Iran has prepared to implement new legislation that would make using Starlink or similar satellite internet equipment a crime which could result in death sentences under certain conditions, deepening the Islamic regime’s campaign to control information and communications while the country’s overall use of executions continues to explode.

The law — called “Intensifying Punishment for Espionage and Cooperation with the Zionist Regime and Hostile Countries Against National Security and Interests” — has been approved by the Guardian Council, which holds veto power over Iran’s parliament, according to the news website IranWire. It was transmitted by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to President Masoud Pezeshkian for implementation. The Iranian parliament initially passed the bill in June during the 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel.

The statute explicitly targets “unauthorized electronic satellite internet communication devices such as Starlink.” Under Article 5, those who possess or use Starlink face sixth-degree imprisonment (six months to two years) and equipment confiscation, while production, distribution, installation, or import for sale carries two to five years. If authorities believe the Starlink use was done “with intent to confront the Islamic Republic” or for espionage, and the individual is treated as an “enemy force,” the punishment is execution. Lesser offenders would still face five to ten years of imprisonment.

Article 6 allows courts to increase sentences by up to three degrees if offenses occur during wartime or “security situations,” as determined by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Legal observers say the statute’s reliance on abstract ideas like “intent to confront the system” invites obvious abuse.

The move comes as Iran has accelerated the speed of its executions. A new annual assessment by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported at least 1,537 hangings between October 2024 and October 2025, the highest total in a decade and an 86 percent increase from the previous year’s 823. HRANA said more than 94 percent of executions were carried out secretly and never acknowledged by official sources. Nearly half (48.34 percent) involved drug charges and 43.46 percent involved murder cases, with other counts including rape, “moharebeh” (waging war against God), espionage, and “corruption on earth.” The report identified Ghezel Hesar Prison in Alborz Province as the leading execution site with 183 reported hangings.

HRANA also tracked organized protests inside the prison system. As of Oct. 7, prisoners across 52 facilities continued hunger strikes under the “Tuesdays No to Execution” campaign, now in its 89th consecutive week, and urged the United Nations and foreign governments to take “urgent and coordinated action” to halt the surge and press for legal reforms.

The data align with trends The Algemeiner reported last month. Rights monitors documented a sharp acceleration in 2025, with at least 152 executions in August alone, a 70 percent jump over August 2024, and an overall trajectory that suggested Iran would surpass its 2024 total of 930 by year’s end. Those figures, drawn from organizations such as Hengaw and HRANA, highlight the regime’s frequent use of vague national-security charges (including “corruption on earth”) and recurring allegations of forced confessions aired on state television.

The Starlink measure dovetails with Tehran’s broader effort to tighten control over information flows after years of mass protests — many coordinated online — and amid repeated attempts by authorities to throttle or block major platforms. By criminalizing the devices themselves and tying their use to espionage or “confronting the system,” the law gives prosecutors a new tool to treat independent connectivity as a national-security offense. In practice, rights advocates warn, amorphous intent standards and security designations from the Supreme National Security Council could be used to transform ordinary digital activity into a capital case.

While Tehran hardens penalties at home, Washington announced fresh measures aimed at Iran-aligned militias and their financial networks. On Tuesday, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated entities and individuals accused of enabling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and Iraqi militia proxies — including Kata’ib Hizballah — to launder funds, smuggle weapons, and siphon Iraqi state resources through front companies and bank access. The action, taken under Executive Order 13224, targets, among others, the Muhandis General Company (described by Treasury as a conglomerate tied to Kata’ib Hizballah) and executives allegedly exploiting Iraq’s commercial banking sector to benefit IRGC-QF and aligned groups.

The US has designated both the IRGC and Kata’ib Hizballah as terrorist organizations.

Treasury said the network backs operations that have endangered US personnel and undermined regional stability. It framed the designations as part of a broader effort to choke off revenue and logistics to Iranian proxies. The step follows earlier OFAC actions over the summer against Iranian oil smuggling operations that allegedly misrepresented Iranian crude as Iraqi, and comes amid periodic militia attacks on US and partner interests across the Middle East.

The Supreme Court dove into the culture wars again this week by hearing arguments on conversion therapy — a controversial pseudoscientific practice that attempts to change LGBTQ+ patients’ sexuality to align with heterosexual desires. In Chiles v. Salazar, Kasey Chiles, an evangelical therapist in Colorado, is alleging that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban violates her 1st Amendment rights, leaving her unable to work with patients who want to live a life “consistent with their faith.”

Conversion therapy is not solely an evangelical Christian problem. In 2012, a group of plaintiffs in New Jersey successfully sued a group called Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, alleging that it had committed consumer fraud by selling services that it claimed could turn someone heterosexual. The organization, known as JONAH, promised religious Jews that they could change their sexual orientation via methods that included being forced to strip naked and beat pillows that represented their mothers.

When JONAH was forced to disband after losing in court in 2015, it reformed just 11 days later as a new organization called the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness. In 2019, a judge found this was a violation of the original court order and shut down JIGA as well. Yet conversion therapy in the Orthodox world persists to this day. One new organization, Jewish Family Forever, led by Dr. Koby Frances, claims that “modern ideologies are leading people away from their values,” and its website prominently states that they are “encouraging Torah traditional heterosexual marriage.”

Chaim Levin, one of the plaintiffs who sued JONAH, is now a first-year law student at Drexel University and has been a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ Jews.

I spoke with Levin, who was raised in a Chabad household in Brooklyn, over the phone about Chiles v. Salazar, and how the Orthodox community currently navigates homosexuality. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you share what your conversion therapy experiences with JONAH were like?

I had been seeing a frum therapist in Flatbush since I was 15 for several reasons, including being gay. She actually was helpful for some of those other issues. But when I was older, and finally “acting out” on my attraction to men, she said she couldn’t help me anymore.

Two weeks before I turned 18, I talked to the director of JONAH after being referred to them by a rabbi. I then went on my first weekend retreat with them shortly after my 18th birthday, and was with JONAH for about a year and a half to two years.

There was bullying, there was nudity. There was staged humiliation, where they would have us recreate traumatic experiences. There was what they called “healthy touch,” which was where typically older men cuddled with younger men as a form of “father-son bonding” — in hindsight, a very sexualized experience.

The incident that ultimately caused me to leave and to sue JONAH was when my life coach forced me to get naked and fondle myself in front of him, after I repeatedly said I did not want to.

What was your first reaction when you heard SCOTUS was taking up a case on conversion therapy?

I’m a legal nerd and a law student, so I knew it was coming. I knew that federal courts disagreed on this issue. Conversion therapy is having a moment now. It’s a resurgence driven by panic and hysteria over trans people. I’m feeling incredibly frustrated, to be honest.

Why is that?

It’s unclear how conversion therapy bans are enforced. I actually don’t know of a single example of a ban being enforced. They’re a symbolic gesture, and many advocacy groups pushed for them and spent millions of dollars to get them passed. All it did was to drive conversion therapy underground.

No person offering conversion therapy is going to call it that. They’ll offer treatment for “sex addiction,” “men’s issues,” or “intimacy issues.” All the conversion therapy bans are also solely targeting licensed medical professionals. There are specific carveouts for religious counseling and life coaches, so this practice is unfortunately still thriving.

In Chiles v. Salazar, the prosecutors are presenting conversion therapy as a free speech issue. They argue that there is a difference between the speech of a medical professional versus their conduct. In their view, simply discussing or supporting a hypothetical patient’s desire to become straight is not harmful. How do you see this argument? 

It’s a really good question: is it speech, or is it conduct?

In my case, the life coach told me to take my clothes off and touch myself as part of my conversion therapy. He wasn’t doing anything himself, but he was inducing me to engage in that conduct. I found out that another star witness for JONAH had the same life coach as I did, and he ordered him and another man to masturbate each other to the point of orgasm. Is that solely speech?

As a future lawyer, I almost have a little bit of sympathy for the prosecutor’s arguments. Yet I don’t believe any of these people are genuinely concerned for the well-being of queer people. They’re pushing an agenda.

How do you think the Orthodox Jewish community has evolved (or not) on homosexuality and conversion therapy in the last decade since your lawsuit? 

I want to be sensitive. But I don’t believe that it’s a safe place for gay or queer people. I certainly am not going to tell people to leave the community. I don’t think that’s the answer.

But a community can only be as safe as it wants to be. There are still tons of therapists and life coaches in the Orthodox community offering conversion therapy. Their rabbis don’t want to deal with the problem of queer people.

I think JQY and Eshel are amazing and doing important work. But those organizations are not what I would classify as being in the mainstream. It’s not for lack of trying — they have turned into some of the only safe spaces for LGBT Jews given the climate we’re living in.

Do you buy the free speech, or free practice of religion, arguments when it comes to the conversion therapy you see still happening in the Orthodox world?

I don’t think free speech means you are absolved from consequences. I think people can be held accountable.

The thing I’ve encountered a lot with these conversion therapy providers is that they don’t claim they’re using religion in their counseling. I’ve always heard: “We’re a Jewish group, we’re religious people, but our therapy is not religious.” If you’re going to tell me “our therapy is prayer,” that’s one thing, but I’ve never seen conversion therapy in the form of prayer.

I just don’t buy it. You can’t use your religion to harm people in a way that doesn’t comport with reality. You don’t have a religious or constitutional right to hurt people.

The post ‘Conversion therapy is having a moment’ — what will that mean for LGBTQ+ Jews? appeared first on The Forward.

In the days before his murder, Charlie Kirk was frustrated — and he wasn’t hiding it from his friends. The conservative influencer complained in a WhatsApp group that his “Jewish donors” were “playing into all the stereotypes” and said they were pushing him to “leave the pro-Israel cause.”

Those messages surfaced and were confirmed as authentic this week, giving new insight into what was on Kirk’s mind before his death.

“I cannot and will not be bullied like this,” Kirk wrote in the group WhatsApp conversation, which included Jewish associates.

The messages, along with the recently revealed full text of a letter Kirk had sent to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several months before his death, provide additional evidence that Kirk’s frustrations with the behavior of Israel and its supporters were boiling over.

Kirk’s views on Israel and Jews have become one of the most scrutinized aspects of the millennial pundit’s legacy in the wake of his assassination on a Utah college campus. They also reveal the deepening trenches on the right over Israel, as young conservatives are showing signs of turning against its conduct of the Gaza war and some have percolated conspiracy theories alleging that Israel played a role in Kirk’s murder.

Pro-Israel backers of Kirk, including Netanyahu, rushed after his death to label the pundit as an unwavering friend and supporter of Israel — even as Kirk, during his life, was on record as supporting aspects of the Great Replacement theory and making other comments disparaging Jews. Netanyahu also posted his own video just prior to Kirk’s funeral refuting the idea that Israel was involved in the influencer’s murder.

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson, a friend and associate of Kirk’s who has leaned more heavily into anti-Israel and conspiratorial rhetoric in recent years, alluded to Kirk’s assassins “eating hummus” during a eulogy at the pundit’s funeral that was also attended by President Donald Trump.

Carlson and fellow conspiratorial right-wing personality Candace Owens, also a longtime friend of Kirk’s, are at the center of the leaked texts as well. In them, Kirk discussed what he implied was Jewish blowback to his associations with both of them, including plans to invite Carlson to an event staged by his group Turning Point USA.

“Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker,” Kirk wrote, adding, “I’m thinking of inviting Candace.” Another member of the thread, whose identity has not been revealed, responded, “Ugghhh”; later someone adds “Please don’t invite Candace.”

The text messages don’t name any donors, but the New York Times reported earlier this month that Robert Shillman, a tech mogul and supporter of pro-Israel causes, grew angry at Kirk and canceled a $2 million donation to TPUSA over Carlson’s participation at a TPUSA event.

The texts were first revealed this week by Owens, on her YouTube show. Their authenticity was later confirmed by Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for TPUSA, in his appearance on Kirk’s own eponymous show Wednesday.

At least one pro-Israel Jewish associate of Kirk’s, Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer, has confirmed he was on the text thread.

Owens, who claimed the texts were sent “48 hours” before Kirk’s murder and that their recipients included “a rabbi,” sought to paint the texts as evidence that Kirk had recently made powerful enemies in the pro-Israel sphere. On X, she has insinuated that Hammer may have had foreknowledge of Kirk’s murder.

Kolvet was more sanguine about what they revealed.

“I actually am really excited that the truth is out there,” Kolvet said on the show, adding that Kirk’s texts were “consistent with public frustrations he voiced many times” about the pro-Israel movement.

“What is the truth about the way Charlie felt about Israel? Well, it’s complicated and it’s nuanced, and it was a wrestle that was going on for months,” Kolvet said. Later, he added, “Charlie was wonderfully defiant. He was wonderfully independent, and he believed in the freedom of speech, and he felt like he deserved, as a friend of Israel over many years, the right to speak out and have criticisms.”

Kolvet noted that Kirk tended to strike “a more moderate tone in public” on the subject of Israel than the way he came across in the texts, while also sharing past interviews in which Kirk had expressed frustration that some pro-Israel circles were portraying him as an antisemite. Prior to his death, Kirk had sent a letter to Netanyahu warning him that Israel was “losing support even in conservative circles.”

Hammer, addressing the texts, wrote on the social network X on Thursday that Kirk “was blowing off steam in a private group chat setting.” He spoke with Kirk about Israel hours later, he said, adding, “Charlie sought out our advice for how to better communicate the Israel issue on campus so as to be most effective with a younger Gen Z audience.”

“Donors have every right to withhold donations, and organization CEOs/chairmen have every right to then be upset when donors withhold those donations,” Hammer wrote by way of explaining the emotions behind the texts. He added, “the notion that Charlie Kirk was ‘turning’ on his career-long friendships with the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel—as opposed to (sarcastically!) blowing off steam in a private group chat setting—is an egregious lie and is belied by the facts.”

On Kirk’s show, Kolvet discussed Israel with Blake Neff — a former writer on Carlson’s Fox News show who resigned from the network in 2020 after it was revealed he had written numerous anonymous racist posts.

Neff on Wednesday continued the Israel discussion by holding up a copy of “Righteous Victims,” a 1999 book about the Arab-Israeli conflict by prominent Israeli historian Benny Morris whose scholarship on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict casts significant blame on Israel.  Neff said that he had finished reading it just before Kirk’s shooting in Utah.

“I read this book because Charlie said, ‘Blake, get really well versed on this so you can help me whenever it comes up,’” Neff recalled.

No evidence has been shared linking the only suspect to be charged with Kirk’s murder to Israel. Yet Kolvet, adding fuel to the conspiratorial fire, stated that he had turned over the texts about “Jewish donors” to the FBI in the wake of the shooting.

“We wanted to leave nothing unturned,” he said, later suggesting that speculation on Kirk’s relationship with his Jewish donors could wind up “tainting a jury pool.”

—
The post ‘Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes,’ Charlie Kirk wrote in leaked text messages before his murder appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.