California officials moved to reassure the public on Wednesday after details emerged of an FBI warning that Iran had allegedly aspired to carry out a surprise drone attack on targets in the state if the United States launched strikes on Iran, an alert that surfaced as the widening conflict in the Middle East entered a dangerous new phase. The warning, first reported publicly after being reviewed by major US outlets, described intelligence suggesting that, as of early February, Iran had considered using unmanned aerial vehicles launched from an unidentified vessel off the US coast against unspecified locations in California. The bulletin also said authorities had no additional information on the timing, method, target or perpetrators of any such attack.
The alert has drawn renewed attention to the growing concern among security officials and defence specialists over the ability of relatively cheap, long-range drones to threaten civilian centres, ports and other critical infrastructure far from traditional battlefields. In an interview published by the New York Post, Brett Velicovich, a former US Army intelligence and special operations soldier who later built a public profile as a drone warfare commentator and entrepreneur, said the United States was “extremely vulnerable to drone attacks” and argued that California should not dismiss the possibility of an attempted strike. He said swarming, one-way attack drones were now capable of travelling long distances and being guided remotely, including from maritime launch points. According to the report, he warned that such systems could be used to hit population centres, infrastructure and economic targets in an effort to spread fear.
The FBI warning itself did not say an attack was imminent, and public officials in California stressed that point repeatedly as concern spread. Reuters reported that Governor Gavin Newsom said he was not aware of any “imminent threats” to the state, while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said there was “no specific or credible threat” to Los Angeles at this time. State officials said California had nevertheless elevated its security posture since the start of the conflict and was continuing to coordinate with federal partners. KTVU also reported that Newsom had directed the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to heighten monitoring as authorities assessed the intelligence.
The emergence of the bulletin reflects how seriously US agencies are treating the prospect of retaliatory action on American soil during a period of sharp escalation with Iran. Reuters said the alert was distributed through the Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center and appeared to have been issued before the current outbreak of hostilities, meaning US authorities were already considering the possibility of Iranian revenge attacks against the homeland before the war expanded. The same Reuters report said a Department of Homeland Security threat assessment had concluded that Iran and its proxies probably posed a threat of targeted attacks inside the United States, even if a large-scale physical strike was considered unlikely.
That broader context matters because Iranian drone capabilities are not theoretical. For years, Iran has invested heavily in unmanned aerial systems and has supplied drone technology, or versions of it, to allied groups and proxy forces across the region. The systems that have drawn the most attention internationally are one-way attack drones designed to fly into a target and detonate, often at comparatively low cost and in large numbers. Analysts and military officials have long argued that the danger lies not only in the destructive power of a single aircraft, but in the challenge of detecting and stopping multiple low-flying drones approaching at once, particularly when they are aimed at civilian infrastructure rather than military formations.
Velicovich has spent years publicly discussing precisely that evolution in warfare. His official website describes him as a former US special operations soldier and military intelligence specialist who was deeply involved in the early years of American drone operations in Afghanistan and later became a prominent commentator on the use of unmanned aircraft by both states and militant groups. The site also highlights his repeated media appearances discussing how drones could be deployed not just in conventional battle zones but by terrorists and other hostile actors. In one archived appearance highlighted on his site, he discussed methods by which the US could prevent ISIS from using drones in attacks. In another, he warned about the expanding accessibility of such technology.
That background helps explain why his comments have resonated beyond the eye-catching language of the headline. The warning he offered was not simply that Iran possesses drones, but that the barriers to using them asymmetrically are much lower than they were in earlier eras of conflict. Launching from a ship, whether crewed or uncrewed, would complicate detection and attribution. Using commercial navigation tools, satellite links and pre-programmed coordinates would further reduce the need for a large on-the-ground support network inside the United States. Even a failed attempt could prompt major disruption, particularly in a state as economically important and heavily populated as California.
The official response, however, has been deliberately cautious. Authorities have not identified any specific intended targets, have not said an operational plot was underway, and have emphasised that the intelligence described aspiration rather than a confirmed attack plan. ABC News, which also reviewed the bulletin, reported that the warning referred to what Iran had allegedly aspired to do in the event of US strikes, rather than announcing a known live operation. That distinction is significant in the language of intelligence and law enforcement, where agencies often circulate alerts to ensure local authorities are aware of potential methods or scenarios even when the available information is limited.
Still, the issue has exposed a deeper vulnerability that counter-drone experts have been highlighting for years. Traditional air defence systems were largely designed to track and intercept larger, faster aircraft or missiles. Small drones can be harder to spot, cheaper to deploy and easier to replace. Defending against them can require a layered response, including radar, jamming systems, directed-energy tools and, in some cases, conventional gunfire. The concern raised by experts such as Velicovich is that the threat has evolved faster than domestic protection systems in the United States, particularly around civilian targets that were never built with this kind of attack in mind.
For now, California officials are trying to balance vigilance with restraint. Public reassurance has been central to that effort, with leaders stressing that there is no known imminent or credible threat while also acknowledging that the intelligence warning was serious enough to trigger closer coordination and a heightened security posture. The story is therefore not simply about one alarming bulletin, but about how a modern battlefield technology once associated with faraway war zones is now being discussed by American officials in relation to the US homeland itself. As the conflict with Iran continues to reverberate beyond the Middle East, that prospect has moved from hypothetical debate to an active security concern.
