The Trump administration’s renewed interest in tapping Venezuela’s mineral reserves could carry with it ‘serious risk,’ an expert on illicit economies has warned in the wake of the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

A day after the U.S. military captured Maduro in Caracas, Trump administration officials highlighted their interest in the country’s critical mineral potential.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Jan. 4, ‘You have steel, you have minerals, all the critical minerals. They have a great mining history that’s gone rusty,’ he said aboard Air Force One alongside President Donald Trump.

Lutnick also said that Trump ‘is going to fix it and bring it back – for the Venezuelans.’

‘Venezuela’s gold, critical mineral and rare earth potential is substantial, which makes mining resources very much on the menu for Trump,’ Bram Ebus told Fox News Digital.

‘But this illicit economy involves extreme violence,’ he said, before describing abuses that include forced labor, criminal control of mining zones and punishments such as ‘hands being cut off for theft.’

Ebus cautioned that without strict safeguards, transparency and security, Trump’s efforts to tap Venezuela’s mineral wealth could entangle the U.S. in criminal networks.

‘The sector is already dominated by transnational crime syndicates, deeply implicated in human rights abuses, and intertwined with Chinese corporate interests,’ Ebus, the founder of Amazon Underworld, a research collective covering organized crime, said. ‘If corporations or foreign private security firms were to become directly involved in mining in Venezuela’s Amazon region, the situation could deteriorate rapidly and violently.’

Despite the renewed focus on oil and mineral wealth, ‘when it comes to mining, the situation is more complex than oil,’ Ebus added. ‘The illicit extraction of gold, tungsten, tantalum, and rare earth elements is largely controlled by Colombian guerrilla organizations, often working in collaboration with corrupt Venezuelan state security forces. Much of this output currently ends up in China.’

Ebus also described dire conditions inside mining zones. ‘Mining districts are effectively run by criminal governance,’ he explained. ‘Armed groups decide who can enter or leave an area, tax legal and illegal economic activity, and enforce their own form of justice.’ He also described how ‘punishments for breaking rules can include expulsion, beatings, torture or death.’

‘We have documented summary executions, decapitations, and severe physical mutilation, such as hands being cut off for theft,’ he added. ‘Sexual exploitation, forced labor, and torture are widespread with crimes not limited to non-state actors.’ 

He also noted that ‘Venezuelan state forces, including the army, National Guard, and intelligence services are deeply involved and work in direct collaboration with organized crime groups.’

Ebus described how Colombia’s largest guerrilla organizations, including the ELN and factions such as the Segunda Marquetalia, along with Venezuelan organized crime groups operating locally – or ‘sistemas’ – dominate illegal mining operations, noting that ‘there are at least five major ‘sindicatos’ operating across Bolívar state alone.’

‘Together, all these actors make up the core criminal panorama of Venezuela’s mining sector,’ Ebus added.

In 2016, Maduro established the Orinoco Mining Arc, a 111,843-square-kilometer zone rich in gold, diamonds, coltan and other minerals.

The area has since become synonymous with illicit mining and corrupt officials.

In 2019, the U.S. sanctioned Venezuelan gold exports with at least 86% of the country’s gold reportedly being produced illegally and often controlled by criminal gangs.

However, from a U.S. perspective, Ebus said, the objective behind critical minerals could be limiting China’s access.

‘With gold prices expected to peak around 2026, access to gold represents a major benefit for national economies and government investment stability,’ he said. ‘Beyond gold, controlling critical mineral supply chains offers enormous geopolitical leverage for the U.S., especially if it allows it to deny access to China.’

Iran is not merely experiencing another wave of street protests. It is facing a crisis that strikes at the core of the Islamic Republic—and, for the first time in years, places the regime’s survival in real doubt.

Across Iran, demonstrations sparked by economic collapse and corruption have rapidly transformed into direct challenges to clerical rule. Security forces have responded with live fire, mass arrests, and communications blackouts. International reporting cites hundreds of people killed and thousands detained. Internet shutdowns point to a regime determined to suppress not only dissent, but proof of it.

Iran has behaved this way before. What has changed is the strategic environment—and the growing sense among Iranians that the system itself is failing.

Still, one must be clear-eyed: Iran’s leaders will not go quietly. They do not see themselves as ordinary autocrats clinging to power. In their own theology, they see themselves as executing Allah’s will.

A Regime That Sees Repression as Divine Duty

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has framed its authority through velayat-e faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist. Under this doctrine, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not simply a political figure. He is the guardian of an Islamic revolution believed to be divinely sanctioned.

That theological worldview directly shapes how the regime responds to dissent. When Iranian security forces fire into crowds, the regime does not see itself as suppressing political opposition; it sees itself as crushing heresy, sedition, and rebellion against God’s order. Protesters are routinely labeled ‘corrupt on earth,’ a Quranic phrase historically used to justify severe punishment.

Public condemnation and moral appeals alone will not move Tehran. Its rulers believe endurance, sacrifice, and violence are virtues—especially when used to preserve the revolution.

Even regimes driven by religious certainty can collapse once their power structures fracture.

Why this moment differs from 2009—or 2022

Iran has seen mass protests before. In 2009, the Green Movement threatened the regime after a disputed election. In 2022, nationwide protests erupted following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman who died in morality-police custody after being detained for allegedly violating Iran’s hijab rules. Each time, the regime survived.

Several factors suggest this moment is different.

First, the economy is far worse. Iran faces sustained currency devaluation, unemployment, and inflation that has crushed the middle class and hollowed out state legitimacy. That pressure is compounded by a deepening water crisis that has crippled agriculture, strained urban life, and fueled unrest in multiple provinces. Economic despair is no longer peripheral; it now sits at the center.

Beyond economics, Iran’s external deterrence has eroded. The war with Israel in 2025 inflicted real damage. Senior Iranian commanders were killed. Air defenses were penetrated. Missile and drone infrastructure was disrupted. Iran’s aura of invulnerability—carefully cultivated over decades—was badly shaken.

At the same time, Iran’s proxy network is under strain. Hamas has been devastated. Hezbollah has suffered significant losses and now faces domestic pressure in Lebanon. The Houthis remain disruptive but isolated. Tehran’s so-called ‘axis of resistance’ looks less like an unstoppable force and more like a series of costly liabilities.

Most importantly, the regime’s coercive apparatus is under stress. And this is where the future of Iran will be decided.

Watch the IRGC and the Basij—the outcome may hinge on their choices

No institutions matter more right now than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary arm, the Basij.

Often described as the regime’s ‘eyes and ears,’ the Basij are not a conventional military force but a nationwide population-control and internal surveillance network. Embedded in neighborhoods, universities, factories, and mosques, they monitor dissent, identify protest organizers, and move quickly to intimidate or detain them—often before demonstrations can spread. 

During past unrest, including the 2009 Green Movement and the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests, Basij units played a central role in suppressing resistance through beatings, arrests, and close coordination with IRGC security forces. Their value to the regime lies not in battlefield strength, but in omnipresence and ideological loyalty.

Their mission is to control dissent at the local level—before it becomes national. As long as the Basij remain loyal and effective in towns, neighborhoods, and campuses, the regime can contain unrest. If they hesitate, defect, or stand aside, Tehran’s grip weakens rapidly.

The Basij are the real instrument of population control. If the regime is forced to deploy the IRGC widely for internal order, it signals that local control has failed—and that the system is under far greater strain.

The Trump administration should be careful not to hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The IRGC, by contrast, controls the military and functions as an economic empire. Beyond internal security, the IRGC also shapes Iran’s foreign policy—overseeing missile forces, regional proxies, and external operations. It exists to defend the revolution abroad, while the Basij exists to control society at home.

Over the past three decades, the IRGC has embedded itself in Iran’s most important industries—energy, construction, telecommunications, transportation, ports, and black-market finance. Entire sectors of the Iranian economy now depend on IRGC-controlled firms and foundations.

This creates a decisive tension. On one hand, the IRGC has every reason to defend the regime that enriched it. On the other, prolonged instability, sanctions, and economic collapse threaten the very assets the Guards control. At some point, self-preservation may begin to compete with ideological loyalty.

That is why Iran’s future may depend less on what protesters do in the streets—and more on whom the IRGC ultimately chooses to back.

Three outcomes appear plausible.

The first is repression. The Basij could maintain local control while the IRGC backs the Supreme Leader, allowing the regime to crush dissent, and impose order through overwhelming force. This would preserve the Islamic Republic, but at the cost of deeper isolation and long-term decay.

The second is continuity without clerical dominance. A ‘soft coup’ could sideline aging clerics in favor of a military-nationalist leadership that preserves core power structures while shedding the regime’s most unpopular religious figures. The system would remain authoritarian—but altered.

The third is fracture. If parts of the Basij splinter or stand aside—and the IRGC hesitates to intervene broadly—the regime’s internal control could unravel quickly. This is the least likely outcome, but the most transformative—and the one most favorable to long-term regional stability.

Revolutions tend to succeed not because crowds grow larger, but because security forces eventually stop obeying orders.

America’s strategic objective: clarity without ownership

The United States must be disciplined about its goal.

America should not seek to ‘run Iran,’ redraw its culture, or impose a leader. That approach has failed elsewhere. But neither should Washington pretend neutrality between an abusive theocracy and a population demanding dignity.

Our strategy is clear:

Prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

End Iran’s export of terrorism and proxy war.

Push Iran toward regional stability rather than disruption.

Encourage a government that derives legitimacy from its people, not coercion.

Achieving that outcome requires pressure without provocation.

What the Trump administration and allies should do now

First, expose repression relentlessly. Iran’s internet blackouts are a weapon. The U.S. and allies should support every lawful means of keeping Iranians connected and atrocities visible.

Second, target the regime’s enforcers—not the public. Sanctions should focus on specific IRGC units, Basij commanders, judges, and security officials responsible for killings and mass arrests. Collective punishment only strengthens regime propaganda.

Third, signal consequences—and off-ramps. Those ordering violence must know they will be held accountable. Those who refuse unlawful orders should know the world is watching—and remembering.

Fourth, deter external escalation. Tehran may try to unify the nation through confrontation abroad. Strong regional missile defense, maritime security, and allied coordination reduce the regime’s ability to change the subject with war.

Finally, do not hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The bottom line

Iran’s rulers believe they are carrying out divine will. That makes them dangerous—and stubborn. But it does not make them immortal.

Every revolutionary regime eventually faces a moment when fear stops working, money runs out, and loyalty fractures. Iran may be approaching that moment now.

The outcome will not be decided by speeches in Washington, but by choices in Tehran—especially inside the IRGC.

If the Guards conclude their future lies with the people rather than the clerics, Iran could finally turn a page. If they do not, repression will prevail—for a time.

America’s task is not to force history, but to shape the conditions under which it unfolds—with care, strategy, and moral clarity.

Because when the Islamic Republic finally faces its reckoning, the world must be ready—not to occupy Iran, but to ensure that what replaces the tyranny is not simply the same regime in a different uniform.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Sunday spoke out against President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran, warning that such an attack may backfire as the U.S. government monitors the Middle Eastern country’s response to widespread protests.

During an appearance on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Paul said he is unsure that striking Iran ‘will have the effect that is intended.’

‘I don’t think I have ever heard a president say they may take military action to protect protesters,’ Paul said. ‘Certainly, with Soleimani, when the Trump administration hit him, there were massive protests against America. But they are shouting ‘death to the Ayatollah.”

‘We wish them the best,’ he added. ‘We wish freedom and liberation the best across the world, but I don’t think it’s the job of the American government to be involved with every freedom movement around the world.’

Paul also stressed concern about how the Trump administration would distinguish Iranian protesters from law enforcement if the president were to seek military action.

‘How do you drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd or a protest and protect the people there?’ Paul asked.

The Republican lawmaker also warned that attacking Iran may unintentionally rally protesters behind the Ayatollah.

‘If you bomb the government, do you then rally people to their flag who are upset with the Ayatollah, but then say, ‘Well, gosh, we can’t have a foreign government invading or bombing our country?” Paul said.

‘It tends to have people rally to the cause,’ he continued. ‘So, I think the protests are directed at the Ayatollah, justifiably so.’

Paul added: ‘The best way is to encourage them and say that, of course, we would recognize a government that is a freedom-loving government that allows free elections, but bombing is not the answer.’

The liberty-minded senator also affirmed that presidents cannot strike other countries without the approval of Congress.

‘There is this sticking point of the Constitution that we won’t let presidents bomb countries just when they feel like it,’ Paul emphasized. ‘They’re supposed to ask the people, through the Congress, for permission.’

Protests erupted in Iran in recent weeks over the country’s economic free fall, and many have begun to demand total regime change as the demonstrations continue.

Thousands have been arrested, according to reports. Agencies have been unable to confirm the total death toll because of an internet blackout as the country’s leaders seek to quell the dissent, but The Associated Press reported that more than 500 were killed.

Trump warned Iranian leaders on Friday that they ‘better not start shooting, because we’ll start shooting, too.’

‘Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!’ Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

Paul has opposed Trump in various instances in recent months when it has come to military strikes, including against Iran and Venezuela.

He helped the Senate advance a resolution last week that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela after the U.S. military’s recent move to strike the country and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro, which the Kentucky Republican said amounts to war.

‘I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is, by all definitions, war,’ Paul told reporters before the vote last week. ‘Does this mean we have carte blanche that the president can make the decision any time, anywhere, to invade a foreign country and remove people that we’ve accused of a crime?’

Paul has also criticized the administration’s military strikes on boats near Venezuela it accuses, without evidence, of carrying narco-terrorists, raising concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people. The senator previously cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded on suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez declared Sunday that the island nation would defend itself ‘to the last drop of blood,’ responding to pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to strike a deal with Washington. 

President Trump had spoken about Cuba in a Truth Social post earlier in the day, urging that ‘they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.’

‘Those who blame the Revolution for the severe economic shortages we suffer should hold their tongues out of shame. Because they know it and acknowledge it: they are the fruit of the draconian measures of extreme strangulation that the U.S. has been applying to us for six decades and now threatens to surpass,’ the Cuban wrote on X, according to a translation of the Spanish-language post. 

‘#Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. No one dictates what we do. Cuba does not aggress; it is aggressed upon by the United States for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the Homeland to the last drop of blood,’ he wrote in another post, according to the translation.

U.S. Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., who was born in Cuba, responded to the foreign figure’s post.

‘You dictators, henchmen, and executioners of the Cuban nation think you own the island. You don’t have much time left,’ he declared, according to the translation of his post, also written in Spanish.

Trump declared in a Truth Social post on Sunday, ‘Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided ‘Security Services’ for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Most of those Cubans are DEAD from last weeks U.S.A. attack, and Venezuela doesn’t need protection anymore from the thugs and extortionists who held them hostage for so many years.

‘Venezuela now has the United States of America, the most powerful military in the World (by far!), to protect them, and protect them we will. THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,’ he warned.

Rep. Gimenez thanked the president.

‘I was born in Cuba & forced from home shortly after the Communist takeover. Today, I represent my community in Congress. Thank you, President Trump, first Venezuela & next is Cuba. We will be forever grateful. Our hemisphere must be the hemisphere of liberty,’ the lawmaker wrote in a post on X.

Normally, the Supreme Court hears cases that deal with matters of law. 

But on Tuesday, Jan. 13, the justices will also be dealing with basic science. Not only that, they’ll be debating fundamental truth, as I can personally testify. 

The stakes couldn’t be higher in the case, West Virginia v. B.P.J. The specific question facing the court is simple: Should transgender boys be allowed to compete on girls’ sports teams? But you can’t really answer this question without asking a more important one: Can a young boy or a girl actually change genders? 

I asked this question myself, starting at age 12. I gave the wrong answer.

I was a classic tomboy — a girl who didn’t act and dress the way other girls did. I never felt like I fit in. But instead of realizing that I was in a normal phase of life, I got sucked into the world of social media and video games. That’s where I met people who told me that no, I wasn’t actually a girl. They told me I was a boy. That I should change my body to reflect who I ‘really was inside.’ 

I believed them. I went to doctors who gave me puberty blockers, blocking my normal development. Soon after, they started me on cross-sex hormones, so that I’d start to look more like a boy. Then, at age 15, the doctors gave me a double mastectomy. I figured that without a girl’s chest, I’d finally be happy. As a boy, why would I want to keep my breasts? 

By age 16, I realized how wrong I was. But I couldn’t go back. The puberty blockers and hormones changed my body, to the point that I no longer recognized myself in the mirror. And the chest surgery — how do you undo that? I’m now in my early 20s, and to this day, I have bandages where my breasts used to be. 

I know the truth now: I’m a girl. I always have been. I always will be. I can’t change that — because it’s scientifically and biologically impossible. No matter how many drugs or surgeries they get, kids who think they’re transgender really aren’t. They’re just confused. And in their confusion, doctors and activists are pushing them down a road of even more confusion. It’s also a road of unspeakable grief, worse than anything I ever experienced when I was 12 and felt like I didn’t fit in.

These deeply confused kids are at the center of the case before the Supreme Court. We’re talking about boys who are competing against girls, which is deeply and obviously unfair. Even a boy who’s taken puberty blockers and hormones is going to have an advantage over girls. It’s basic science, written into their biology. No medical treatment can change who they are. Sex-change treatments just cover up the truth under a veneer of self-deception and socially acceptable lies. 

The justices must see through it all. No doubt, the lawyers on the transgender side will try to trick them with arguments about equal treatment and human rights. But this isn’t about rights — it’s about the deep and profound wrong that is child transgenderism.

The only rights that are being violated are girls’ rights to compete fairly, without being forced to go up against boys. And states have a right — and a duty — to protect girls. For that matter, states have a duty to protect all children from transgender treatments of any kind. The Supreme Court has already given states the green light to keep kids safe from radical activism masquerading as medicine. Now the justices should extend that logic by protecting girls’ sports. 

Because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about law. It’s about science and truth. And that’s why the Supreme Court must reject the transgender lie. 

Four tankers that left Venezuela in early January with their transponders off, also known as ‘dark mode,’ have reportedly returned to the country’s waters. The news comes after several U.S. tanker seizures and amid the Trump administration’s push to acquire Venezuelan oil following the arrest of dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Most of the four tankers were loaded, according to Reuters, which noted that Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), a state-owned company, and monitoring service TankerTrackers.com had reported the vessels’ return.

A flotilla of approximately one dozen loaded vessels as well as at least three empty ships left Venezuelan waters last month, despite a U.S. blockade that has been imposed since mid-December, according to Reuters.

One of the vessels, the supertanker M Sophia, which had the Panamanian flag, was intercepted by the U.S. earlier this week, as was the Olina, which had the flag of Sao Tome And Principe, according to Reuters. The outlet reported, citing PDVSA, that the Olina was released to Venezuela on Friday.

The Olina had been seized by U.S. forces in a pre-dawn mission on Friday. The U.S. Southern Command said that Marines and sailors from Joint Task Force Southern Spear worked on the mission in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

‘Apprehensions like this are backed by the full power of the U.S. Navy’s Amphibious Ready Group, including the ready and lethal platforms of the USS Iwo Jima, USS San Antonio, and USS Fort Lauderdale,’ the U.S. Southern Command wrote in a post on X. ‘The Department of War’s Operation Southern Spear is unwavering in its mission to defend our homeland by ending illicit activity and restoring security in the Western Hemisphere.’

The Olina, previously named the Minerva M, was sanctioned by the United States for its role in transporting Russian oil, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Three other vessels that departed Venzuela in the flotilla, Panama-flagged Merope, Cook Islands-flagged Min Hang and Panama-flagged Thalia III, were spotted late Friday in Venezuelan waters by TankerTrackers.com, Reuters reported.

On Friday, Trump hosted nearly two dozen oil executives at the White House to discuss investment in Venezuela after the U.S. military’s successful capture of Maduro. The executives represented several major companies, including Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Continental, Halliburton, HKN, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Trafigura, Vitol Americas, Repsol, Eni, Aspect Holdings, Tallgrass, Raisa Energy and Hilcorp.

‘You have total safety, total security. One of the reasons you couldn’t go in is you had no guarantees, you had no security, but now you have total security,’ Trump said during the meeting. 

‘It’s a whole different Venezuela and Venezuela is going to be very successful, and the people of the United States are going to be big beneficiaries because we’re going to be extracting, you know, numbers of in terms of oil, like, you know, few people have ever seen actually. So, you’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela,’ the president added.

The president also predicted that the acquisition of Venezuelan oil would lead to massive wealth, lower taxes and ‘lots of jobs for Americans and for Venezuelans.’

Days before the meeting with oil executives, Trump said that Venezuela would be turning over between 30 million and 50 million barrels of ‘high-quality,’ sanctioned oil to the U.S. He made the announcement on Truth Social and said that the oil would be sold at market price and that he would ‘control the proceeds to ensure it is ‘used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!’

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton and Sophia Compton contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump pushed back on suggestions from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that the United States could capture Russian President Vladimir Putin after Zelensky pointed to Washington’s recent action against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Trump waved off the idea of such an operation, while venting frustration over the grinding war and his failure so far to bring it to an end. Trump has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he could end the war on his first day back in office, but despite meetings with both Zelenskyy and Putin, a resolution remains elusive.

‘Well, I don’t think it’s going to be necessary,’ Trump said in response to a question from Fox News’ Peter Doocy during a meeting with US oil companies executives at the White House Friday.

‘I’ve always had a great relationship with him. I’m very disappointed,’ Trump said of Putin. ‘I settled eight wars. I thought this would be in the middle of the pack, or maybe one of the easier ones.’

Trump said the conflict continues to take a heavy toll, particularly on Russian forces, and claimed Moscow’s economy is suffering as well.

‘And in the last month they lost 31,000 people, many of them Russian soldiers,’ Trump said, adding that the Russian economy is ‘doing poorly.’

‘I think we’re going to end up getting it settled,’ Trump said. ‘I wish we could have done it quicker because a lot of people are dying.’

‘But largely it’s the soldier population,’ he continued. ‘When you have 30,000, 31,000 soldiers dying in a period of a month, 27,000 the month before, 26,000 the month before that. That’s bad stuff.’

Trump also criticized the Biden administration for sending what he said was $350 billion to Ukraine, arguing the U.S. should be able to recoup costs through a rare earth minerals agreement tied to continued support. He also claimed the U.S. is not losing money in the conflict, saying Washington is benefiting through arms sales to NATO allies, and pointed to NATO’s pledge to raise defense and security spending toward 5% of GDP by 2035, up from the longstanding 2% benchmark.

‘We’re not losing any money. We’re making a lot of money.’

Zelenskyy’s comments came after Russia said it fired its new nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile as part of a massive overnight attack on Ukraine, a claim Kyiv disputed. Ukrainian officials said the barrage involved hundreds of drones and multiple missiles and struck energy facilities and civilian infrastructure, killing at least four people. 

Zelenskyy called on the United States and the international community to respond, saying Russia must face consequences for attacks targeting ordinary civilians.

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

An anti-regime protester scaled the balcony of Iran’s Embassy in London on Friday and tore down the Islamic Republic’s flag, replacing it with Iran’s pre-1979 ‘Lion and Sun’ emblem, video shows.

The demonstrator climbed the front of the embassy building in Kensington before ripping down the regime’s flag and hoisting the historic symbol associated with Iran’s monarchy prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution as a large crowd of anti-regime protesters cheered on.

The Metropolitan Police said officers responded to the scene and made two arrests — one for aggravated trespass and assault on an emergency worker, and another for aggravated trespass. Police said they are also seeking another individual for trespass. It was not immediately clear whether the protester who tore down the flag was among those arrested.

Fox News Digital reached out to Iran’s Embassy in London for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

The embassy protest comes as Iran faces its most significant wave of unrest in years. President Trump has warned the regime that the U.S. will protect protesters if necessary.

Potkin Azarmehr, a British-Iranian journalist, said the current unrest stands in sharp contrast to Iran’s 2009 Green Movement, when protesters openly questioned whether the Obama administration supported them.

‘What a contrast to Obama’s time, when protesters in Iran were chanting, ‘Obama, are you with us or with them?’’ Azarmehr told Fox News Digital.

‘Any international support, whether at the grassroots or government level, is encouraging,’ he said.

He said global attention matters to protesters on the ground, but questioned the lack of visible demonstrations by Western activist groups.

‘The question is where are the Western activist elite protesters? Why are they not protesting? Are they on the side of the ayatollahs? An archaic religious apartheid?’

Demonstrations that began on Dec. 28 over economic grievances have since spread nationwide, evolving into a direct challenge to Iran’s clerical leadership. Solidarity protests with Iranian demonstrators have also emerged in other major European cities, including Paris and Berlin. A protest also took place outside the White House in Washington, D.C.

As of Saturday, at least 72 people have been killed and more than 2,300 detained in Iran-based protests, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency.

Some protests have included chants supporting Iran’s former monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who died in 1980. His son, Reza Pahlavi, has publicly called for continued demonstrations. The Iranian regime has also cut nationwide internet access.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Trump said Iran was facing mounting pressure.

‘Iran’s in big trouble,’ Trump said. ‘It looks to me that the people are taking over certain cities that nobody thought were really possible just a few weeks ago. We’re watching the situation very carefully.’

Trump warned the United States would respond forcefully if the regime resorts to mass violence.

‘We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts,’ Trump said. ‘And that doesn’t mean boots on the ground, but it means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts.’

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has signaled a coming clampdown despite U.S. warnings, according to The Associated Press.

Tehran escalated its threats Saturday, with Iran’s attorney general, Mohammad Movahedi Azad, warning that anyone taking part in protests would be considered an ‘enemy of God,’ a charge that carries the death penalty. The statement, carried by Iranian state television, said even those who ‘helped rioters’ would face the charge.

‘Prosecutors must carefully and without delay, by issuing indictments, prepare the grounds for the trial and decisive confrontation with those who, by betraying the nation and creating insecurity, seek foreign domination over the country,’ the statement read.

‘Proceedings must be conducted without leniency, compassion or indulgence.’

Fox News’ Efrat Lachter, Greg Norman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.