actor — Russia — suggests otherwise.
Long before Russia’s annexation of Crimea, much less its all-out war against Ukraine, Moscow, similar to Iran, undertook an aggressive campaign against its enemies abroad and made little effort to hide it.
Russian police investigators stand near the body of killed Russian opposition leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov | Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images
The most prominent victim was Alexander Litvinenko. A former KGB officer like Vladimir Putin, Litvinenko had defected to the U.K., where he joined other exiles opposed to Putin. In 2006, he was poisoned in London by Russian intelligence with polonium-210, a radioactive isotope that investigators concluded was mixed into his tea. The daring operation signaled Moscow’s return to the Soviet-era practice of artful assassination.
Litvinenko died a painful death within weeks, but not before he blamed Putin for killing him, calling the Russian president “barbaric.”
“You may succeed in silencing me, but that silence comes at a price,” Litvinenko said from his deathbed.
In the end, however, the only one who really paid a price was Litvinenko. Putin continued as before and despite deep tensions in the U.K.’s relationship with Russia over the assassination, it did nothing to halt the transformation of the British capital into what has come to be known as “Londongrad,” a playground and second home for Russia’s Kremlin-backed oligarchs, who critics say use the British financial and legal systems to hide and launder their money.
Litvinenko’s killing was remarkable both for its brutality and audacity. If Putin was willing to take out an enemy on British soil with a radioactive element, what else was he capable of?
It didn’t take long to find out. In the months and years that followed, the bodies started to pile up. Critical journalists, political opponents and irksome oligarchs in the prime of life began dropping like flies.
Europe didn’t blink.
Angela Merkel, then German chancellor, visited Putin in his vacation residence in Sochi just weeks after the murders of Litvinenko and investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya and said … nothing.
Even after there was no denying Putin’s campaign to eradicate anyone who challenged him, European leaders kept coming in the hope of deepening economic ties.
Neither the assassination of prominent Putin critic Boris Nemtsov just steps away from the Kremlin in 2015, nor the poisoning of a KGB defector and his daughter in the U.K. in 2018 and of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in 2020 with nerve agents disabused European leaders of the notion that Putin was someone they could do business with and, more importantly, control.
‘Anything can happen’
Just how comfortable Russia felt about using Europe as a killing field became clear in the summer of 2019. Around noon on a sunny August day, a Russian assassin approached Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, a Chechen with Georgian nationality, and shot him twice in the head with a 9mm pistol. The murder took place in a park located just a few hundred meters from Germany’s interior ministry and several witnesses saw the killer flee. He was nabbed within minutes as he was changing his clothes and trying to dispose of his weapon and bike in a nearby canal.
It later emerged that Khangoshvili, a Chechen fighter who had sought asylum in Germany, was on a Russian kill list. Russian authorities considered him a terrorist and accused him of participating in a 2010 attack on the Moscow subway that killed nearly 40 people.
In December of 2019, Putin denied involvement in Khangoshvili’s killing. Sort of. Sitting next to French President Emmanuel Macron, Merkel and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy following a round of talks aimed at resolving the conflict in Ukraine, the Russian referred to him as a “very barbaric man with blood on his hands.”
“I don’t know what happened to him,” Putin said. “Those are opaque criminal structures where anything can happen.”
Early on October 19 of last year, Berlin police discovered a dead man on the sidewalk outside the Russian embassy. He was identified as Kirill Zhalo, a junior diplomat at the embassy. He was also the son of General Major Alexey Zhalo, the deputy head of a covert division in Russia’s FSB security service in Moscow that ordered Khangoshvili’s killing. Western intelligence officials believe that Kirill Zhalo, who arrived in Berlin just weeks before the hit on the Chechen, was involved in the operation and was held responsible for its exposure.
The Russian embassy called his death “a tragic accident,” suggesting he had committed suicide by jumping out of a window. Russia refused to allow German authorities to perform an autopsy (such permission is required under diplomatic protocols) and sent his body back to Moscow.
Less than two months later, the Russian hitman who killed Khangoshvili, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Russia recently tried to negotiate his release, floating the possibility of exchanging American basketball player Brittney Griner and another U.S. citizen they have in custody. Washington rejected the idea.
The war in Ukraine offers profound lessons about the inherent risks of coddling dictators.
Though Germany, with its thirst for Russian gas, is often criticized in that regard, it was far from alone in Europe. Europe’s insistence on giving Putin the benefit of the doubt over the years in the face of his crimes convinced him that he would face few consequences in the West for his invasion of Ukraine. That’s turned out to be wrong; but who could blame the Russian leader for thinking it?
Iran presents Europe with an opportunity to learn from that history and confront Tehran before it’s too late. But there are few signs it’s prepared to really get tough. EU officials say they are “considering” following Washington’s lead and designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a vast military organization that also controls much of the Iran’s economy, as a terror organization. Last week, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock spearheaded an effort at the United Nations to launch a formal investigation into Iran’s brutal crackdown against the ongoing protests in the country.
Yet even as the regime in Tehran snuffs out enemies and races to fulfil its goal of building both nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach any point on the Continent, some EU leaders appear blind to the wider context as they pursue the elusive renewal of the nuclear accord.
“It is still there,” Borrell said recently of the deal he has taken a leading role in trying to resurrect. “It has nothing to do with other issues, which certainly concern us.”