In a recent and surprising disclosure, Mike Benz, a former U.S. government official who served at the State Department under President Donald Trump, has alleged that the United States leveraged the encrypted messaging app Telegram to incite protests and potentially overthrow governments worldwide. This assertion, which has raised eyebrows and sparked significant debate, was made during an interview with Tucker Carlson, a prominent American journalist known for his outspoken views.
According to Benz, Telegram, an app widely recognized for its robust encryption and privacy features, was the platform of choice for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) due to its ability to keep communications concealed from government surveillance and external scrutiny. Benz, who now leads an organization dedicated to promoting free speech, argued that this security allowed the U.S. to clandestinely support political movements and protests in various countries, enabling them to push for regime changes or influence political outcomes without direct military intervention.
Benz highlighted several instances where Telegram was allegedly utilized to orchestrate large-scale demonstrations and civil unrest. He mentioned countries like Russia, Belarus, Iran, Hong Kong, and China as examples where the U.S. purportedly supported local movements through “soft power” tactics. Soft power, as opposed to direct military force or economic sanctions, involves the use of cultural influence, media, and diplomacy to sway public opinion and political landscapes.
In Russia and Belarus, Benz suggested that Telegram was instrumental in coordinating protests against the governments of Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko, respectively. These protests were marked by widespread participation and were often sparked by allegations of election fraud or demands for democratic reforms.
Similarly, in Iran, Telegram has been a critical tool for activists and protesters, especially during the widespread demonstrations following the disputed 2009 presidential elections and the more recent protests over economic conditions and political freedoms. Benz’s claims imply that the U.S. might have played a behind-the-scenes role in these movements, supporting opposition groups and amplifying their calls for change.
In Hong Kong and China, where government censorship is stringent, Telegram provided a platform for activists to organize and communicate outside the reach of state surveillance. The Hong Kong protests, which began in 2019 in response to a controversial extradition bill and grew into a broader pro-democracy movement, heavily relied on encrypted messaging apps like Telegram to mobilize and coordinate massive protests. Benz suggested that the U.S. leveraged these tools to bolster the pro-democracy movements and apply pressure on the Chinese government.
Benz’s allegations have sparked intense debate and speculation about the extent of U.S. involvement in global protests and the ethical implications of such actions. While some view these tactics as a necessary means of promoting democracy and countering authoritarianism, others raise concerns about the violation of sovereignty and the potential for unintended consequences, such as civil conflict or regional instability.
Moreover, Benz’s claims have also prompted questions about the broader use of technology and social media platforms in geopolitical strategies. The assertion that the CIA and other U.S. agencies might be using encrypted apps like Telegram to influence political outcomes abroad highlights the evolving nature of modern warfare, where information and cyber capabilities are increasingly becoming pivotal tools of statecraft.
As of now, there has been no official response from the U.S. government or Telegram regarding these allegations. However, the discussion around Benz’s revelations is likely to continue, particularly as concerns about digital privacy, state surveillance, and the role of technology in shaping political landscapes grow more prominent.
Mike Benz’s explosive claims about the U.S. using Telegram to instigate protests and influence political regimes globally underscore the complex and often covert nature of international relations in the digital age. While these allegations have yet to be substantiated with concrete evidence, they bring to light critical questions about the balance between promoting democratic values and respecting national sovereignty. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the use of technology in geopolitical strategies will likely remain a contentious and closely watched issue.
