The world in these three news items looks torn apart, but they are actually linked by a single overarching theme: fear of instability and how states and big corporations respond to real or perceived chaos. In the Middle East and around Iran this is expressed through forceful border control and the fight against “external enemies”; in Washington — through severe restrictions on migration from dozens of countries under the pretext of protecting against economic and political risks; and inside the United States — in society’s painful reaction to a several‑hour outage at Verizon, which makes clear how critical communications infrastructure is to the sense of security.
In all three cases the logic is similar: any disruption, protest, flow of migrants or technical error is interpreted as a threat to the system’s stability. The response is to close, freeze, block, shut down, or at least promise tighter control. But beneath the rhetoric of security deeper trends emerge: a blurring of the boundaries between domestic and foreign policy, the transfer of fears about war and migration into internal decisions, and society’s growing dependence on fragile technological infrastructure.
The Fox News story about Iran and Kurdish armed groups shows how the Tehran regime frames internal protest as part of an external conspiracy and cross‑border threat. Citing Reuters, Fox News in “Armed Kurdish separatist groups tried to cross into Iran from Iraq…” (Fox News) reports that Iranian authorities said armed Kurdish separatists attempted to cross the border from Iraq. Official Tehran presents this not as a local episode but as part of a broader picture: nationwide protests inside the country plus “external fighters” — a convenient construct to justify harsh suppression of dissent.
It is important to understand the context: the protests in Iran are an internal political crisis driven by dissatisfaction with the regime, economic problems and repression. But in Tehran’s official discourse it is repackaged as a hybrid threat scenario. The mention of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) “leading the response” underscores that the regime treats the situation as almost military. The IRGC is not just a military unit but an elite ideological force responsible for both external operations and internal crackdowns. When this corps is placed at the center of the response to protests, the authorities rhetorically equate civil dissent with national security.
The version about Kurdish fighters crossing the border strengthens this narrative. According to Reuters, cited by Fox News, Turkish intelligence (MIT) allegedly warned Iran of preparations for a crossing. Ankara officially refrained from comment, but the piece explicitly states that Turkey warns: “any intervention in Iran” risks sparking a regional crisis. A subtle play is visible here: Turkey itself has for years conducted military operations against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Iraq and treats Kurdish armed groups as terrorists. The article notes that the PKK only in 2025 announced disarmament and an end to its long struggle against Turkey — an important detail for understanding why Ankara is so sensitive to any Kurdish movements near its borders.
Iran, for its part, claims the fighters were coming from Iraq and Turkey and says Tehran demanded both states halt transit of people and weapons. Against reports that at least 2,571 people were killed during the suppression of the protests (figures from rights group HRANA, cited by Fox News via Reuters), accusations against Kurdish separatists serve multiple functions. First, they attempt to explain the scale of domestic violence as a “fight against extremists.” Second, they signal to external actors: any pressure on Iran, including possible U.S. strikes, will be interpreted by Tehran as part of a campaign to destabilize. Fox News also notes that the Donald Trump administration is considering strikes on Iran, and one senior Iranian official calls the events an “Israeli conspiracy.”
Thus, internal protest, an ethnic factor (the Kurdish issue), and regional power struggles (Iran–Turkey–Iraq) combine into a portrait of territorial and political vulnerability. The state responds with force, closed borders and rhetoric of a “besieged fortress.”
The same mental template appears in another piece — about U.S. migration policy. In the Spectrum News article “U.S. to pause immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries” (Spectrum News) the report covers plans by the Donald Trump administration to freeze issuance of immigrant visas for citizens of 75 countries, including Somalia, Russia, Afghanistan, Brazil, Iran, Egypt, Nigeria, Yemen and Haiti. That is more than a third of the world’s countries. The formal justification is protecting American society from people who “may become a burden on taxpayers,” i.e., “public charge.”
The term “public charge” (in U.S. immigration law) refers to a foreign national who, in the authorities’ assessment, is likely to become dependent on government benefits in the future — welfare, government‑funded health insurance, housing subsidies. The article quotes a State Department statement on X (formerly Twitter): “The freeze will remain active until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people.” In effect, immigration is presented as a risk of “extracting wealth” from American society — that is, a threat to economic security.
But behind this lies not only an economic motive but a politico‑security one. The same piece emphasizes that the step comes amid worsening relations with Russia and Iran and Trump’s deliberations about possible strikes on Iran in response to its repression of demonstrators. The link is obvious: countries perceived as geopolitical adversaries or sources of instability (Russia, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, etc.) fall under a general “umbrella” of suspicion. The visa moratorium becomes an extension of foreign policy confrontation by other means.
The article stresses that the freeze affects immigrant visas specifically, not nonimmigrant visas (short‑term visas for business, tourism, etc.), including those for visitors coming for the World Cup. This is an important detail: economically beneficial, temporary flows of people are left open, while permanent resettlement is blocked. States thus divide mobility into “safe” (short‑term and profitable) and “dangerous” (long‑term, potentially changing demographics and social structure).
A separate thread in the Spectrum News piece is the tougher stance toward the Somali diaspora. It describes inspections of daycares in Minnesota, many of which are owned by Somali immigrants; Trump’s remarks at a public event where he threatens to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens convicted of fraud; and a statement from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem about a large immigration operation in the Minneapolis area involving up to 2,000 federal agents. It also reports that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for some Somalis will be revoked, forcing hundreds to leave the U.S. by March 17.
TPS is a legal status allowing citizens of countries facing war, natural disaster or other serious crises to stay and work in the U.S. temporarily, even if their normal immigration status is insecure. Cancelling TPS sends a signal: even humanitarian programs are not immune to political hardening when fear of “foreign burden” dominates and a country seeks to maximize control over its “human borders.”
The expansion of the notion of security is also evident in the article’s mention of new consular instructions: the possibility to deny visas to people with chronic illnesses — obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease — because they might become a “heavy burden” on the healthcare system. In other words, a person’s health becomes a geopolitical admission criterion, and biology replaces politics: you are not just a citizen of another country, you are a potential budgetary “expense,” therefore a risk.
It is no coincidence that all this is presented against the backdrop of Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine and deteriorating U.S. relations with Moscow and Tehran. The Spectrum News piece reminds readers that Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine has been underway for nearly four years, that Trump has unsuccessfully tried to negotiate with Moscow, and that the Russian Foreign Ministry sharply condemned the seizure of a tanker flying the Russian flag by U.S. forces, calling it a step that “lowers the threshold for the use of force against peaceful shipping.” Visa decisions fit into a broader picture of growing mistrust and the militarization of thinking, where any vulnerability — whether economic costs, protests in Iran, or maritime logistics in the Atlantic — is seen through the prism of security.
Against this background it is especially telling how society reacts to a disruption that seems far removed from wars and migration — a technical failure in Verizon’s network. The PhoneArena piece “Breaking News: Verizon is down suffering massive outage” (PhoneArena) describes a seven‑hour outage at one of the largest U.S. mobile operators. Customers in New York, Chicago, Washington, Seattle and other cities reported being unable to make or receive calls; phones switched to SOS mode, where only emergency calls are available.
At first glance this is purely a technical story: a network error, engineers working, the company apologizes and promises compensation, as Verizon’s final statement quoted by PhoneArena puts it: “The outage has been resolved… For those affected, we will provide account credits… We sincerely apologize for the disruption.” But users’ reactions show that stable connectivity is already perceived as a basic element of personal security. People posted en masse on Downdetector, reported that “my phone is stuck in SOS mode,” suspected they had been cut off for nonpayment, and felt anxious at the mere inability to get through. One commenter joked: “…unless me not being able to afford my Verizon bill has affected all of you. In that case, I am sorry” — irony that masks a real sense of dependence on the operator.
The iPhone’s SOS mode, explained in the article, indicates that the device cannot connect to the carrier network but can still call emergency services. The existence of this mode shows how technological infrastructure is embedded in the concept of “security”: if the network is unavailable, the phone automatically leaves only one channel — to state emergency responders. Thus, even a private technical failure is immediately recast in the register of security and risk: what if something serious happens and there is no connection?
Put these three stories together — the Kurdish fighters and Iran, the U.S. visa moratorium, and the Verizon outage — and several key trends emerge.
First, the widening of the concept of security. States and societies increasingly view not only armed groups and hostile states as threats, but also migration flows, the health of potential immigrants, and even the operations of private telecom networks. This expansion has a double effect: on the one hand it allows for a more serious approach to systemic risks; on the other it creates the temptation to explain any problem by the logic of an “emergency,” justifying harsh and sometimes disproportionate measures.
Second, the blurring of boundaries between domestic and foreign policy. In Iran internal protests are turned into “external aggression” involving Kurdish fighters from Iraq and Turkey, as described in the Fox News piece. In the U.S. visa decisions are tied to confrontations with Russia and Iran and to domestic controversies around the Somali community, as reported by Spectrum News. Even the Verizon outage, formally a “domestic” technical problem, highlights the country’s vulnerability to cyber incidents or attacks on critical infrastructure — a topic long integrated into strategic doctrines.
Third, rising distrust — between states and between citizens and institutions. Iran accuses external forces and Kurdish separatists, the U.S. effectively declares it will only trust carefully selected immigrants from the “safe” segments of the world, and Verizon users question the reliability of the company they pay for connectivity. Distrust pushes toward closure: closed borders, closed visa channels, the creation of backup communication systems — but it also makes the global order harsher, more fragmented and more anxious.
Finally, a fourth trend — the growing cost of errors. A few Kurdish units crossing a border can become a spark for regional instability when protests are already raging and threats of strikes against Iran are being voiced. The political decision to freeze visas for 75 countries alters the fates of hundreds of thousands and may intensify antagonism between the U.S. and entire regions. Seven hours of outages at one carrier disrupt the lives of millions of subscribers, showing how social and economic resilience is tied to invisible networks.
None of this means that states lack the right to protect their borders, screen migration, or demand reliable infrastructure. The question is how and with what assumptions they do so. When protests are automatically equated with conspiracies, when citizens are divided into “economically beneficial” and “potential dependents,” and when any technical glitch becomes a cause for panic, the very fabric of public trust thins. In this sense the stories told in Fox News, Spectrum News and PhoneArena are not just the news of the day. They are fragments of a larger narrative about how the world is entering an era of close but nervous interdependence, where security becomes a universal justification and resilience a rare and increasingly costly resource.
