Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has threatened U.S. tech companies with attacks. The list includes Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google, among others. The IRGC stated that, starting at 8 p.m. Tehran time on Wednesday, April 1, it will begin targeting these companies in retaliation for what it describes as further assassinations carried out by the U.S. and its allies.
The Guard warned on Tuesday that 18 tech companies would be considered as “legitimate targets” in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.
“From now on, for every assassination, an American company will be destroyed,” they said in an Guard-affiliated Telegram channel.
Attacks on those companies would begin from 8 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, Tehran time (12:30 p.m. EDT), the Guard said in a post on Telegram translated by Google, warning employees at those companies to leave workplaces immediately to protect their lives.
The list of companies also featured Cisco, HP, Intel, Oracle, IBM, Dell, Palantir, JPMorgan, Tesla, GE, Spire Solutions, Boeing, and UAE-based artificial intelligence company G42.
MacDailyNews Note: In response, President Trump said on Tuesday, “What did they [Iran] threaten them with, BB guns? They don’t have much left [with which] to threaten.”
Tonight, Wednesday, April 1, 2026, at 9pm ET, President Trump will give an Address to the Nation to provide an important update on Iran.
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
Peashooters.
Keep bombing those fanatical jihadists back into the stone age.
The Iranian people need to wake up , grow a collective pair, and free themselves.
About 40,000 of them already tried this year and most are gone.
I hope the IRGC falls and then the remaining non-jihadists take back the country and have a democratic non-jihadists ruling party who let Houthi’s, Hummas and Hezbola (I don’t care if I misspelled them, I see autocorrect but 50 years in has not auto-corrected them away)
To me it sounds like the IRGC is inciting their sympathizers in the US to attack American tech company’s retail locations and warehouses. Praying that doesn’t come true.
The action against Iran (the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes beginning February 28, 2026, targeting nuclear facilities, military assets, leadership, and regime infrastructure) was not only necessary; it was a responsible exercise of self-defense against a regime that has spent decades pursuing the means to inflict catastrophic harm on the West.
Anyone who labels it “unnecessary,” “illegal,” or “unconstitutional” are engaged in a dangerous form of hindsight pacifism. They pretend the threat was abstract or distant, that diplomacy was still viable, or that we should have waited for an “imminent” attack. That framing ignores both the facts on the ground and the brutal logic of nuclear proliferation. Iran’s regime is not a normal state. It is a theocratic revolutionary enterprise whose explicit ideology includes “Death to America,” the destruction of Israel, and the export of terrorism via proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and others). It has spent years enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels — over 400 kg at 60% purity as of early 2026 — enough fissile material for multiple bombs if weaponization proceeds.
Previous “diplomacy” (the JCPOA and later talks) failed because Iran never abandoned its program; it simply slowed it, cheated, and rebuilt. Strikes in 2025 had already damaged key sites at Natanz and Fordow, yet Iran retained stockpiles and infrastructure. Waiting for IAEA inspectors to declare an “imminent” weaponization program is the strategic equivalent of waiting for the fuse to be lit. Breakout timelines can shrink from months to weeks once a regime decides to dash for a bomb – especially a cornered regime facing internal protests and external pressure.
Who is willing to risk a nuclear device detonating in Paris, New York, London, or Tel Aviv?Because that is the alternative to decisive action. A nuclear-armed Iran does not need a perfect ICBM to threaten Western cities. It already possesses:
→ A global terrorist network (IRGC-Quds Force) proven capable of operations on multiple continents.
→ Advanced missile technology (demonstrated by recent firings at U.S. assets).
→ A history of smuggling weapons, drones, and personnel to proxies.
Once Iran crossed the threshold to actual weaponization, it would:
→ Transfer a device or fissile material to a proxy for a “dirty bomb” or crude detonation in a soft target.
→ Use deniable cut-outs (as it does with current conventional attacks) to maintain plausible deniability while holding the West hostage.
→ Achieve nuclear blackmail: deter Western intervention in the region while continuing to fund regional chaos.
This is not speculation. North Korea already sells missile tech; a cash-strapped, ideologically driven Iranian regime facing collapse has every incentive to monetize or weaponize its nuclear assets. The same regime that arms Houthis to attack shipping and Hezbollah to rocket civilian cities would not suddenly become responsible stewards of nuclear material.
Anyone demanding “imminent threat” proof or congressional authorization before acting are effectively saying: “We must accept the risk of a mushroom cloud over a Western capital rather than degrade Iran’s program while it is still conventional-strikeable.” That is not prudence; it is abdication. History shows that authoritarian regimes racing for WMD (Iraq in the 1980s, Libya, Syria’s chemical program) only stop when forced to.
Waiting until the bomb is assembled or deployed is not “restraint,” it is rolling the dice with millions of civilian lives.
The strikes so far have bought time. They damaged enrichment capacity, command-and-control, and leadership. They signaled that the U.S. and Israel will not allow the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to go nuclear. Yes, war is ugly and carries costs—energy spikes, refugee flows, regional instability. But the alternative — nuclear proliferation to an apocalyptic regime — is orders of magnitude worse.
So whenever you hear someone callsthe Iran action “unnecessary,” ask them directly:
If your policy had prevailed and Iran assembled a bomb in 2027 or 2028, would you still call preventive action “unnecessary” while watching first responders in Paris or New York sift through radioactive rubble?
Because that is the wager they are making. The United States and Israel chose not to take that bet.
Maybe Apple should start a drone defense division.