Evening Brief: U.S. Strikes ISIS in Syria as Iran Unrest Grows, Mexico Recalculates, and Domestic Tensions Rise

Federal officials said the individuals are linked to the Tren de Aragua gang and were connected to a prior shooting in Portland. Those claims were confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security and Portland Police Bureau officials. The FBI is leading the investigation into the shooting, with Portland police assisting by securing scenes and coordinating with federal authorities. Portland police officers were not involved in the traffic stop and did not fire any shots, according to the Portland Police Bureau. Chief Day addressed the incident publicly, acknowledging heightened community tension following the shooting and emphasizing the need for restraint. He urged residents to remain calm while investigators work to establish the facts. Day also referenced broader national tensions surrounding federal immigration enforcement, noting that emotions are running high after a separate ICE-related shooting in Minneapolis earlier in the week. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek called for a transparent investigation into the Portland incident. Protests later formed outside a federal immigration facility in Portland, leading to several arrests, according to local authorities. Chief Day reiterated that his department’s priority is public safety and maintaining order while investigations proceed. He stressed that conclusions should wait until all facts are known, urging patience and calm from the community as multiple agencies continue their review of the incident.   Protesters in Iran. Image Credit: Skynews Iran Deploys Its “National Guard” as Protests Spread Nationwide Tehran took a page out of President Trump’s playbook this week, deploying its own version of the National Guard to protect government property and infrastructure as widespread riots continue across Iran. The difference, of course, is that Iran doesn’t have a National Guard. What it has is the regular military, the Revolutionary Guards, and the Basij militia. When the regime says it’s “protecting public property,” what it really means is that the situation has blown past law enforcement and into the “everybody grab a rifle” phase. According to Iranian state media, protests and riots have spread to more than 25 of Iran’s 31 provinces since late December. The spark is familiar: inflation, unemployment, shortages, and a population that can’t square why food prices keep climbing while the regime still finds money for missiles and proxy wars. Public buildings have been set on fire, clashes have turned deadly, and funerals are being held for slain security personnel. In response, Iran’s army announced it would safeguard national interests and critical infrastructure, urging citizens to counter what it called “enemy plots.” The Revolutionary Guards followed up by declaring security a “red line” and accusing terrorists and foreign powers of orchestrating the unrest. Translation: this is no longer a protest problem. It’s a regime survival problem. Basij units are now active alongside regular forces. Internet access has been restricted. Calls for strikes are circulating. Human rights groups report dozens killed and thousands arrested. This is the point where governments insist everything is under control while quietly putting helmets on conscripts. Iranian protesters are also getting a live demonstration in comparative civics. This is what protesting looks like without constitutional protections, independent courts, or civilian oversight of the military. There are no permits to revoke, no courts to appeal to, and no elected officials worried about the next election cycle. This is what a “No Kings” protest looks like in a country that actually has one. From an NCO’s perspective, once infantry units are guarding power stations and bus terminals, the situation is already bad. Soldiers are not trained to fix inflation, unemployment, or legitimacy. They are trained to hold ground. That usually buys time. It rarely buys loyalty. Force can secure buildings. It cannot convince a population that the math suddenly works. History suggests this ends one of two ways: exhaustion or escalation. Neither one is good for the guys standing post tonight, wondering how protecting a bus stop turned into defending a revolution. Stand by. This isn’t over.   Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum considers strengthening ties with the U.S. image Credit: USA Today Mexico Suddenly Interested in ‘Improving Relations’ With Washington In a development that surprised absolutely no one paying attention, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced she has instructed her foreign ministry to strengthen communications with the United States following President Donald Trump’s comments about “starting to hit land” in reference to cartel activity. According to reporting by Latin Times, the outreach came shortly after Trump publicly floated the idea of direct action against cartel infrastructure. Funny how that works. For years, U.S. officials were told to stick to cooperation, patience, and “mutual respect” while cartels expanded control, trafficked fentanyl by the ton, and openly challenged Mexican security forces. Now, after watching Trump deal forcefully with another loud-mouthed world leader, Mexico’s leadership appears eager to pick up the phone. This isn’t diplomacy. It’s recognition that Trump don’t bluff. When leaders believe Washington won’t act, they stall. When they believe Washington might act, suddenly everyone wants to “improve communication.” It’s the same playbook every time. Feigned surprise. Concerned statements. Emergency meetings. Trump didn’t threaten sanctions. He didn’t issue a strongly worded letter. He implied consequences. And just like that – attitudes adjusted. From an NCO’s perspective, this is what happens when deterrence comes back into fashion. You don’t need to kick in doors to change behavior. You just need people to believe you might. Whether Mexico’s renewed interest in cooperation turns into real action remains to be seen. Cartels don’t disappear because of press releases, and “communication” doesn’t stop gunmen or drug labs. But the cost of being a bad guy may have just gone up. World leaders seem to be recalculating. They just watched someone get checked hard and maybe they’re not tryin’ to be next.   Katy Perry. Image Credit: fashining-uk Do We Hate Katy Perry for Suing an Elderly Veteran? Here’s the Full Picture Singer Katy Perry continues to face backlash over a legal fight with Carl Westcott, an elderly U.S. Army veteran suffering from Huntington’s disease, after courts awarded her ownership of a $15 million Montecito, California mansion and nearly $2 million in associated damages. On its face, the story looks brutal: a wealthy celebrity forcing a disabled veteran out of his home. The legal record, however, tells a more complicated story. The dispute began in July 2020, when Westcott agreed to sell his Montecito estate to Perry and her fiancé Orlando Bloom. The purchase agreement was signed on Perry’s behalf by her business manager, Bernie Gudvi. According to court records cited by Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, negotiations occurred over several weeks. Days after signing, Westcott attempted to rescind the contract, claiming he lacked mental capacity due to recent back surgery, pain medication, and the effects of Huntington’s disease. About a week later, he told his real estate broker he felt mentally clear again and wanted out. Westcott’s family argued the contract should be void. Perry’s legal team countered that Westcott simply experienced seller’s remorse after realizing how difficult it would be to replace the home in Montecito’s tight housing market. California courts agreed with Perry. Judges ruled Westcott had the mental capacity to enter the contract and upheld the sale. Ownership of the property formally transferred to Perry on May 17, 2024, according to reporting by People magazine and Reuters. The financial dispute followed the title ruling. Perry sought damages for nearly four years of lost use of the property and extensive repairs, including water damage and deferred maintenance exceeding $1 million. Court filings referenced claims totaling several million dollars depending on the phase of litigation. The judge ultimately awarded approximately $1.8 to $1.94 million. Crucially, that amount was structured as an offset against the remaining purchase price, not a cash payment Westcott must personally write, as reported by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. Legally, Perry’s position is strong. She prevailed at every major stage. Westcott is also not financially destitute. He is a self-made businessman who enlisted in the Army as a teenager, later built and sold multiple companies, including Westcott Communications, which sold for $422 million in 1996. Reporting indicates the judgment has no meaningful financial impact on him. But law is not morality. Westcott attempted to back out within days. He was elderly, ill, and deteriorating. Perry could have walked away, absorbed the inconvenience, and found another high-end property in California. Instead, she chose to press forward and litigate the issue to completion. That decision, more than the court rulings, is what fuels public anger. This is not a case of stealing a pension check. It is a case of enforcing the letter of the law against someone many believe deserved grace. Perry had the legal right to proceed. Whether she needed to is the real question. SOFREP take: the courts say she’s right. The optics say maybe not. Readers can decide which matters more.