Can Iran really attack California?
A shaky FBI alert, an unverified drone threat, and the darker question underneath it all: who stands to gain from fear on U.S. soil?
Amid the illogical war this administration has dragged us into, panic over an attack on U.S. territory, beyond its military bases in the Middle East, has started to materialize.
According to a report by ABC News, the FBI warned California police departments in recent days that Iran could launch drones against the West Coast.
“We recently acquired information that as of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States Homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California, in the event that the US conducted strikes against Iran,” the alert distributed at the end of February said. “We have no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators of this alleged attack.”
The warning reportedly came just as the Trump administration was beginning its offensive at Israel’s instruction.
So far, neither the FBI nor the White House has commented on the matter
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office told ABC News: “The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services is actively working with state, local, and federal security officials to protect our communities.”
And the LA Sheriff’s Department said that, “in light of current global events,” it is maintaining an “elevated level of readiness.”
“Out of an abundance of caution, and in recognition of current religious observances, the Department has continued increased patrols around places of worship, cultural institutions, and other prominent locations throughout the County,” the department said in a statement.
“We have proactively reviewed our deployment plans, enhanced coordination with our patrol stations, and ensured that additional resources are available should they be needed.”
Can Iran really attack the United States?
According to the Los Angeles Times, a source with knowledge of the memo who was not authorized to discuss it publicly said the warning was issued based on intelligence received by the U.S. Coast Guard. Law enforcement sources with intelligence experience said such alerts are cautionary in nature.
The source, who is experienced in counterterrorism, said: “It’s not been deemed credible at this time.”
The sources stressed that the warning was precautionary and that there was no indication that Iran was planning an attack or could successfully launch one.
Intelligence suggests that Iran considered using unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, launched from unidentified ships off the West Coast of the United States. This is considered a “hybrid” or “asymmetric” option, since Iran lacks missiles with the range necessary to reach the continental United States from its own territory.
Multiple law enforcement sources have described the intelligence as “uncorroborated” and “cautious.” There is no specific information on timing, targets, or perpetrators.
Who would benefit from an Iranian attack on U.S. soil?
In short: Trump.
Given the disapproval the current administration faces among voters, many speculate that the only way the Republican Party could win the midterm elections would be if they were suspended. To do so, the only strategy at hand would be to declare a national emergency.
For several weeks, a draft executive order proposing exactly that has been circulating among government allies.
According to PBS, the 17-page proposal would give Trump extraordinary power over the 2026 midterm elections. The proposal claims to address electoral integrity issues caused by foreign interference. By declaring a national emergency, according to the document’s hypothesis, the president could take control of some voting mechanisms in the country, including requiring manual recounts of votes and voter identification at the polls.
As PBS continued, the U.S. Constitution makes clear that states administer elections, while Congress has only a limited oversight role in regulating how states conduct federal elections. This proposal would expand federal control over elections and would be challenged in court almost immediately. Since The Washington Post first reported on the draft, experts have shared concerns that such a proposal would be unconstitutional and beyond the president’s authority.
Could this actually happen?
Since 2016, Donald Trump has shown that even the worst-case scenarios are possible. Ten years later, in the middle of the worst global conflict seen in years, it would be naive to dismiss the ideas swirling around the president.
As explained by the Brennan Center for Justice, just hours after launching the Iran war, Trump reposted a headline on Truth Social claiming, “Iran tried to interfere in the 2020 and 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with the United States.”
The New York University School of Law Center explained how governments, especially authoritarian regimes, often use crises to try to manipulate elections. In Hungary, for example, there is growing fear that Viktor Orbán will use Russia’s war against Ukraine to distort or delay voting in that country. In this case, Trump has been trying for months to justify his increasing efforts to interfere in our elections.
What better excuse than an attack on national territory?