This is How the US Will End the Pro-Palestine Movement

The Trap is Set

The machine that the US government is building in front of our eyes is a precisely engineered trap.

One jaw locks down immigration enforcement on politically-aware activists.

The other jaw awaits a single command: war.

And when those jaws snap shut, the entire pro-Palestinian movement will be crushed between them.

Here is the game.

The Backyard Blitz

In early March, ICE arrested Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian woman who had participated in the same Columbia protests. Her case provided the technical blueprint: an alleged visa overstay used as pretext for removing a pro-Palestinian voice from campus. But the deportation machine was just warming up.

Then, they came for Mahmoud.

ICE agents cornered him in the lobby of his Columbia University housing, handcuffed him without presenting a warrant, and whisked him into an unmarked vehicle. A permanent resident, disappeared in minutes.

His crime? Serving as a negotiator for pro-Palestinian protesters on campus, where he had told CNN that "the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-in-hand."

The machinery that disappeared Khalil and Kordia operates with frightening efficiency, for they then came for Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University graduate student from India studying peace and conflict resolution. Masked agents identifying themselves as Department of Homeland Security appeared outside his Arlington home, informed him the government had revoked his visa without explanation, and took him into custody.

His crime remained unspecified until Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin posted on social media - not in court documents - that Suri was "actively spreading Hamas propaganda" with "close connections to a known or suspected terrorist." Georgetown University stated it was "not aware of any misconduct by Suri" nor of "him engaging in any illegal activity," but their institutional protection proved worthless against the deportation apparatus. His academic focus on "transitional democracy" and "prospects for peace" in conflict zones had somehow transformed him from scholar to threat.

Then, they came for Dr. Rasha Alawieh, an assistant professor and kidney transplant specialist at Brown University's medical school. Despite holding a valid H-1B visa, she was detained upon returning to the U.S. from travel abroad. When U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued an order that she must remain in the country, with the government required to provide 48 hours notice before any deportation, the administration simply ignored it. They put her on a flight to Lebanon in direct defiance of a federal judge's explicit ruling. Only afterward did DHS claim on social media - again, not in court - that she had attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. The judicial restraint designed to protect due process had been treated as an inconvenient suggestion rather than binding law.

Beyond its voracious scope, what makes this deportation blitz truly alarming is its methodology. No person across the entire spectrum of immigration (save for citizens, so far) is safe. No institution is too prestigious to touch its participants. No legal justification is too frivolous or craven not to be deployed. No judges orders are worth more than the paper they’re printed on.

This is what erasure looks like in action, as it has created an entirely new calculation for non-citizens: silence on Palestine or risk everything you've built in America.

Of course, we are smarter than to think that the cases of Khalil, Kordia, Suri, and Alawieh are simply just negative externalities of immigration enforcement. We know, that they're test cases for establishing the legal architecture for something far more ensaring to the average person.

Each case wrestles different levers of power into the President’s waiting arms by asking and answering these questions with brute force: can a permanent resident be deported for protected speech? Yes. Can a visa be revoked based on unsubstantiated social media claims? Yes. Can judicial orders be ignored in immigration matters? Yes.

And all of this is happening before any formal “emergency” has even begun. But what do I mean? Walk with me.

And We Ain’t Gonna Jump No More

While America's immigration agents storm university campuses and cart away Palestinian activists, another machiner grinds forward in parallel, one whose gears, if fully engaged, would transform today's deportation campaign into tomorrow's purge.

According to recent explosive reporting by Ken Klippenstein, the Pentagon has developed what military planners call the "SEED project". This project is a comprehensive war plan for Iran that includes options the American public has never contemplated, for a conflict most Americans don't realize is being prepared.

I want to make this clear to you: what Ken is referring to is not some sort of theoretical contingency planning. It is an active, evolving blueprint for a "major regional conflict" that now includes the unthinkable: nuclear options sitting in a folder on the president's desk.

Don't be fooled by Trump's recent diplomatic “leaf turning” with Iran, either. While Special Envoy Steve Witkoff claims these efforts aim to "avoid military action," National Security Advisor Mike Waltz simultaneously demands Iran's "full dismantlement" of its nuclear program, a position Tehran has consistently rejected. This good cop/bad cop routine creates the perfect cover for the machinery of war to be able to continue to whir just beneath the surface.

The evidence is hiding in plain sight. While Trump dangles the possibility of talks with one hand, he's already unleashing military force with the other. Though, not directly against Iran (yet), but against their proxies. The administration's strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen have dramatically escalated, hitting more than 30 locations in just days. Trump's promise to "annihilate" Houthi capabilities reveals the true strategy: targeting Iran's network of allies one by one, building a case for broader action.

According to Klippenstein's reporting, the Pentagon's assessment of Iran reads like a prosecutor's opening statement in a trial where the verdict has already been decided. While preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons remains what CENTCOM commander Gen. Kurilla calls "a top priority with global implications," the military has expanded its focus to include Iran as a "major missile and drone power" with conventional capabilities that have transformed the strategic landscape.

What makes this assessment particularly dangerous is how it frames Iran's threat as multi-dimensional: both a potential nuclear power AND the center of a proxy network that spans from Yemen to Lebanon to Gaza, often referred to as the Axis of Resistance. This framing deliberately creates the connection that the administration needs: pro-Palestine = pro-Hamas = pro-Houthi = pro-Iran. By targeting Iran's proxies - especially the Houthis - the administration establishes the pattern for more expansive action.

This shift fundamentally alters how America would fight. A war with Iran would make use of our entire arsenal, and I don’t just mean missiles and marines. It would encompass the CIA, cyber agencies, space commands, Treasury Department sanctions experts, and State Department diplomats. It'd be a "holistic approach" to "planning, coordination, and synchronization" of every government lever including, one must assume, the immigration enforcement mechanisms currently being tested on university campuses.

Make no mistake: by my estimation this war is being shepherded from cradle to walking right now. Trump's public posturing creates ripe political conditions for conflict. He has issued Iran a two-month ultimatum to abandon their nuclear program or "suffer the consequences." When pressed on what those consequences might be, Trump offered only that "the other option will solve the problem." The White House claims Trump and Putin agreed that "Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel". This is a diplomatic formulation that, in Washington's lexicon, transforms any Iranian nuclear capability into an existential threat requiring preemptive action.

The most chilling aspect is how the administration has created multiple paths to the same destination. If Iran rejects Trump's ultimatum, they're labeled as unreasonable warmongers. If the Houthis continue their Red Sea campaign, it justifies "overwhelming response" that can easily expand to target their Iranian backers. Even if diplomatic talks proceed, the administration has established the rhetorical foundation to declare them failed at any moment.

This rhetoric accompanies tangible escalation. Trump's strike on Houthi leadership wasn't the "pinprick" response of previous administrations but what National Security Advisor Mike Waltz called an "overwhelming response" targeting "multiple Houthi leaders" while "holding Iran responsible." When asked directly about military action against Iran itself, Waltz confirmed "all options are always on the table".

And yes, nuclear weapons are explicitly included in these plans. According to Klippenstein's sources, the nuclear options appear in "Appendix 1 to Annex C of the Iran war plans," with CENTCOM headquarters "scrambling" to ensure capabilities support this new position. These represent a deliberate "reintroduction of nuclear deterrence" with three explicit purposes: to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons, to convince Israel not to use its own nuclear arsenal by demonstrating American willingness to act, and to dissuade Saudi Arabia from pursuing nuclear capabilities in response to Iran.

The arsenal prepared for this task includes low-yield nuclear warheads mounted on Trident II submarine-launched missiles. These aren't city-killers. Rather, they are precision weapons designed to make nuclear warfare seem more "usable," a distinction that offers cold comfort to those who would experience their effects.

However, predictably, and disappointingly, this march towards war has been happily normalized by titans of media. Trump's deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the region, his declaration that the Houthis "will be completely annihilated," his administration's celebration of killing "key Houthi leaders" aren't treated anywhere close to the dramatic escalations they are. The press frames each new strike, each new deployment as a response to provocation in a vacuum rather than deliberate steps toward a larger confrontation.

This maelstrom of neglect creates the perfect condition for what military planners would call a "fait accompli". By the time Americans fully comprehend that a new war has become imminent, the immigration enforcement mechanisms currently being tested will be primed for wartime deployment against a pre-selected domestic target: anyone whose advocacy for Palestinians can be reframed as support for America's newest enemy.

The machinery stands ready. The legal justifications are being tested. The only missing element is the triggering event - be it from Iran, the Houthis, or another proxy - that transforms these preparations into reality.

The Grinding Gears

The deportations we’ve seen thus far are a dress rehearsal for a mass purge event. Full stop.

The administration has activated a one-two legal punch designed to operate in any circumstance. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 grants sweeping powers to detain and deport non-citizens from "enemy" countries during wartime. Meanwhile, Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides the complementary peacetime mechanism, allowing deportation based on nebulous "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Together, they create an airtight system: if one doesn't get you, the other will.

What's breathtaking about these laws is how they're being deployed against an opposition invented through rhetorical sleight-of-hand. The administration isn't subtle about this construction project. They've built an equation in plain sight: pro-Palestinian = pro-Axis of Resistance = pro-Iran = enemy of the state. Trump himself supplies the raw materials with statements about "paid agitators" and promises to deport "terrorist sympathizers." DHS officials provide the cement by claiming that deportees have "close connections" to terrorism. Each repetition hardens the association in public consciousness.

But I do not want you to think that this is some rag tag group of rogues who are just throwing cases at the wall to see what sticks. Senior Justice Department officials have explicitly revealed the strategy: "Our end game is all hands on deck, trying everything" and "Everything we're doing, we're gaming out how the Supreme Court gets to decide." They've admitted they "really do want to push the Supreme Court to take a stand."

Now, combine this legal framework with the "holistic approach" described in the Iran war plans. The Pentagon is preparing for whole-of-government action incorporating every lever of state power. When they speak of "planning, coordination, and synchronization" across military, intelligence, cyber, Treasury, and State Department functions. The speed and coordination of current actions between ICE, DHS, State Department, and Justice demonstrate the infrastructure is already operational.

So, when war with Iran begins, the administration won't need to create anything new to target their dissidents. They will simply flip the switch on a machine they've already built, tested, and positioned.

“But what if?”

"You're being alarmist," my friend tells me over coffee. "The system is stronger than you think."

"The Constitution won't just roll over," he continues. "The First Amendment has withstood worse. Courts are already intervening. Judge Sorokin tried to protect Alawieh. Judge Boasberg ordered that plane turned around. They're standing their ground."

What my friend forgets or chooses not to see is that constitutional protections shine brightest in law school casebooks and dimmest in moments of actual crisis. Korematsu's shadow looms large here: the Supreme Court blessed Japanese internment with legal immunity and took forty years to acknowledge it was wrong. After 9/11, the courts nodded along as "enemy combatants" disappeared into black sites. Constitutional protections don't fail dramatically, not typically anyway. Instead, they erode in the early moments of crisis when judicial deference to executive authority is at its peak. By the time courts find their backbone, the damage is done.

"But look," he presses, "even Chief Justice Roberts rebuked those calls to impeach Boasberg. The judiciary is protecting its independence. The Supreme Court has been avoiding immigration disputes and they kicked back case after case during Biden's term."

I agree, I’d say back. But I’d also point out that he misses the fact that judicial independence only matters when judicial orders are obeyed.

The administration did more than just disagree with Judge Sorokin's order to keep Alawieh in the country: they ignored it completely and put her on a plane anyway.

They didn't appeal Judge Boasberg's ruling on the Venezuelan deportees: they just kept the plane flying.

When courts become suggestion boxes rather than authorities, rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts is laughably - and I mean that literally, we should laugh at it - performative. Meanwhile, sure, the court is avoiding immigration cases. But do you know who isn’t? The President. And Trump’s not going to just let the court ignore him. That’s not how he’s ever behaved, literally ever.

"But public opinion matters," he argues. "Universities are issuing statements supporting their detained students. Media coverage is sustaining. Legal advocacy groups are mobilizing resources. All of this creates political constraints that even Trump can't ignore."

I nearly laugh. Public backlash against security overreach has a dismal historical record. Remember the airport protests against the Muslim ban? Tens of thousands showed up and the ban was still eventually upheld. The press coverage of these deportations has been sporadic at best, with cases treated as isolated incidents rather than systematic policy. Universities issue carefully worded statements expressing "concern" while continuing business as usual and students continue to fret most of all about mean professors and not getting laid.

Like let’s be real: the public supports abstract rights in theory but prioritizes perceived safety when fear enters the equation.

"Even if war does come," he continues, lowering his voice, "the military would be focused on fighting Iran, not chasing academics. They'd have resource limitations, competing priorities. Trump would need his political capital for the war itself."

And I’d reply that this argument fundamentally misunderstands how modern warfare works. When conflict begins, security apparatus funding expands rather than competes for resources. Deportations wouldn't distract from the war effort at all. In fact, they’d be framed as essential to it, with each removal presented as eliminating a potential "fifth column." War does so much more than constrain domestic repression: it justifies it.

"But come on," he says, frustration edging into his voice, "the pro-Palestinian movement isn't pro-Iran. It's got Jews, Christians, and secular human rights organizations. Many are explicitly critical of Iran's human rights record. Legally proving these associations would be nearly impossible."

Again, I’d wonder, do you think the administration would care literally at all about the intellectual honesty you expect of them while they deport the people they find annoying? Ask yourself that seriously.

While my friend is right about the movement's diversity, he’s wrong about what matters. The administration is building this association not for a court of law, but for the court of public opinion. The goal here is to repeat this association until it becomes assumed background knowledge for anyone discussing a war itself.

"Historical precedent is on my side," he insists. "Even at the height of past crackdowns, implementation was uneven. Administrative capacity creates bottlenecks. Some states and localities won't cooperate. Mass deportation attempts have always fallen short of their architects' ambitions."

What he misses is that the administration has studied these historical failures and designed around them. The unprecedented coordination between federal agencies in pursuit fo these deportations shows they've eliminated traditional agency turf battles. The strategic use of remote detention facilities in Louisiana deliberately impedes legal representation. The speed of processing creates facts on the ground before challenges can be mounted.

"Well," he offers, "the Supreme Court isn't the rubber stamp you think. They've frequently issued narrow rulings even when siding with executive authority. Roberts in particular has shown moderation on controversial issues. The Court still requires at least a rational basis for immigration decisions."

And here is where his legal training becomes a liability. This is less a legal problem and more a political one. Recent decisions have shown greater deference to executive authority in immigration matters. The Court has narrowed standing for challenging executive immigration decisions. And war creates precisely the national security context that historically produces judicial deference. The administration official who said, "We have the law, and we have the numbers on the court" was expressing conviction, not hope.

I tell him gently, "we don't need to theorize about what might happen. It's already happening. Khalil was detained without warrant. Alawieh was deported despite a court order. Venezuelans were flown out despite a judge's ruling. Columbia dorm rooms have been searched without explanation and then Columbia caved into basically every single demand the administration had of them. These are the current events, and they’re not slowing down."

He looks up. "So what do we do?" he asks finally.

Rage

First, I want to tell you what we should not do.

Let’s start with the obvious: we should not listen to national Democrats right now.

Here's what happens next if we follow a typical Democratic playbook: we'll be careful. We'll discuss, long and hard. We'll fundraise for legal defense funds that fight cases after people have already disappeared.

And we'll lose.

Completely. Utterly. Historically.

And then we’ll probably be arrested anyway.

Second, let’s recapture our imagination because the moment requires it.

Don't think that it can't happen here: it already is.

Don't think it won't get worse: the machine is being optimized specifically for scale of outputs (see: deportations).

Don't think we can work within the system: the purpose of a system is what it does, and what it does right now is kidnap your neighbors for speaking the truth.

Third, let us level on what you can and should be doing.

What you need to do is be the most annoying, persistent, rage-filled voice in every room you enter. Your group chat should be sick of hearing about Mahmoud Khalil. Your family dinner should be derailed by updates on Rasha Alawieh. Your coworkers should dread your approach because you're going to bring up Badar Khan Suri again.

Make noise until your throat is raw.

Post about these cases until your fingers cramp.

Call your representatives until they block your number, then call from another phone.

Corner your "reasonable" friends who think this is just politics as usual and force them to confront what's happening.

Print flyers with the faces and names of the disappeared. Project them onto buildings.

Interrupt campus tours to tell prospective students what happened to Khalil.

Make university administrators explain why they're still accepting federal money while their students are being disappeared.

Open your mind to what comes next.

Choose now. Choose rage.

Choose to be unbearably, uncompromisingly annoying about this until these people are freed and the legal architecture being built is dismantled.

Why? Because this moment is so much bigger than the pro-Palestine movement or Iran or even Trump.

This has become a generational question about whether we allow the government to disappear you for saying the wrong thing.

Today it's Palestinian activists.

Tomorrow it's climate protesters.

Next week it's journalists.

Next month it's you for that tweet you thought no one noticed.

You think I’m fucking joking? Ask Robert Dorsay how funny I’m being.

The wheels are already turning and make no mistake: if we don't jam the machinery now, they will eventually reach all of us. And when they do, the time for action will have already passed.

The time to scream is now.