Two Iranians charged with procuring US drone parts
Two Iranian businessmen have been indicted for allegedly conspiring to procure US parts to build military attack drones, the Justice Department said Tuesday.
Hossein Akbari, 63, and Reza Amidi, 62, are charged with money laundering and providing material support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the United States has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
According to court documents, Akbari is chief executive of a company called Rah Roshd while Amidi is the commercial manager.
The Justice Department said Akbari and Amidi, who previously worked at Qods Aviation Industries (QAI), an Iranian state-owned aerospace company, are both at large.
"The defendants conspired to obtain US-origin parts needed to manufacture drones for military use in Iran and send those parts to Iran in violation of export control laws," US Attorney John Durham said in a statement.
"The IRGC and QAI have been core players in the Iranian military regime's production of drones, which threaten the lives of civilians, US personnel and our country's allies."
According to the Justice Department, Akbari and Amidi have evaded US sanctions since 2020 to procure US parts for use in Iranian-made drones, including the Mohajer-6.
A Mohajer-6 drone used by the Russian military was shot down by the Ukranian Air Force in September 2022 and found to have parts manufactured by several US-based companies, it said.
cl/des
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
The U.S. helped oust an Iranian regime before. Here's what happened in 1953.
In the days following the U.S. strikes in Iran, President Donald Trump has threatened to depose Iran's leader and institute a regime change, igniting debates over interventionism and resurfacing memories of the last time America helped topple a government in Iran decades ago. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on June 22. Live updates: What is Iran's next move? World awaits response to U.S. bombing Trump's post came after officials in his administration, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, took much different tones, saying they were not working to overthrow Iran's government and do not want a regime change. As next steps remain unclear, the specter of American involvement in a plan to depose the Iranian regime raises immediate comparisons to Iran's 1953 coup, when American and British intelligence agencies aided in the forced removal of a democratically elected leader. While the current crisis is a far cry from the domestic and international events surrounding the 1953 coup, talk of regime change evokes memories of the U.S.-backed operation that had far-reaching effects in Iran and across the region more than 70 years ago. Here's what to know about what happened then. More: The risks for Trump of 'regime change' in Iran: Just ask George W. Bush Iran and the U.S.—were they always adversarial? As the Cold War took hold in the 1950s, Washington relied on Iran's reigning Shah to help stem Soviet influence spreading further in the oil-producing Middle East. The British had relied on nearly unfettered access to the Iranian oil industry via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, later to become BP. US Iran strikes: What does regime change mean? Trump comments on Iran leadership But Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his monarchist rule were growing unpopular at home among Iranians, and in 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh was elected as prime minister. Shortly after, he nationalized Iranian oil production in a bid to reclaim the country's oil industry and profits from significant foreign control. What led to the 1953 coup in Iran? Britain, shut out from Iranian oil, leaned on the U.S. for assistance. The American government at the time worried that Mossadegh's government signaled an end to Western footholds in the region in the face of Cold War-era anxieties and the USSR's push to expand its influence. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated the overthrow of Mossadegh in 'Operation Ajax,' led by senior officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. It led to the overthrow of Mossadegh, who went on trial and was sentenced to house arrest, and restored and centralized power to Pahlavi. He would become the last Shah of Iran. The National Security Archive in 2013 officially acknowledged the U.S.'s role in the coup when it released declassified CIA documents on the operation. Learn more about Iran: 11 facts about the country following US strikes on three of its nuclear sites 'The 1953 coup remains a topic of global interest because so much about it is still under intense debate,' Malcolm Byrne of the National Security Archive wrote alongside the 2013 release. 'Even fundamental questions — who hatched the plot, who ultimately carried it out, who supported it inside Iran, and how did it succeed — are in dispute.' Journalist Stephen Kinzer said in his 2003 book 'All the Shah's Men' that the 1953 coup was a 'great trauma for Iran, the Middle East, and the colonial world,' marking the first time the U.S. overthrew a foreign government and altering how millions, especially in the region, saw the United States. How did the US-Iranian relationship play out after the coup? Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979, and the Islamic revolutionaries who took over accused the CIA of having trained the Shah's secret police and vowed to battle Western imperialism in the region. They branded America 'the Great Satan,' a nickname that endures to this day. In November 1979, revolutionary students seized the American embassy and took dozens of diplomats and other staff hostage for more than a year. Known as the Iran hostage crisis, it marked the end of a strategic alliance between the U.S. and the Shah's regime, ushering in a new age of hostility between the two nations. The 1953 coup loomed large in the revolution's rhetoric. The lasting impact of the 1953 coup While the U.S. and Iran have butt heads over a range of issues since the 1979 revolution and hostage crisis, including years of strife over Iran's nuclear program, the 1953 coup remains a critical event still invoked in modern Iran. Iranian historian Ervand Abrahamian writes in his 2013 book about the crisis that the coup had lasting impacts on American foreign policy and U.S.-Iranian relations and cast its 'darkest shadow' over Iran itself. 'The coup left a deep imprint on the country—not only on its polity and economy but also on its popular culture and what some would call mentality,' Abrahamian said in 'The Coup.' Contributing: Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY; Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
US on high alert after Iran strikes
Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here It's Monday. This humidity is on another level. 🥵 Oh, and if you're in the Washington area, be aware that the new Metro rail changes are in effect. 🗺️ Here's the new Metro map In today's issue: President Trump is meeting with his national security team this afternoon after taking the extraordinary step of inserting the United States into the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. Here's where things stand: Potential retaliation against U.S. troops: Fears over Iran potentially retaliating are high, including against any of the 40,000 U.S. forces in the Middle East. Americans are on alert: The U.S. has issued a number of alerts since the weekend strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites. Russia backs Iran: A Russian spokesperson says Russia is ready to help Iran. And Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi is in Moscow today to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Iran may retaliate economically: Iranian Parliament has reportedly approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz. This is a vital passage for trade — especially oil. That could cripple the global economy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asked China to step in and prevent Iran from closing the strait. 🗨️ Follow today's live blog ➤ THE TWO BIG QUESTIONS: 1 — Did the strikes destroy Iran's nuclear program? The Trump administration has expressed confidence that Saturday's mission to bomb Iran's nuclear sites was successful. Trump claimed he 'obliterated' their nuclear sites — and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told ABC News this morning that the White House is confident it hit Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles. 2 — Is the U.S. pushing for a regime change? Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio andDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth all insisted Sunday that the U.S. strikes were *not* intended to force a 'regime change' in Iran. But Trump then left that door open, floating a possible regime change on Truth Social. ➤ HAPPENING TUESDAY: Trump will travel to the Netherlands for the annual NATO summit Tuesday. ➤ HOW WE WENT FROM 0 TO 60 IN A FEW DAYS: Trump said in a statement read by the press secretary at Thursday's White House briefing that he would take up to two weeks to decide whether to strike Iran. But just two days later, the U.S. lobbed bombs at three Iranian nuclear sites. 📸 Satellite images of the strikes What changed in that time?: The New York Times reports that it was intentional 'political and military misdirection' from the White House. 'It was almost entirely a deception. Mr. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack.' Plus: Everyone in Trump's orbit had been trying to get in his ear about war vs. diplomacy. Read the NYT report: 'Shifting Views and Misdirection: How Trump Decided to Strike Iran' ➤ MORE READS: The Washington Post: A weakened Iran could turn to assassination and terrorism to strike back The Wall Street Journal: Trump's Iran Attack Revives Questions About War Powers NPR: Iran's relationship with Russia and China could come into play after U.S. strikes The Atlantic: Trump Changed. The Intelligence Didn't.: The president's decision to drop bombs on Iran was opportunistic, not a result of new information. Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has nixed several more provisions in Republicans' 'big, beautiful' megabill. ⭕ The first — holding White House officials in contempt: Republicans have included language to make it very difficult for courts to hold Trump administration officials in contempt. If passed, that could give Trump officials power to ignore court rulings because there's no easy enforcement mechanism to hold them in contempt. ^ Wow, this is a wild stat: Since January, courts have already ruled *against* the Trump administration at least 197 times, per The New York Times tracker. ^^For context: This controversial provision was included in the House-passed bill, but it went unnoticed by many. Several Republicans later realized it was in the bill after voting 'yes' and publicly said they regret their vote. ⭕ The second — border security and immigration enforcement: MacDonough rejected language that would authorize states — as opposed to the federal government — to conduct border security and immigration enforcement. ⭕ The third — increasing contributions for retirement: MacDonough ruled against GOP language to increase what federal employees would contribute to the Federal Employees Retirement Systems if they don't agree to become at-will employees. 🟩 But what is allowed to stay — AI: A 10-year ban on states regulating artificial intelligence (AI). This is important to keep in mind: The Senate parliamentarian's role is nonpartisan, and she is not deciding what lawmakers can and cannot pass. MacDonoughis sifting through the bill to decide what is allowed to be included in Republicans' reconciliation bill. Remember: Reconciliation is a legislative loophole to pass a bill with just 51 votes, not the usual 60 votes. MacDonough ruled these provisions are a violation of the Byrd Rule. If Republicans want to include them, they will need 60 votes. ➤ WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL THIS WEEK?: The Hill's Mychael Schnell posted a helpful breakdown of what to expect in Congress this week. Read: 'Congress returns to divisions over Iran strike amid budget battles' Coming tomorrow: In the latest edition of The Movement, The Hill's latest newsletter, Schnell will take a look at the inside the group making an 'EPIC' impact on the GOP's megabill. Click here to sign up & get it in your inbox. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case on whether a former Louisiana inmate can receive damages for having his dreadlocks forcibly shaved in prison. But the court said 'no' to hearing an appeal to Virginia's lifetime voting ban for felons. The House and Senate are in. President Trump is in Washington. (All times EST) 1 p.m.: Trump meets with his national security team. 5:30 p.m.: The Senate holds a vote to end debate on a nomination. 📆Today's agenda 6:30 p.m.: First and last House votes. 📆Today's agenda Tuesday: New York City's Democratic mayoral primary. 🔎What to know Thursday: The next scheduled day for Supreme Court opinions. 🍪 Celebrate: Today is National Pecan Sandies Day. 📱 No more WhatsApp for House staffers: Axios reports that the popular messaging app WhatsApp will be banned on House staffers' devices for security reasons. If you know of any dogs with dog walkers in the Boston seaport, this woman wants you to know that they are being *very* good boys and girls.
Time Magazine
9 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. What is the Byrd Rule? The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. What's been cut so far? MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. Are the parliamentarian's rulings final, or could they be overturned? The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them.
