Daily Wire Asks Leavitt About Iranian Official’s Family Living Lavishly In The U.S.
Analysis Summary
This article highlights the Trump administration's push to deport Iranians in the U.S. with ties to the Iranian regime, focusing on two relatives of the late general Qasem Soleimani who were accused of visa fraud. It contrasts their luxurious lifestyles and political loyalties with the oppression of women in Iran, suggesting their presence is a security threat, while naming other Iranians in the U.S. with regime connections. The piece frames immigration enforcement as a national security issue, using emotional contrasts and labels to imply disloyalty among certain diaspora members.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"The Trump administration has made it a “top priority” to remove anyone residing in the United States illegally or fraudulently, especially those connected to the Iranian regime"
The phrase 'top priority' frames the enforcement action as a significant policy focus, drawing attention to the administration’s intent. However, this is standard political reporting and does not amplify novelty beyond expected emphasis on policy initiatives.
Authority signals
"I understand one of the individual’s visas was revoked by Secretary Rubio, and they were deported by ICE because they had a fraudulent asylum claim,” Leavitt told The Daily Wire."
The article cites high-level government officials (Secretary Rubio, Press Secretary Leavitt) and institutions (ICE, State Department) to establish legitimacy. This is standard sourcing in political journalism rather than an undue appeal to authority to suppress debate.
Tribe signals
"Meanwhile, women in Iran are forced to wear restrictive religious garb — including mandatory hijabs and full-body cloaks — and are threatened with arrest if they show their hair. While Afshar lived with freedom in the United States, she was outspoken in her support for the Iranian regime and celebrated attacks on Americans"
The article contrasts the freedoms of American society with the oppression in Iran, while highlighting an individual (Afshar) who allegedly enjoys U.S. freedoms while supporting a hostile regime. This creates a moral dichotomy between 'us' (free, just, American values) and 'them' (oppressive, anti-American, Iranian regime), weaponizing identity and loyalty.
"Soleimani’s family members appeared to live lavish lifestyles in the United States, with photos they posted to social media showing them in designer clothing, bikinis, and low-cut dresses."
The description of clothing choices (bikinis, low-cut dresses) is used not just to illustrate lifestyle but to symbolize rejection of Iranian religious norms and, by implication, alignment with American cultural values — yet their continuation of support for the regime is portrayed as hypocritical or exploitative. This converts personal identity markers into signals of betrayal or inauthenticity, reinforcing tribal judgment.
Emotion signals
"Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, 47, and Sarinasadat Hosseiny, 25, were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents last week, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio."
While the factual reporting of arrests is neutral, the framing centers on relatives of Qasem Soleimani — labeled a 'terrorist general' — which immediately activates pre-existing emotional associations. The use of emotionally charged labels combined with deportation actions is designed to generate public approval through moral outrage.
"Meanwhile, women in Iran are forced to wear restrictive religious garb — including mandatory hijabs and full-body cloaks — and are threatened with arrest if they show their hair."
This comparison is framed to elevate American values over Iranian ones, inviting readers to feel morally superior. The juxtaposition of Iranian repression with the 'freedom' enjoyed by regime-connected individuals in the U.S. serves an emotional narrative about betrayal and injustice, not just a factual contrast.
"Last September, the Trump administration deported at least 55 Iranians back to their home country, which sparked fear among many in the Iranian diaspora who had fled the country to escape persecution under the radical Islamic regime."
The mention of 'fear among many in the Iranian diaspora' implicitly frames broader immigration enforcement as potentially affecting even legitimate refugees. This introduces an emotional tension between national security and humanitarian concern, amplifying anxiety — though it is presented as a reported effect, not directly induced by the author.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article is designed to produce the belief that certain Iranian individuals residing in the U.S. — particularly those with familial ties to the Iranian regime — are not merely undocumented or visa-violating immigrants, but symbolic representatives of a hostile foreign power exploiting American leniency. It frames their presence as a national security concern wrapped in legal immigration enforcement, suggesting that their lifestyles and political sympathies justify targeted deportation.
The article makes it feel normal and expected that immigration enforcement would target individuals based on political affiliation, family lineage, and perceived ideological loyalty to a foreign government. By juxtaposing images of women in bikinis with women in hijabs, it frames the cultural contrast as a moral justification for enforcement — implying that those who benefit from American freedom while supporting an oppressive regime are inherently ungrateful and dangerous.
The article omits any context regarding the legal standards for deportability based on familial association or political belief, including whether these individuals were charged with crimes, espionage, or material support for terrorism. It also omits that immigration law typically does not allow deportation solely on the basis of family ties or political speech without evidence of fraud or criminality — a key context that would affect how readers assess the legitimacy and scope of the actions described.
The reader is nudged toward accepting or endorsing targeted immigration enforcement against individuals with familial or ideological ties to adversarial regimes, especially from Muslim-majority countries. It implicitly permissions suspicion toward diaspora communities and legitimizes linking personal lifestyle choices with national loyalty, making emotionally charged enforcement appear justified and necessary.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
""Anyone who is here fraudulently is subject to our nation’s immigration laws and will be removed from our country." — Karoline Leavitt"
"The contrast between Iranian women in restrictive garb and Soleimani’s relatives in bikinis frames personal clothing choices as markers of political allegiance — implying that dressing liberally while supporting the regime is hypocrisy, and that lifestyle becomes evidence of identity as a threat."
Techniques Found(7)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"the niece and grandniece of the late Iranian terrorist general Qasem Soleimani"
Uses the term 'terrorist general' to describe Qasem Soleimani, which is a value-laden label not universally accepted and not aligned with neutral or official U.S. designations in all contexts; this pre-frames the individuals being deported as inherently linked to terrorism, influencing perception beyond the factual claim of immigration violations.
"brutal regime"
Applies emotionally charged language ('brutal') to describe the Iranian government; while Iran's human rights record is documented by independent bodies, the term 'brutal' functions as a broad, judgmental characterization that goes beyond reporting specific facts and serves to inflame sentiment.
"radical Islamic regime"
Uses 'radical Islamic regime' — a phrase with strong ideological and religious overtones — to describe Iran’s government. The label conflates religion with political extremism and is disproportionately used in partisan discourse to stigmatize; it functions to demonize rather than neutrally describe the regime.
"Meanwhile, women in Iran are forced to wear restrictive religious garb — including mandatory hijabs and full-body cloaks — and are threatened with arrest if they show their hair. While Afshar lived with freedom in the United States, she was outspoken in her support for the Iranian regime and celebrated attacks on Americans"
Contrasts the freedoms enjoyed by Iranian relatives in the U.S. with the oppression of women in Iran to evoke moral outrage and justify deportations. This appeal leverages shared American values of gender freedom and national loyalty to emotionally justify the administration’s actions, beyond the legal basis provided.
"Screaming Mary"
Applies the derogatory nickname 'Screaming Mary' to Masoumeh Ebtekar, a former Iranian official, which reduces her to a sensationalized caricature and discredits her and, by association, her son Eissa Hashemi. This label serves to delegitimize rather than inform.
"Afshar and Hosseiny are not the only Iranians living in the United States with close connections to the brutal regime."
Suggests that proximity to the Iranian government — such as familial relationships — is sufficient to cast suspicion, implying that Eissa Hashemi’s legitimacy or right to reside in the U.S. is compromised solely due to his mother’s role, regardless of his own actions or record.
"celebrated attacks on Americans"
Makes a serious but unsubstantiated claim about Hamideh Soleimani Afshar without evidence or clarification — such as what attacks, when, or how — thereby exaggerating the threat level or hostile intent to strengthen the justification for deportation beyond immigration law violations.