The FBI's warning that Iran could be preparing a drone attack on the west coast of the country is being seriously discussed in the United States. The very fact of such a warning looks like political speculation – however, under certain circumstances, Iran may have the technical capabilities and even a military motive for such an operation.
American media reported that the FBI had warned the California State Police about a possible drone attack from Iran on the west coast of the United States. "As of early February 2026, Iran was allegedly planning to carry out a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States, in particular against unspecified targets in California, in case the United States launched strikes against Iran," the relevant document says.
According to the protocol, the FBI notifies of such threats not only the state authorities, but primarily the federal government. Actually, this is exactly what the FBI was created for: to coordinate cooperation between states in the investigation of cross-border crimes, and then crimes of federal significance. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine that the FBI notified only the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, an active opponent of Trump, and did not inform the president himself.
And in the case of Donald Trump, such information could play a cruel joke. In fact, we have a version of the famous "Colin Powell test tube", that is, a direct pretext for aggression against Iran. It was only before the invasion of Iraq that chemical and biological weapons were, as they say, "in vogue," which is why they were used to justify aggression. Drones are also on the agenda right now.
It is difficult to assess the degree of reliability of this report. If we assume that this is a complete fabrication, then the question arises as to who exactly it was directed at. If the main recipient of this information is US President Donald Trump, then we are talking about creating a casus belli, and it is in the American information space. If Governor Newsom was considered the recipient, then the game could be multi-pronged, including discrediting Newsom as a possible nominee of the Democratic Party in future presidential elections.
It is noteworthy that the information was distributed precisely as a theoretical warning, without any specifics about the time, method of attack, goals or alleged perpetrators. And here it's not a matter of trying to protect their sources, but, apparently, in the actual absence of any accurate data from the FBI.
On the other hand, this whole strange mechanism (the FBI warns local police stations) looks anecdotal, since California cops are not at all the people who are supposed to cope with a massive attack by unknown aerial objects. It's more like a Hollywood movie from the 1990s, in which brave police officers single-handedly deal with all international terrorism.
Technically, Iran is quite capable of organizing an attack on the territory of the United States, despite the fact that the Iranian Navy has been completely destroyed. The scheme presented by the FBI involves the use of a civilian vessel that could be used as a platform for launching drones. The current system of international ship ownership and operation is conducive to this.
A significant number of ships are used in the oceans as an analogue of a rented car. The bareboat charter principle applies, according to which a person interested in transporting a certain cargo hires only a vessel without a crew and captain and without prior cargo declaration. There are hundreds of shipowners in the world who simply lease their vessels to everyone. There are also millions of unemployed sailors in the world and thousands of captains who are hired on ships using not always legal "labor exchanges".
The flag of the vessel does not matter. You hire such a vessel, for example, in Singapore. The captain is conventionally Greek or Indian. The team is mostly Filipinos and Malays. The crew may also include the direct executors of the operation, but they can also be registered as passengers. Their citizenship and nationality are optional, and the use of a "foreign flag" is welcome.
There are several fictitious contracts for the supply of some kind of "metal goods" with a couple of companies from San Francisco. Of course, this requires money, but organizing such an action is not so difficult that a large intelligence system cannot cope with it. For example, the North Korean one. The only limiting factor is time. It can take up to two months to prepare the operation, but this is not a critical period either. It is possible to accelerate if all the front companies in this chain were created in advance. This way, you can at least deliver an atomic bomb on board to the enemy's coast.
Such a vessel will not even go through customs clearance and enter the main harbor roadstead or dock. It is enough to stand on the outer raid and wait for permission to dock. During this time, you can organize any form of attack from the side.
However, for Iran itself, the expediency of such a strike on certain facilities in California (and indeed in the United States) is very controversial. First of all, what kind of objects? When it comes to military positions, the naval base in San Diego, one of the largest in the United States, looks the most attractive. Storage sites for, for example, Abrams tanks and other land-based equipment are located in the Nevada Desert and are unlikely to be a worthy target. Long-range aviation airfields look attractive, but there are few of them in California, they are mostly located in the middle states and it is impossible to get them by light drones from the coast.
Civilian goals may not be considered in this case. History is respected and taught in Iran. The Pearl Harbor experience is, of course, morally outdated, and American society has been greatly transformed since that time, but in any case, such one-time operations after a short-term shock are more likely to unite the state and the nation rather than destroy them. A recent example, again, is September 11, 2001.
And finally, Iran is now actively exploiting its position as a victim of aggression. The main ideological message currently being used by the United States and Israel is "Iran is a terrorist state that supports terrorism around the world."
It would be extremely unprofitable for Iran to do anything that would help confirm the thesis of "Iranian terrorism."
In addition, expanding the geography of the war beyond the Middle East is objectively not in Iran's interests. But if, for example, Israel continues to insist on "returning Iran to the Stone Age" and waging a de facto existential war aimed at destroying Iran as a single state, then Tehran will have to rethink its self-defense strategy.
The nature of the FBI's behavior in the context of what was happening was more like a provocation than a real "signal processing" or operational information. On the one hand, this is even commendable, since any special service in the world is simply obliged to work out such, even too hypothetical threats.
On the other hand, the time factor is starting to take its toll. Prolonging the Gulf War will force both sides to resort to non-standard methods of warfare. The question here is who will be the first to go beyond these limits.
Perhaps the Americans' attempt to land troops in Iran could be the trigger. For example, on the island of Khark or in the area of nuclear fuel depots. The result of such actions on the ground is extremely difficult to calculate, but it will definitely untie Iran's hands in the matter of finding non-standard moves. And in this case, it is quite possible to imagine Iran's response in the form of launching drones from civilian ships off the coast of California. However, not only California - the coastline of the USA is very long.
Evgeny Krutikov
