Mullin Celebrates Iran’s World Cup Exit as Homeland Security Secretary

How Iran’s World Cup became a diplomatic battleground

Iran’s participation in the World Cup was always fraught. The U.S. and Israel had launched air strikes against Iran in February 2026, and by the time the tournament began, the Iranian team was already facing visa hurdles. Four of the 15 Iranian staff members were initially denied entry, though appeals to the State Department secured their visas later. The team’s training base was moved from Tucson, Arizona, to Tijuana, Mexico, just days before the tournament, after Iran feared further complications. Even then, their stay in the U.S. was restricted: they could enter only the day before each match and had to leave immediately after, a rule Mullin dismissed as a “simple agreement” with FIFA, though Iranian officials called it “unfair” and “unprofessional.”

The restrictions weren’t just logistical—they were psychological. Iran’s captain, Mehdi Taremi, told reporters after their 1-1 draw with Egypt that the treatment was “a disaster.” “We don’t have recovery or logistic people to help us,” he said. “It’s not fair.” The team’s coach, Amir Ghalenoei, called them the “most oppressed” at the tournament, adding that they’d been given “less than half” the training window they needed. FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, attempted to ease tensions after Iran’s first match by visiting the dressing room and offering—jokingly—to play as an attacker in their next game. The gesture fell flat. Iran’s federation later accused the U.S. of “treating us very unfairly,” and an official called Mullin’s comments “false, fabricated and entirely baseless.”

“I’m just glad they’re done, and they’re not coming back. I was so happy when we were able to pull their visas and said they could leave the U.S. soil, and I might’ve sung a song or two or maybe even danced a happy dance.”

—Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Homeland Security secretary, via <a href="https://www.nytimes.

The visa drama that shaped Iran’s tournament

Mullin’s public glee over Iran’s exit masked a security saga that began before the tournament. In May, the U.S. denied visas to several Iranian staff members, forcing last-minute appeals. By the time of Iran’s first match against New Zealand, the team was already under scrutiny. Mullin claimed Iranian officials had tried to sneak in a person with ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. The Iran Football Federation (FFIRI) called the accusation “false, fabricated and entirely baseless,” but the damage was done. The team’s stay in the U.S. became a series of controlled, monitored visits—arriving the day before each match, playing, and then leaving immediately after.

The restrictions weren’t uniform. For their final group-stage match against Egypt in Seattle, Iran was allowed to arrive two days early—a small concession that didn’t erase the broader frustration. Even then, Taremi and assistant coach Saeed Alhoei were delayed by U.S. authorities at Tijuana airport before flying to Seattle. After the match, Iran had to leave the U.S. immediately, despite their protests. Mullin, when pressed on the rationale, said it was “just an agreement” with FIFA, though Iranian officials saw it as deliberate obstruction.

Why Iran’s exit felt like a victory for the U.S.

Iran’s elimination wasn’t just a sporting disappointment—it was a diplomatic one. The team’s struggles were compounded by the U.S.’s refusal to bend on security protocols, even as other nations at the tournament faced no such restrictions. Mullin’s unguarded celebration—“I was so happy when we were able to pull their visas”—revealed how deeply the U.S. viewed Iran’s presence as a liability. “There wasn’t a single team that we had to spend more time dealing with than Iran,” he said, framing the team’s treatment as a security necessity rather than a logistical hardship.

The irony wasn’t lost on Iran’s players. In Tijuana, where they found warmth and hospitality from Mexican fans, the team’s farewell was bittersweet. A message from Iran’s embassy in Mexico thanked the city for its “generosity and genuine hospitality,” contrasting sharply with their treatment in the U.S. “The memories we built here, the friendships we forged, and the affection we received will forever remain in the hearts of every member of the Iranian National Team,” the statement read. The contrast between Mexico’s openness and the U.S.’s restrictions became a defining narrative of Iran’s World Cup.

The VAR call that sealed Iran’s fate

Iran’s path to elimination was sealed by a VAR decision in their final group-stage match against Egypt. With the score tied 1-1 and stoppage time ticking down, Shojae Khalilzadeh’s goal was ruled out for a marginal offside call. The decision handed Algeria a late equalizer against Austria the next day, ensuring Iran’s exit as one of the eight best third-placed teams. For Iran, it was the final indignity—a moment that felt less like a sporting setback and more like a calculated snub.

Taremi’s frustration was palpable. “It’s a disaster World Cup,” he said after the match. “We always complain about these things but no one helps.” His words echoed those of his coach, who had called the U.S. “unprofessional” in its treatment of the team. FIFA’s Infantino, who had tried to play peacemaker, was left looking powerless. His attempt at humor—offering to play as an attacker for Iran—only underscored how little he could do to change the circumstances.

What comes next for Iran—and the U.S.?

Iran’s World Cup was a study in contrasts: the warmth of Mexico versus the cold shoulder of the U.S., the frustration of players versus the defiance of officials. Mullin’s “happy dance” may have been a private moment of relief, but it exposed the deeper tensions between the two nations. For Iran, the tournament was a logistical and emotional ordeal—one that ended with a whimper rather than a bang. For the U.S., it was a reminder of how easily sport can become a proxy for geopolitics.

As for the next steps, Iran’s federation will likely push for accountability, both from FIFA and the U.S. host nation. Mullin’s comments won’t help—if anything, they’ll fuel further accusations of bias. Meanwhile, the Iranian team’s experience in Tijuana, where they were treated with respect and even affection, offers a stark reminder of what could have been. The World Cup was supposed to be about football, not diplomacy. But for Iran, it was both.

One thing is clear: the U.S. won’t be changing its stance anytime soon. Mullin’s unfiltered reaction suggests that, for now, Iran’s presence on U.S. soil remains a non-starter. And with the war in the region showing no signs of easing, the next time Iran plays in America, it won’t be at a World Cup.

<!– /wp:paragraph The move was widely seen as a diplomatic effort to ease tensions between the two countries following a heated match between the U.S. and Iranian national soccer teams.

Find more reporting in our Sport news section.