Iranian woman suffers severe panic attack as ICE agents arrest her husband
LOS ANGELES — Iranian asylum-seekers who fled the Islamic Republic in hopes of resettling in Los Angeles have been arrested recently by immigration officials despite having what lawyers and advocates consider credible-fear cases pending in court.
The detentions follow a pattern developing throughout the country of targeting Iranians as tensions continue between the Trump administration and Iran.
Many of the asylum-seekers are Christians who fled Iran and its intolerant views toward non-Muslim religions. There are 4 million Iranian exiles worldwide, just under a third of them in the United States, according to Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry statistics from 2021.
The sudden detentions have prompted some Iranians to go on hunger strikes in custody and triggered at least one medical emergency during an attempted arrest.
On Tuesday, an Iranian woman experienced a severe panic attack after she witnessed her husband's arrest near an area known as 'Tehrangeles' because of its large Iranian population. The woman called her pastor, Ara Torosian, to help intervene, but he could do little as he watched her panic attack escalate into convulsions.
The couple's lawyer asked that the woman and her husband remain anonymous for privacy reasons.
In a video recorded by Torosian and shared widely on social media, the woman lay on the ground spasming while masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents hovered over her. Torosian can be heard pleading with them to administer medical aid. He can also be heard asking whether they know about the situation in Iran and why Christian Iranians fear returning to their native country.
According to Torosian, the woman and her husband are members of his church and entered the United States last year under CBP One, the mobile app the Biden administration launched to streamline the asylum-seeking process. President Donald Trump ended the program shortly after he returned to office.
The woman was taken to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where ICE agents were met by immigrant advocates and detention protesters. Torosian said that he was not allowed into her hospital room and that immigration officials gruffly brushed away a nurse who tried to intercede on his behalf.
UCLA Health said in a statement that it treated a patient under federal custody and later released the person.
'Despite reports on social media, there is no ICE operation happening at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center,' the hospital said.
A lawyer for the woman and her husband declined to comment. Immigration officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The incident left Torosian shaken, he said Wednesday.
He arrived in the United States in 2010 as a Christian refugee and is now a U.S. citizen raising two children in Southern California. But the recent immigration raids and arrests, coupled with anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Trump administration, remind him more of Iran than he ever imagined possible, he said.
'I was seeing a woman on the ground and masked people who wouldn't show their warrants,' he said. 'I was just shocked. Am I in Iran or am I in L.A.?'
Another Iranian Christian family in Torosian's parish were arrested this week during a scheduled check-in with immigration officials.
Seyedmajid Seyedali received a text over the weekend telling him to report to the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles on Monday with his wife and 4-year-daughter, said the family's lawyer, Kaveh Ardalan.
Thinking it was a routine visit, the family of three left their dog at home. But when they arrived, they were taken to the basement and arrested despite having an asylum hearing scheduled for September, Ardalan said. They were transferred to a detention facility in Texas, where Seyedali's wife is on a hunger strike, he said.
Ardalan said he has at least five Iranian clients who are seeking asylum and were arrested recently. He also has clients from Honduras and Venezuela with pending asylum cases who are now in ICE custody.
When he can, Ardalan said, he will ask immigration judges to release eligible families on bond. Torosian said his parish is working to collect enough to pay rent for Seyedali's home should the family get released.
"I'm ready for the fight," he said. "I'm standing for my people."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
For Trump, solving Ukraine won't be as easy as Iran
For the moment, at least, the world seems to be going Donald Trump's way. Instead of setting the Middle East ablaze, Trump's air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have been met by a single, casualty-free Iranian counterstrike on the US's al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And though Tehran described the attack as 'mighty and successful', it emerged that Iran had actually warned the Qatar authorities in advance of the strikes – a message that they immediately passed on to the Americans. At the Nato summit in the Hague this week, European leaders lined up to support Trump's demand that they 'pay their way' and boost their defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the new defence bonanza as an opportunity to boost European innovation and announced a 'Rearm Europe' plan to mobilise €650 billion (£554 million) in defence investment. Every Nato member state (except for Spain) signed up to the new 5 per cent target – even though for most members that figure entails doubling, or in some cases tripling, defence budgets. Trump came to office promising to be a peacemaking president Nato's secretary-general Mark Rutte even sent Trump an effusive note praising his strikes on Iran. 'Mr President, dear Donald, Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do,' gushed Rutte in language apparently intended to mirror Trump's own bombastic tweeting style. 'Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,' continued Rutte. It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 per cent! You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win. It was a very different reaction to the last time Trump addressed a Nato summit in London back in 2019. Then, a hot-mike moment caught Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, British premier Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron and – yes – Mark Rutte, then-Dutch prime minister sniggering over Trump's lateness. Trump was so incensed by the mockery that he flew home early, but not before blasting Trudeau as being 'two faced' and criticising him for failing to meet Nato's spending benchmark – then a mere 2 per cent of GDP. Remarkably, Trump's order to both Israel and Iran to cease fire after twelve days of massive bombardments seems to be holding. More impressive still is that both sides immediately began to violate the ceasefire but were immediately brought to heel by hard words from the White House. That leaves just one major fire on Trump's foreign policy horizon that's still burning: Ukraine. As he was campaigning for the presidency, Trump vowed that he would stop the conflict 'within 24 hours'. In practice, three months of intensive negotiations both by Trump envoys and by phone direct with Putin have yielded nothing but weasel words from the Kremlin. At the same time, the White House's relationship with the Ukrainians reached rock bottom after Volodymyr Zelensky's train wreck meeting with Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in the Oval Office in February was followed by a freeze on US arms and funding to Kyiv. But the Nato summit seemed to yield some positive news for Ukraine, too. Trump was photographed, beaming, beside Macron and Zelensky – whom he described as 'a nice guy'. When a Ukrainian reporter asked Trump about the US providing air defence systems, the President asked her about where her husband was – and on learning that he was a soldier, he said, 'I wish you a lot of luck, I can see it's very upsetting to you.' He also promised to send 'some' Patriots to Kyiv, noting that the US needed them and so did Israel. But most significantly, Trump blocked Putin's attempt to pivot away from Ukraine by publicly squashing the Kremlin's offers to mediate between Washington and Iran. 'I've spoken to Putin. I said no, I don't need help on Iran,' Trump told reporters. 'Do me a favour, help with Russia.' Trump's hard words for Putin were a welcome sign to Ukrainians that the White House does retain some scepticism about Putin's hollow claims to be serious about peace. At the same time, though, Trump's team made it clear that they saw talks, not military aid, as the only solution to the conflict. '@POTUS has been abundantly clear the Russia-Ukraine war must end,' tweeted Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 'There is no military solution, only a diplomatic one.' But there were hopeful words for the Kremlin too. Rubio added that the US would not be imposing additional sanctions against Russia because if 'we come in and crush them with more sanctions, we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire and then who's talking to them?' In the space of a few days, Trump went from bombing Iran to being bombed to a ceasefire, allowing all sides to claim victory. Trump also succeeded in not only persuading recalcitrant Europeans to massively increase their defence spending but also in making them enthusiastic about doing it. Vice President Vance also articulated what he called the 'brutally simple' Trump Doctrine: Define a clear American interest. Push hard through diplomacy. If that fails, strike fast, win quick, and get out – before it becomes another endless war. Trump came to office promising to be a peacemaking president. After three months in office, he's fought his first short, victorious war. But it will be achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine – and wrangling the notoriously stubborn and duplicitous Putin into a deal – that will be the Trump's true foreign policy test. This article was originally published in The Spectator's world edition.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Why UK needs to pander to Trump but should not necessarily believe him
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Following the US attack on Iran, Donald Trump said its nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated', setting back the tyrannical regime's plans by 'decades'. However, according to a leaked preliminary assessment by the Pentagon, the missile strikes only caused a delay of a few months. Amid the ensuing uproar over these very different takes, the US President attacked the media for reporting the classified document's findings, saying they were "scum" and "disgusting", while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused those behind the leak of being "professional stabbers". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But, clearly, what matters is what has actually happened. If Iran still has the ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons, the world needs to be alive to that threat. With the situation still unclear, it would be far better to err on the side of caution. Keir Starmer speaks to US President Donald Trump at the Nato summit in The Hague (Picture: Kin Cheung/pool) | Getty Images Axis of Autocracies Where Trump deserves credit is that the US attack has demonstrated to Iran's leaders how vulnerable they are, and this may have a deterring effect on a regime, widely despised by its own people, which poses a very real threat to world peace. It is a member of what former Nato Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has described as the 'Axis of Autocracies', along with Russia, China and North Korea. The combined threat these dictatorships pose is the reason why the world needs a much stronger Nato. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And that means European leaders must sometimes swallow their pride and be rather sycophantic towards Trump, even as he continues to cast doubt on his commitment to the Nato treaty which states an attack on one will be treated as an attack on all. The UK and Europe have no choice but to spend more on defence – commensurate with the increased threats facing the world and also, again erring on the side of caution, in case Trump decides to withdraw from the alliance, formally or not.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Who won the 12-day war?
As the dust settles from the United States and Israel's sweeping strikes on the Islamic Republic regime's nuclear infrastructure, a new battle has begun – one of narratives. Who really won? What damage was truly done? And what, precisely, has changed? The regime in Tehran claims resilience. Israel says deterrence has been re-established. Washington insists it achieved total destruction and victory. But beneath the declarations is the harder reality: wars don't end with scoreboards, but with contested facts and uncertain consequences. Caution is warranted. The regime survives. Its ideology remains intact. Its opacity has deepened. What has been destroyed may eventually be rebuilt What is clear is that the campaign against Iran was unprecedented in scope and ambition. Over 12 days, Israel and the United States launched coordinated strikes against three core components of the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme: Natanz, Isfahan, and the heavily fortified Fordow complex. According to the Israel Defence Forces, the operation had been in preparation for years, fast-tracked only when intelligence pointed to the regime approaching a nuclear 'point of no return'. The strikes were designed not merely to degrade, but to paralyse. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the outcome a 'historic victory', citing the elimination of major nuclear sites, missile launchers, and 29 senior military officials. President Trump, speaking at the Nato summit in the Hague, was similarly blunt: 'It's gone for years, years.' He likened the impact to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not in scale of destruction, but in strategic finality. A war-ender. There is evidence to support that view. The Islamic Republic's own foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baqaei, admitted to Al-Jazeera that the strikes had caused 'severe damage' to its nuclear infrastructure and dealt a heavy blow to diplomatic efforts. But just how severe remains unclear. A preliminary US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment, leaked to the press, offers a more cautious view. It suggests the Fordow facility's underground core may still be structurally intact, and that the programme could recover within months. A senior DIA official later clarified that this was 'a preliminary, low confidence assessment – not a final conclusion,' and that on-site inspection will be necessary to draw firm conclusions. Israeli sources have echoed the uncertainty, though cautiously. Two officials speaking to ABC News reportedly said it was too early to declare the operation a success. One described the outcome at Fordow as 'really not good,' citing unresolved questions about how much enriched uranium was moved before the strikes and how many centrifuges might still be salvageable. But such accounts, like the DIA leak itself, are fragments: partial views of a wider intelligence mosaic. Media coverage tends to extract individual assessments or snippets of conversation, often out of context and shaped by editorial agendas. Just as states craft their narratives, so too do news organisations, whose reporting may amplify ambiguity while overlooking the classified consensus. As one Israeli source noted, establishing the full picture could take months, or prove impossible, but whatever conclusions emerge will come from comprehensive analysis, not headlines. Adding to the ambiguity is the Islamic Republic's decision to suspend all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed that the agency no longer knows the location of nearly 900 pounds of enriched uranium that the regime claims it moved for 'protective reasons'. However, the Islamic Republic regime is known to lie, and certainly would like us to worry they have rescued plenty of their costly nuclear material. With inspections halted, the international community is being asked to assess a disappearing target. But if the technical picture is clouded, the political one is sharper. The regime's retaliation began with brutality. On the first day responding to Israel's strikes it fired between 150 and 250 ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and military targets, inflicting serious damage and killing civilians. But as Israeli strikes dismantled launch sites and disrupted command infrastructure, the volume of fire steadily declined. What began as a lethal barrage soon became a dwindling trickle: fewer than 20 missiles a day by the final phase, though still deadly. Some of the missiles were more advanced, which might mean the lower numbers reflected an attempt to conserve capability as options narrowed. Overall, what looked initially like defiance gave way to degradation. Its sole retaliation against the United States was even more revealing. The regime struck a US base in Qatar apparently with full advance warning. All personnel were evacuated. No damage occurred. The message was scripted for domestic audiences: a performance of strength carefully choreographed to avoid escalation. In effect, a surrender disguised as a counterstrike. That the regime accepted a ceasefire just hours after its most devastating losses, including the assassination of nearly 30 senior commanders, reinforces the point. This was not a negotiated pause; it was a forced halt. Still, caution is warranted. The regime survives. Its ideology remains intact. Its opacity has deepened. What has been destroyed may eventually be rebuilt. The wager of the strikes is that deterrence will hold, and that the risk and cost of recovery will deter the attempt. President Trump has made his position clear: any renewed enrichment will trigger another strike. 'Sure,' he said, when asked whether the US would act again. For now, the Islamic Republic appears to believe him. So, who won? Israel and the United States achieved their stated operational goals. They inflicted profound damage, exposed the regime's strategic weakness, and imposed a ceasefire on their terms. The Islamic Republic responded with posture, not power. But war is not only about what is destroyed. It is about what is rebuilt, and who gets to decide. That contest is not over. The war may have ended. The struggle over its meaning has just begun.
