Beginning January 8, 2026, amid widespread anti-government protests, the Iranian government implemented a nationwide internet and communications blackout, leaving approximately 85 million people nearly completely cut off from the global network. According to monitoring organization NetBlocks, the blackout has lasted over 60 hours, with domestic internet traffic dropping sharply and phone and mobile data nearly unusable. Citizens have struggled to connect with the outside world or share real-time footage.

This shutdown is technically sophisticated, far surpassing Iran’s previous internet blackouts. Monitoring data indicates that internet traffic dropped nearly 90% in a short period, effectively disconnecting Iran’s backbone network from the global internet “as if someone had pulled the plug.” The precise blackout has blocked civilian information flow and severely suppressed the voices of protesters both domestically and internationally.

The Iranian government also attempted to interfere with the satellite internet service Starlink. Previously, citizens had tried using Starlink to bypass government restrictions and transmit information abroad. During the latest blackout, the government appears to have deployed military-grade jamming equipment, causing up to 80% packet loss in some areas, severely degrading connectivity and showing that satellite internet is no longer a secure alternative channel.

Historically, Iran took similar measures during protests in 2019 and 2022. Analysts note that the current action is more precise and sustained, even leaving some official channels operational for propaganda purposes while fully cutting civilian communication with the outside world. International organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) have warned that the blackout affects not only social interaction and freedom of expression but also economic activity, threatening basic services and citizens’ safety. They urged the cessation of satellite network interference and cautioned that prolonged shutdowns could have deep, long-term impacts on public life and national stability.

On January 3, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump launched a sudden large-scale military operation in Venezuela, storming the capital Caracas and arresting President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who were then flown to the United States to face charges including “drug terrorism conspiracy.” While many Venezuelan citizens welcomed the capture of the dictator, the U.S. Congress did not fully support the action and instead raised objections, claiming that Trump’s move was unconstitutional.

The Trump administration maintained that the operation was a law enforcement action targeting transnational crime and protecting U.S. national security. It also positioned the United States as a “protector” of Venezuela’s transitional government, pledging to assist with the reconstruction of infrastructure and security. However, Congress responded with a bipartisan push for a War Powers Resolution, aimed at restricting the president from conducting further military actions without congressional authorization. The Senate has passed the measure through preliminary review, with some legislators arguing that the operation violates constitutional provisions granting Congress the authority to declare war and oversee military actions. In other words, the Constitution empowers Congress to declare war and supervise military decisions, and a unilateral cross-border mission to arrest a foreign head of state could constitute an overreach. Some Democratic lawmakers publicly labeled Trump’s action as “unconstitutional,” and a few even suggested it could be grounds for impeachment.

Internationally, the operation drew widespread condemnation. The UN Security Council convened an emergency meeting, and Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN strongly criticized the United States for violating the principles of the UN Charter, accusing it of infringing on Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and warning that it could set a “dangerous precedent.” Several countries, including China, Russia, and parts of Europe, also issued protest statements, asserting that using military force to reshape another sovereign nation’s government breaches international law.

The incident has sparked extensive debate domestically and abroad. Observers note that the event may alter the political landscape in Latin America and could have long-term implications for international law and the principle of state sovereignty. U.S. congressional oversight of presidential military actions and diplomatic relations with Venezuela remain key points of focus.

U.S. President Donald Trump stated on December 15, 2025, that, under his ceasefire and peace framework, the so-called International Stabilization Force (ISF) has already begun operating in some form. More countries are expected to join the effort to help maintain security and stability in Gaza. Trump emphasized that this represents an important step toward longer-term stability following the ceasefire.

The initiative stems from a Gaza peace plan proposed by Trump in September 2025, aiming to use international forces to maintain order, protect civilians, and support reconstruction. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on November 17, 2025, authorizing the establishment of a temporary international stabilization force and supporting a peace transition framework.

Currently, the U.S. Central Command is scheduled to host a meeting in Doha, Qatar, on December 16, with representatives from over 25 countries to discuss the force’s command structure, size, and scope of operations. U.S. officials said the force could potentially deploy as early as early 2026, but the exact timing and actions are still being coordinated. Its main tasks will focus on security, facilitating humanitarian aid channels, and supporting future governance, rather than directly confronting Hamas.

Despite the ceasefire and international intervention plans, the situation in Gaza remains uncertain, including the response of local armed groups, the feasibility of disarmament, and the final deployment schedule of the stabilization force. Analysts note that the force’s effectiveness will depend on the coordination of multiple political and security factors.