Starlink was never marketed as a political weapon, yet it has quietly become one, almost by accident, simply by doing the one thing certain regimes cannot tolerate: delivering internet access without asking permission. The idea is deceptively simple — a small dish, a clear view of the sky, and suddenly the network bypasses national cables, domestic gateways, licensed telecom monopolies, and the elaborate systems of filtering and surveillance that states like to pretend are “just regulation.” That’s where the trouble begins. When connectivity no longer depends on local infrastructure, control over information starts to slip, and for governments built around managing narratives, that’s not a technical inconvenience, it’s an existential irritation.
In China, the response has been methodical, almost bureaucratic in tone but sharp in effect. Authorities have moved from warnings to enforcement against vessels using unlicensed satellite internet, making it clear that Starlink is treated not as neutral navigation equipment but as illegal telecommunications infrastructure. Ships entering Chinese waters are expected to switch it off, log it, and pretend the antenna doesn’t exist. The underlying logic is very Chinese in its internal consistency: all communications must flow through state-licensed operators, inside systems that can be monitored and regulated. Starlink, by design, ignores that architecture, and so it collides directly with the rules. The recent penalties against vessels that kept their terminals active weren’t really about ships at all; they were a signal that sovereignty, in Beijing’s view, extends upward into orbit, and that foreign networks have no automatic right to exist inside it. The target is the technology, but the message is about control.
Iran’s relationship with Starlink is far more visceral, almost desperate, shaped by years of protests, shutdowns, and a population that has learned to associate internet blackouts with moments of political danger. During periods of unrest, when mobile networks go dark and fibre connections are throttled or cut entirely, Starlink has appeared as a kind of digital escape hatch — a way for information to leak out when the state is trying to seal everything in. That possibility alone was enough to provoke a hard response. Iranian authorities have formally banned the equipment, raided homes suspected of hosting terminals, and treated possession as a serious offense. When bans proved insufficient, the response escalated into signal jamming, actively degrading satellite links in an effort to make the service unreliable or unusable. It’s striking how physical this struggle becomes: invisible radio waves contested with military-grade interference, rooftops searched for small white dishes, connectivity framed not as a civil utility but as a security threat.
What links China and Iran, despite their very different systems and styles of governance, is a shared discomfort with networks they do not own and cannot easily filter. Starlink collapses the old chokepoints — the cable landing stations, the domestic ISPs, the licensing regimes — into something much harder to grasp. You can regulate a telecom company; you can’t easily regulate a constellation of thousands of satellites beaming down from low Earth orbit. That asymmetry drives the hostility. From the perspective of these states, Starlink looks less like a neutral service and more like a parallel infrastructure, one that undermines the basic assumption that all communication flows can, at some level, be supervised.
There’s a quiet irony in all this. For users, Starlink is mostly mundane — video calls that don’t drop, messages that get through, news that loads when everything else is frozen. For regimes built on information control, it’s something far more unsettling: proof that the monopoly on connectivity is no longer guaranteed. The pushback from China and Iran isn’t really about Elon Musk, or even about satellites. It’s about the growing realization that in a world of space-based networks, shutting off the internet is no longer as simple as flipping a switch in a server room, and that loss of certainty makes authoritarian systems deeply, visibly uncomfortable.
Leave a Reply