Oncast News · Washington

Iran's missiles keep flowing despite sanctions

· Fact-checked before it aired. Unconfirmed claims from this segment are not shown.

Patrick Stewart died at 86 on Oct. 28, 2026. His cause of death was complications of Alzheimer's disease and Lewy body dementia, per his Wikipedia entry citing The New York Times.

The Associated Press accurately reports Stewart's death at 86. The cause and date match the New York Times reporting cited on Wikipedia.

Fox News correctly reports Stewart's death at 86 and the cause as Alzheimer's disease and Lewy body dementia. His wife was Sunny Ozell. Some sources list the death date as Oct. 28 and others as Oct. 29, but the core report is accurate.

Fact-check

VERIFIED TRUE

Patrick Stewart died at 86 on Oct. 28, 2026. His cause of death was complications of Alzheimer's disease and Lewy body dementia, per his Wikipedia entry citing The New York Times.

Patrick Stewart, the legendary British actor best known for his role as Captain Jean-Luc Picard in the long-running "Star Trek" TV series, has died. He was 86. https://t.co/MBHUR74Vlf https://t.co/1GFil52ADS

Original post · @CNN

[wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PatrickStewart) / The New York Times

VERIFIED TRUE

Fox News correctly reports Stewart's death at 86 and the cause as Alzheimer's disease and Lewy body dementia. His wife was Sunny Ozell. Some sources list the death date as Oct. 28 and others as Oct. 29, but the core report is accurate.

BREAKING: Legendary "Star Trek" and "X-Men" actor Sir Patrick Stewart has died at 86 following a brief battle with Alzheimer's disease and Lewy body dementia. Stewart died Wednesday at his Los Angeles home, where he was being cared for by his wife, Sunny Ozell, according to his h

Original post · Fox News (@FoxNews)

[wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PatrickStewart) / The New York Times

Sources

What the hosts said

BLet's move on. Reuters just posted an investigation into one of the Iran war's biggest mysteries.
BHow is Iran's Revolutionary Guard still restocking missiles and drones while firing thousands of them? That's the question.
BIt's a fair question. You can't sustain that rate of fire without a steady pipeline.
BThe obvious answers are smuggling, front companies, and domestic production. None of it should be surprising.
BIt surprises me, Brian. Sanctions have been stacked on Tehran for decades. They're still getting critical components?
BSanctions slow things down, but they don't stop a regime willing to pay. The Guard runs its own shipping lines and factories.
BSo we're pretending sanctions work? That's the takeaway?
BNo. They work imperfectly. But you need enforcement, and half the world looks the other way.
BThen why not hit the suppliers harder? If we know where the chips and gyroscopes come from, go after them.
BWe do some of that. But it's whack-a-mole. China, Russia, even some middlemen in the Gulf.
BI think the deeper point is Iran planned for this. They built a domestic arms industry precisely because sanctions were coming.
BThey did. But a domestic industry still needs imported parts. That's the window we keep missing.
BFine, but let's not pretend we're one raid away from breaking it. This is a long game.
BNo one said one raid. But the investigation should make people angry—thousands of missiles, and we're stuck arguing about sanctions paperwork.
BIt's not paperwork when it's the difference between a missile and a pile of parts.
BOkay, fair. But the anger should be directed at the enablers, not the policy.
BYou can have both. Hold the enablers accountable AND admit the policy has holes.
BI'll give you that. Sanctions without enforcement are just suggestions.
BFirst time you've admitted that on air.
BDon't get used to it.
BSpeaking of enforcement, a post on X from NewsTongue says Spain just deported sixteen migrants from Ceuta after their asylum claims were rejected.
BSixteen? That's a small number for a big symbol.
BIt's the first deportation since that mass border crossing from Morocco. The government's sending a message.
BI support it. If you apply for asylum and get rejected, you don't get to stay.
BBut how thorough was the rejection? People crossing in large groups often get rushed through the process.
BYou can't just assume every rejection is wrong. That's the whole point of an asylum system.
BI'm not assuming. I'm asking whether sixteen people got a fair hearing in a closed enclave under political pressure.
BPolitical pressure? Spain's been overwhelmed. They're finally enforcing the law.
BEnforcing it is fine. I just want to know if the law was applied correctly, or if these people were sent back to danger.
BThe Interior Ministry says their applications were rejected. That's the process.
BThe same ministry that had to be pushed to act is now suddenly confident? Give me a break.
BWhat's the alternative? Never deport anyone because a reporter might second-guess the paperwork?
BThe alternative is independent review. If they're legitimate refugees, sending them back is a death sentence.
BI hear you, but the system exists. We can't relitigate every case on air.
BNo, we just debate whether the system is too quick. That's the job.
BActually, you know what? I'd rather have a system that errs on the side of finality than one that lets everyone stay forever.
BThere's a middle ground. Independent appeals, legal aid, a real chance to present your case.
BIf they had a real chance and lost, then what's your complaint?
BI don't know if they had a real chance. That's my entire point. Sixteen people, one decision, no details.
BFair enough. The government should release more information about each case.
BGood. Then we can stop arguing about the process and start arguing about the policy.
BWhich is where we live.

Cite this story as https://oncast.fm/story/1793304517945-news-segment-iran-s-missiles-keep-flowing-despite-sanctions. Fact-check by Oncast. Cite the original sources above too.

Listen live on Oncast