Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

NYT: CIA Monitored Khamenei for Months — How It Reshapes U.S.-Israel Intelligence Cooperation and What It Means for Ukraine

The New York Times reports that months-long CIA intelligence surveillance enabled the United States and Israel to coordinate the timing of a strike against Iran’s supreme leader. We explain why sustained intelligence gathering matters and what this means for regional security and for Ukraine.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 1, 2026 · 2 min read

NYT: CIA Monitored Khamenei for Months — How It Reshapes U.S.-Israel Intelligence Cooperation and What It Means for Ukraine
Удари США по Ірану (Фото: EPA/ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH)

In brief

The New York Times, citing unnamed sources, reports that the CIA tracked Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's movements for several months and passed those data to Israel and other partners. The obtained information allegedly confirmed that on the morning of February 28 Khamenei would be at a meeting of senior officials at a residence in Tehran, after which the US and Israel adjusted the timing of the strike.

How the intelligence worked and why it matters

The usual effect of long-term intelligence work is not only detecting a location but also gathering context: routes, daily rhythms, accompanying risks. Such information makes it possible to better synchronize a strike, reduce collateral damage, and increase the likelihood of mission success. According to the NYT, this was the key factor in preparing the operation.

"The CIA passed to Israel information that 'confirms a high degree of confidence' in Khamenei's whereabouts."

— unnamed interlocutors, The New York Times

Chronicle of consequences

According to reports, on February 28 a joint US–Israeli attack began, during which the Supreme Leader's residence was damaged. In the evening Reuters reported Khamenei's death; Iran responded with strikes on countries in the Persian Gulf where American bases are located. After that, Tehran announced the temporary appointment of a new Supreme Leader.

"Its goal — the protection of Americans and the destruction of the 'brutal Iranian regime'."

— Donald Trump, then President of the United States (quote from reports about the reaction to the attack)

What this means for Ukraine

1) Model of cooperation. Coordination of intelligence data among advanced services shows what effective allied work looks like — from collection to decision-making. For Ukraine this is an example of how to integrate its own data with partners to increase responsiveness and accuracy in time-sensitive moments.

2) Risk of escalation. A strike on Iran's Supreme Leader and Tehran's response raise regional tensions and risks to global energy supply chains. This can affect prices and logistical planning, which is important for Ukraine's economic resilience during the war.

3) Lessons for security. Long-term intelligence work and the cultivation of source networks — what is often called the "quiet work" of many analysts and technicians — create the systematic capacity to act precisely and minimize side effects.

Conclusion

If the NYT and related reports are to be believed, we are seeing a scenario in which the outcome depended on months of data collection and verification, not merely on a single decision in an office. For Ukraine, the main question now is how to turn declarations of support into reliable mechanisms of information exchange that will function in crises. Whether partners can use the lessons of this operation to strengthen our defense capability is a question for the coming months.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026