Iran completes overhaul of South Pars refinery

Overhaul of the fifth refinery of Iran’s South Pars gas field has been successfully completed, said Kambiz Sefati, manager of the refinery. The work was successfully completed without any incidents, thanks to the round the clock efforts of the staff and strict adherence to safety standards.

He added, "This remarkable achievement reflects the deep commitment of the refinery’s personnel to upholding the highest safety and operational standards."

The manager of the fifth refinery at the South Pars Gas Complex stated that "the issuance of over 5,700 work permits during the maintenance period reflects the extensive scope of activities and our strict adherence to safety procedures in authorizing necessary operations." 

He added, "Thanks to the round-the-clock efforts of all colleagues, particularly the HSE (Health, Safety, and Environment) team, we successfully navigated this critical period without a single incident."

Emphasizing the key factors behind this achievement, the manager said, "Conducting high-quality safety training for specialized maintenance personnel, holding briefing sessions to learn from past incidents in the oil industry, enforcing 24/7 monitoring at the site entrance to prevent unauthorized items, and continuous verification of all issued permits—especially hot work permits by the HSE team—were among our key measures."

Safati noted, "This major maintenance overhaul was meticulously planned and executed to ensure the refinery's full readiness for safe and stable production during the winter season." 

He emphasized, "In this regard, we leveraged the expertise of specialized maintenance teams and utilized the products and technical knowledge of Iranian knowledge-based companies."

Expressing gratitude for the relentless efforts of operational and support teams in maintaining maximum safety and efficiency, he described this achievement as "the result of solidarity and synergy among all personnel, reflecting the paramount importance of safety at this refinery."

South Pars gas field, which Iran shares with Qatar in the Persian Gulf water, is divided into 24 standard phases of development in the first stage. Most of the phases are fully operational at the moment.

The huge offshore field covers an area of 9,700 square kilometers, 3,700 square kilometers of which are in Iran’s territorial waters in the Persian Gulf. The remaining 6,000 square kilometers, called North Dome, are situated in Qatar’s territorial waters.

The field is estimated to contain a significant amount of natural gas, accounting for about eight percent of the world’s reserves, and approximately 18 billion barrels of condensate.

 

Significance of Iranian President's visit to Pakistan

The world knows that Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan’s independence in 1947 and open its embassy in Karachi, which was then the capital of Pakistan. Likewise, Pakistanis were the first to officially recognize the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.

The people of both countries share cultural, linguistic, historical, and religious ties, and have supported each other in both bitter and sweet moments throughout history. The cultural commonalities between the two nations are such that citizens of either country do not feel estranged or alien when traveling to the neighboring country.

In Tehran, prominent places such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah Highway and Pakistan Street exist. Likewise, in major Pakistani cities, including Karachi, street signs bearing names like Iran Avenue and streets named after Iranian poets like Ferdowsi, Saadi, Hafez, Khayyam, and others can be found.

Islamabad, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hosted Dr. Pezeshkian, President of Iran, and his accompanying delegation from August 02 to 03, 2025. This was, in fact, Pezeshkian’s first official visit to Pakistan since winning Iran’s 14th presidential election.

It is worth noting that in April 2024, the martyred Ayatollah Raisi also made a three-day visit to Pakistan, including the cities of Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad, where he was warmly welcomed by the people and officials of that country. Following the helicopter crash and martyrdom of Ayatollah Raisi and his companions, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan, along with other officials, traveled to Tehran to pay their respects and attend the memorial ceremony.

In May of this year, Shehbaz Sharif once again visited Tehran to express his gratitude for Iran’s stance regarding the India-Pakistan war. Therefore, Dr. Pezeshkian’s recent visit was in response to Shehbaz Sharif’s invitation and, essentially, a reciprocation of his visit to Tehran.

Dr. Pezeshkian began his official visit in Lahore, the capital of Punjab province, by paying respects at the mausoleum of Allama Iqbal, the Pakistani philosopher and poet. It is said that over 8,000 verses of Iqbal’s poetry comprising 70% of his total works are written in Persian.

During the continuation of the visit in Islamabad, the Iranian delegation met with the Prime Minister, President, Foreign Minister, Army Chief, Speakers of the Senate and National Assembly, and Pakistani business community, seeking to implement the "Neighbor First" policy in practice. 

The current volume of annual trade between the two countries is about US$3 billion, yet many economic and commercial potentials remain untapped. During this recent visit, 12 cooperation agreements were signed in areas such as transportation, science and technology, tourism, and free trade, which, if implemented, could significantly boost bilateral relations.

One indicator of strong political relations is the frequent travel of officials between countries. In less than two years, top officials from Iran and Pakistan have visited each other’s countries four times, not including the meetings held on the sidelines of key regional and international summits. These frequent meetings highlight the close bond and significance of the relationship particularly now, when there is a growing need to expand cooperation.

Over the past few decades, Iran-Pakistan relations have enjoyed relative stability, and mutual visits and exchanges between officials have been a regular occurrence. What gives special importance to the recent presidential visit to Pakistan is the unique political situation and the developments that have taken place in recent months in South and West Asia and even globally.

The four-day war between India and Pakistan in May 2025, as two nuclear powers, created a highly sensitive situation in the region. Although brief, the consequences of this conflict continue to affect both countries and the broader region and world.

Additionally, the ongoing war and genocide in Gaza have significantly influenced global politics. In this context, the stances of Islamic countries such as Iran and Pakistan are of great importance. Tehran and Islamabad have consistently adopted shared, firm positions and have emphasized full support for the Palestinian cause. The 12-day imposed war by Israel on Iran drastically altered the geopolitics of the region and the Islamic world.

Pakistan’s positions as one of the largest and most influential Muslim nations and a nuclear power have been crucial, and the Iranian public and officials have always appreciated Pakistan’s brave and brotherly stance.

Islamabad's officials have expressed their appreciation, in various ways, for Iran’s goodwill and initiative in offering to mediate between the two countries, and for the highly important visit of Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Araghchi to Pakistan and India to reduce the tensions.

A key factor linking Iran and Pakistan’s foreign policies is the sensitivity of public opinion in both nations toward the Palestinian issue and their mutual opposition to Zionist occupation and crimes in Gaza. This shared stance is rooted in the principled policies laid down by the founding leaders of both nations, Imam Khomeini and Muhammad Ali Jinnah and continues today. Currently, there is deep concern over the joint illegal actions of the Zionist regime and the United States against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the potential for similar scenarios to be repeated elsewhere.

The condemnation of the Zionist regime’s aggressive attack on Iran by Pakistan’s permanent representative at the UN Security Council, as a non-permanent member and rotating president, was well-received. Pakistan’s support for dialogue and negotiation and its affirmation of Iran’s right to nuclear knowledge were also reflected in the joint press conference held by Shehbaz Sharif and Dr. Pezeshkian.

Iranian and Pakistani officials have come to a shared understanding that the 900 plus km border between the two nations should transition from being a security border to an economic one. The two sides have created joint mechanisms to improve coordination in the fight against terrorism. There exists an ocean of untapped potential in both countries, which requires serious political will to activate. The travel of hundreds of thousands of Pakistani pilgrims as part of religious tourism is one such opportunity.

Currently, two land borders at Rimdan and Mirjaveh are operational, facilitating travel for tourists and traders. Strengthening infrastructure is essential for increasing travel between the two peoples. People-to-people ties and citizen interactions can play a critical role in raising awareness of each other’s capabilities. 

Meeting mutual needs given that the two economies complement each other should be a top priority for private sectors and businesspeople in both nations. Much of what Iran imports from other countries is easily accessible in Pakistan, and Pakistan exports goods that Iranians also import from various sources.

Pakistan can meet many of its needs through Iranian producers and benefit from the proximity and low logistics costs. There is an urgent need to upgrade the joint Iran-Pakistan Chamber of Commerce to play a more significant role.

An Iranian proverb says, “A good neighbor is better than a distant relative.” Pakistan is both a good neighbor and a good relative and we Iranians are grateful for this valued neighbor.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

Pakistan and Iran term terror main hurdle to prosperity

Pakistan and Iran on Sunday agreed that peace and prosperity in their border regions hinged on effectively combating terrorism, as both countries renewed their commitment to increase annual bilateral trade to US$10 billion.

The consensus was rea­ched during a bilateral meeting at the Prime Mini­ster House in Islamabad and later emphasized at a joint press conference by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Iranian Presi­dent Masoud Pezeshkian.

“The development of economic and trade ties will be achieved through peace, stability, and tranquility,” Pezeshkian said, underscoring that terrorism remains a key obstacle to mutual prosperity.

“Given the threats from terrorist groups in border areas, both sides emphasized the need to increase cooperation to ensure border security and safeguard the peace and well-being of citizens in border cities,” the Iranian president added.

The nearly 900-kilometre border between the two countries has long faced security threats from proscribed groups, such as Jaish al-Adl and the Baluchistan Liberation Army. Persistent issues, including terrorism, smuggling, and mutual accusations of harbouring militants, have periodically strained ties.

Shehbaz acknowledged that security was paramount for progress in bilateral relations. “There will be zero tolerance for all forms of terrorism. If anyone falls victim to terrorism in Iran, it is the same as someone being affected by terrorism in Pakistan,” he said.

“For peace and development in our region, and along our hundreds of kilometres-long shared border, we must cooperate against terrorism and take effective steps to eliminate the scourge of terrorism once and for all,” Shehbaz added.

While the two leaders voiced their commitment to deepening cooperation, specific operational details were reportedly discussed in President Pezeshkian’s meeting with Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir.

Later in the evening, Pezeshkian met senior Pakistani military leaders, including Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Babar Sidhu, and ISI chief Lt Gen Asim Malik at the presidency before the dinner reception hosted by President Asif Ali Zardari. A naval representative was also in attendance.

The two sides reaffirmed their commitment to raising annual bilateral trade to US$10 billion — a target first set during the late Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi’s visit to Pakistan in April 2024.

“We can easily, in a short time, increase the volume of trade from the current US$3 billion to the projected goal of US$10 billion,” Pezeshkian said during the joint media conference.

Shehbaz echoed the sentiment. “We also jointly hope that the US$10 billion trade target is achieved at the earliest,” he said.

Trade has been constrained by a range of factors, including international sanctions on Iran, security concerns along the border, inadequate infrastructure, and limited economic complementarity.

Diplomatic and political fluctuations, often shaped by broader geopolitical tensions, have also affected the implementation of trade agreements.

While neither leader offered a clear roadmap to resolve these issues, both underscored a shared political will to continue engaging on them.

“Our delegations will take these discussions forward very soon,” Shehbaz said.

Earlier, at the bilateral talks, he had emphasized the need to convene the long-delayed 22nd meeting of the Pakistan-Iran Joint Economic Commission at the earliest. The 21st meeting of the Commission was held in 2022.

Proposals discussed during the talks included facilitating barter trade, increasing export quotas for rice, fruits, and meat, operationalizing cross-border markets, and removing trade barriers.

Border market development remains a key focus. Although the two countries agreed several years ago to establish six such markets, only three have become operational so far.

“The development of transit routes – railway routes and sea routes – the expansion and equipping of border markets, the facilitation of trade, and the establishment of joint free economic zones are critical needs in the relationship between the two countries, and we had constructive discussions on these issues,” Pezeshkian said.

Pakistan and Iran signed and exchanged 12 agreements and memorandums of understanding (MoUs) to enhance cooperation across a broad spectrum of areas. The documents covered trade, transit, science and technology, tourism, agriculture, cultural exchange, maritime safety, and judicial cooperation.

The agreements include collaboration on plant quarantine, joint use of the Mirjaveh-Taftan border crossing, ICT, tourism cooperation for 2025-27, and a joint ministerial statement on finalising a Free Trade Agreement.

“We reached agreements in political, economic, commercial, and cultural fields, and signed documents to facilitate and promote cooperation in commerce, culture, tourism, transportation, and scientific and educational exchanges,” Pezeshkian said.

 

Upcoming visit of Iranian President to Pakistan

Iran-Pakistan relationship are unique — one defined not simply by geography, but by centuries of shared civilizational experience, religious affinity, cultural kinship and converging strategic interests. The two sovereign nations can gain from an enduring partnership — and even more to contribute to the future of the region.

The upcoming state visit of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to Pakistan reflects this growing momentum. It builds upon a history of high-level engagement that includes the late President Ebrahim Raisi’s landmark visit to Islamabad and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s reciprocal visit to Tehran.

These exchanges, along with sustained diplomatic consultation between senior officials of both the countries, represent a deepening alignment that extends well beyond ceremonial diplomacy. These reflect a conscious, strategic choice to elevate the bilateral relationship into one of regional consequence.

Iran and Pakistan share a 900-kilometre border that is more than a line dividing two states; it is a bridge that has connected peoples and civilizations for centuries. Through this frontier flowed not only trade, but ideas, languages, poetry and faiths that continue to animate our societies today.

From the celebration of Nowruz to shared Sufi traditions, the depth of cultural and spiritual interconnection has forged an enduring sense of familiarity and trust that forms the bedrock of political cooperation.

As two proud Muslim nations, Iran and Pakistan are anchored in the principles of Islam -- justice, compassion and solidarity. These values are not only sources of internal cohesion; they serve as guiding lights for international engagement. The two countries stand together in support of causes such as the Palestinian struggle, to speak out against injustice and to promote peace through cooperation and mutual respect.

Their economic complementarities offer enormous potential. Pakistan’s agricultural dynamism and Iran’s abundant energy resources, coupled with shared interest in connectivity, provide a natural basis for integration.

In addition to sectoral synergies, both nations share a long-term interest in fostering an open, equitable, and interdependent regional economy. By aligning visions, Iran and Pakistan can build a sustainable economic partnership grounded in mutual resilience, technological progress and inclusive growth. Such cooperation can play a transformative role in lifting communities, creating employment and promoting a model of development that benefits the wider region.

At a time transnational threats continue to endanger their security, Iran and Pakistan remain vigilant against terrorist networks operating in border regions. Coordination in counterterrorism is not an option; it is an imperative.

Beyond local threats, both countries face broader strategic concerns arising from aggressive postures in the region. The Israeli regime’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, its occupation of Syria and Lebanon, and its recent unprovoked attacks on Iranian territory underscore the urgency of a collective response to belligerent forces that thrive on instability and domination. Responsible states cannot afford silence. It is time to strengthen coordination, deepen security cooperation and articulate a clear and united stance in international forums.

Iran deeply appreciates the principled position taken by the Government of Pakistan in unequivocally condemning the June 2025 Israeli and American military aggression against Iranian territory. At a time Western powers chose to stand on the wrong side of history, Pakistan stood firmly for international law, regional stability and solidarity with its neighbour.

Equally moving was the heartfelt support expressed by the people of Pakistan, whose spontaneous outpourings of compassion resonated deeply across Iranian society. The Iranian people watched with gratitude as their Pakistani brothers and sisters raised their voices in their support. This display of empathy and unity will never be forgotten. It reaffirmed the profound depth of our bond and the strength of the values we share.

Iran and Pakistan also enjoy a record of close cooperation across multilateral institutions. At the UN, the two have consistently worked together to defend the rights of the Palestinian people and advance sustainable development goals.

Within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, we advocate for addressing the pressing challenges of the Muslim Ummah. As active members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Economic Cooperation Organization, and the D-8, pursue shared objectives in connectivity, economic integration, and regional peace.

Coordinated diplomacy amplifies their voice on the global stage and helps steer international discourse towards justice, equity, and multilateralism. This collaboration is not limited to crisis management. It also reflects a broader strategic convergence.

Both Iran and Pakistan uphold principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Both are committed to a regional order in which Muslim nations shape their own destinies and cooperate toward collective prosperity.

Their partnership holds promise in trilateral and broader regional settings as well. With Afghanistan as their mutual neighbour, the two share an interest in stabilizing the country and ensuring that peace and development replace conflict and extremism. By integrating their economic strategies and leveraging geostrategic positions, Iran and Pakistan can help transform the region into a hub of cooperation rather than competition.

The creation of functional trade and transit corridors, grounded in mutual benefit, brings tangible dividends to our peoples and reaffirms our leadership in crafting a forward-looking regional architecture.

The path ahead calls for unity, clarity of purpose, and a willingness to transform shared aspirations into lasting institutions and practical achievements. Enhancing diplomatic dialogue, expanding economic ties, fostering educational and cultural exchanges and institutionalizing cooperation on security and development will give real depth and resilience to our relationship.

President Pezeshkian’s visit provides an opportunity not only to reaffirm commitments but to reimagine possibilities. In doing so, the two may draw inspiration from Allama Iqbal — Pakistan’s national poet and a profound admirer of Persian thought — who reminded us that the soul of nations is shaped not in fleeting political cycles, but in enduring moral and spiritual visions. His words resonate still: “Nations are born in the hearts of poets; they prosper and die in the hands of politicians.”

Iran-Pakistan friendship is not merely a relic of the past; it is a strategic investment in the future. In unity, they find strength. In cooperation, they find purpose. And in mutual respect, they find the foundation for lasting peace and shared progress.

 

Iran-Saudi Cordial Ties Upset US and Israel

Growing amicable relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have played a significant role in promoting peace and security in West Asia over the past years. Such cordial ties have come into even sharper focus following Israel’s aggression against Iran last month.

On June 13, Israel launched unprovoked strikes on Iranian territory, targeting high-ranking military commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians alike. The United States later joined the Israeli war effort, launching attacks on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities—actions widely viewed as violations of the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In a swift and powerful response, Iranian Armed Forces launched retaliatory strikes on strategic Israeli targets in cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa, and struck the al-Udeid air base in Qatar—the largest American military installation in West Asia.

By June 24, Iran’s coordinated operations had effectively brought Israeli and American aggression to a halt.

The scale and precision of Iran’s missile power shocked Israel and its Western allies, particularly the United States. 

 “Although Israel has its own sophisticated, multilayered defense, which includes systems like Arrow, David’s Sling and Iron Dome, the country was running low on its own interceptors and was husbanding resources by the time the conflict ended.

Had Iran fired a few more large volleys of missiles, Israel could have exhausted its supply of top-tier Arrow 3 munitions,” The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing American officials familiar with the 12-day war. 

The Journal also revealed that despite deploying two advanced THAAD missile-defense systems to Israel in the wake of the conflict, the US efforts proved insufficient to fully stop Iran’s missile barrages. 

“Operating alongside Israeli systems, THAAD operators burned through munitions at a furious clip, firing more than 150 missiles to shoot down the waves of Iranian ballistic missiles,” the paper reported.

The intensity of the Iranian attacks created such a high demand for interceptors that, according to the Journal, the Pentagon considered diverting THAAD interceptors already purchased by Saudi Arabia to Israel. “Saudi Arabia refused US request to send interceptors to Israel”

Meanwhile, according to Middle East Eye, which cited two American officials, the US asked Saudi Arabia to turn over THAAD interceptors to help Israel, but Riyadh rejected the request.  “Saudi Arabia's refusal to help Israel will sting officials in Washington,” MEE added. 

Saudi Arabia’s “no” to the US demand underscores the deepening ties with Iran. 

On July 8, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Jeddah. In the meeting, the Saudi crown prince condemned any military aggression against Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He welcomed the improving climate of cooperation between the two Islamic powers.

Araghchi, in turn, “thanked Saudi Arabia for its responsible stance in condemning the Israeli aggression against Iran.”

He put emphasis on Iran’s commitment to building stronger ties with its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia based on principles of good neighborliness and mutual interest.

Araghchi also held talks with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman and Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, reaffirming the countries’ commitment to closer strategic cooperation.

China’s mediation drives Iran-Saudi unity for regional stability

The renewed diplomatic warmth is rooted in a 2023 agreement brokered by China, which saw Iran and Saudi Arabia formally restore ties after years of estrangement. Since then, China's constructive mediation has played a key role in bringing Tehran and Riyadh closer together.

As the dust settles on the most intense Israel-Iran war in recent memory, the strengthening bond between Iran and Saudi Arabia emerges as a powerful force for stability in West Asia. Their growing diplomatic, political, and economic cooperation is not only reshaping the region's strategic landscape—but also offering a compelling alternative to the cycles of escalation driven by Israeli aggression.

Once geopolitical rivals, Tehran and Riyadh now appear poised to lead a new era—one rooted in sovereignty, mutual respect, and collective security. Their united front sends a clear message: regional peace is best preserved not through foreign intervention or militarism, but through regional unity and shared interests.

In a time of increasing volatility, Iran and Saudi Arabia are demonstrating that Islamic nations can rise above division and become pillars of stability—capable of defending their people, upholding international law, and resisting those who threaten the peace of the region. The path they have chosen may well define the future of West Asia.

 

 

 

 

Iranian rationale of attacking US base in Qatar

On June 23, 2025, as tensions between Iran and Israel reached their highest point in years, several Iranian ballistic missiles struck the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. This was no ordinary target, it is the main hub for US military operations in West Asia and a key symbol of American power projection in the region. 

Iran informed the US about the attack 12 hours before it was to happen, according to information previously disclosed by the Tehran Times. The official American response was swift and predictable - both Washington and Doha downplayed the incident, claiming there were no casualties or significant damage. However, reality soon overrode the narrative. Satellite images published days later confirmed the destruction of a geodesic dome that housed critical communication systems of the US Central Command.

Far from being anecdotal, this episode marks a strategic turning point. Iran has shown it can strike critical infrastructure under American protection, redrawing the contours of deterrence in the Persian Gulf. The missile ceases to be merely a weapon of war; it becomes a tool of sovereignty and strategic assertion.

Between official denial and satellite evidence

The US version was clear and firm from the outset “No casualties, no damage,” repeated Pentagon spokespeople. But satellite evidence, analyzed by international media and independent agencies, told a different story.

Images taken between June 23 and 25 showed the disappearance of a US$15 million communications dome, debris, and collateral damage to surrounding structures. Although the base remained operational, the loss of a key component for electronic warfare cast doubt on the effectiveness of US missile defenses—and on the credibility of the official account.

Washington’s refusal to acknowledge the strike follows a dual logic - maintaining control over the media narrative and avoiding the perception of vulnerability before an actor—Iran—that, despite sanctions and isolation, has reached a notable level of technological sophistication.

Al Udeid: A symbol of hegemony in question

Located about 30 kilometers from Doha, Al Udeid is more than just a military base. It serves as the forward headquarters of CENTCOM and is the nerve center for coordinating operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Its symbolism goes beyond the military - it is the cornerstone of the security architecture the United States has built in the region since the First Persian Gulf War.

The fact that Iran managed to strike such a site—and that US forces reportedly evacuated aircraft and sensitive personnel beforehand—does not diminish the significance of the attack. On the contrary, it indicates that Tehran sent a precise warning and that Washington took it seriously. Deterrence, long monopolized by the US and Israel, is no longer a one-way street.

The missile as national strategy: Evolution and autonomy

The strike on Al Udeid was not an isolated act but the result of a deliberate evolution. For over two decades, Iran has systematically invested in ballistic missile development as an asymmetric response to the air and nuclear superiority of its adversaries. Faced with Western restrictions, Tehran adopted a doctrine of defensive self-sufficiency based on three pillars:

Diversification: Short, medium, and long range missiles like Shahab-3, Ghadr, Qiam, and Sejjil, capable of reaching Israel, US bases, and parts of southern Europe.

Mobility: Mobile launch systems that are hard to detect and neutralize.

Precision: Advanced guidance systems that have reduced the margin of error to levels that even Western analysts now acknowledge.

Unlike other regional missile programs, Iran’s development is overwhelmingly domestic. This technical and logistical autonomy has allowed the country to bypass embargoes and threats, turning the missile into the backbone of its defense doctrine.

Following Israel’s offensive against nuclear, military, and civilian sites inside Iran, Tehran responded with a large-scale launch of over a hundred ballistic missiles and suicide drones targeting Israeli military positions. For the first time, Iran’s ballistic arsenal was used en masse in open conflict.

Despite the Iron Dome and other Israeli defenses, several missiles penetrated and struck Tel Aviv, Haifa, and military bases. The missile attacks not only caused physical damage but also had a strategic impact: saturating defenses, prompting emergency deployments, and creating unprecedented internal pressure on Israeli authorities.

The Al Udeid strike was the culmination of a graduated strategy - to hit Israel, neutralize its offensive capacity, and send a direct message to the United States. The ceasefire that followed days later cannot be understood without factoring in the missile component as a deterrent force.

Sovereignty and independence: The Iranian perspective

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s foreign and defense policy has been rooted in the principle of non-negotiable sovereignty. In a hostile environment—surrounded by foreign bases and under sanctions—the development of ballistic missiles has not been framed as a belligerent impulse, but as a survival strategy.

Tehran maintains that its only guarantee in the face of threats like the US “maximum pressure” campaign or Israeli targeted strikes is its ability to respond. Effective deterrence, it argues, is only possible when there is certainty that any aggression will come at a high cost.

The attack on Al Udeid follows this logic - it was calibrated, precise, and deliberately non-lethal. Its aim was not to trigger a regional war but to underscore that Iran has both the capacity—and the resolve—to defend its vital interests. The missile, in this vision, is not a threat; it is a political argument.

 

Devastating civilian toll in Iranian capital

Tehran’s Mayor Alireza Zakani has laid bare the human cost of the Israeli regime’s 12-day military aggression against Iran, disclosing that 3,600 civilian residential units across the capital were damaged in the assault.

In a somber address on Tuesday, Zakani confirmed hundreds of families remain displaced from their homes, underscoring a "defining experience" for the city’s crisis management infrastructure.

"According to documented statistics, 3,600 residential units suffered damage during this imposed war," Zakani stated.

"Among these, 200 units require complete reconstruction, 250 need fundamental reinforcement, and 1,500 necessitate repairs."

Minor damage, including shattered windows and doors, affected the remainder. The mayor emphasized that municipal teams are mobilizing to complete minor repairs, such as window and door replacements, by late July.

The Israeli assault that took place in June plunged ordinary citizens into profound hardship, with some communities bearing the brunt of the impact.

Currently, 350 displaced families are sheltering in hotels leased by the municipality, with another 450 households urgently requiring temporary housing while their homes undergo rebuilding.

For those whose residences were fully destroyed or require major reconstruction, Zakani outlined a support package, "Affected families will receive 1.5 billion tomans for deposits and 30 million tomans monthly rent assistance" to alleviate their burdens.

Beyond housing, the mayor reported extensive ancillary damage. "Claims have been formally registered for 875 civilian vehicles struck during the attacks," he said, adding that municipal teams are now documenting losses of household belongings for future compensation.

The devastation unfolded during the 12-Day War — a coordinated US-Israeli assault launched on June 13, 2025, targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, civilian infrastructure, and military compounds. The offensive extended to the assassinations of senior commanders and scientists, many executed in residential areas.

Iran’s human toll has been severe. At least 1,060 Iranians were martyred, according to Saeed Ohadi, head of Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs, who said the figure could rise to 1,100 given the critical condition of many wounded.
 

 

Israel strikes Yemen, Houthis retaliate

According to Reuters, Israel struck Houthi targets at three Yemeni ports and a power plant, the military said early on Monday, in its first attack on Yemen in nearly a month.

The strikes hit the ports of Hodeidah, Ras Isa and Salif, as well as the Ras Qantib power plant on the coast.

Hours later, Israel said two missiles were launched from Yemen. Attempts were made to intercept them, though the results were still under review.

The Houthi forces said they had fired missiles and drones at multiple targets in Israel in retaliation for the strikes on Yemen.

Since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023, the Houthis have fired at ships carrying goods to and from Israel. The group claims their acts in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Israel said its attacks on Monday also targeted a ship, the Galaxy Leader, which was seized by the Houthis in late 2023 and held in Ras Isa port.

"The Houthi terrorist regime's forces installed a radar system on the ship, and are using it to track vessels in international maritime space in order to promote the Houthi terrorist regime’s activities," the military said.

The Houthi military spokesperson said the group's air defences had responded to the Israeli attack with "a large number of domestically produced surface-to-air missiles".

Israel's military told residents to evacuate the three ports before it launched its attacks. Residents of Hodeidah told Reuters that the strikes on the power station had knocked out electricity. There was no immediate information on casualties.

The Israeli assault comes hours after a ship was attacked off of Hodeidah and the ship's crew abandoned it as it took on water. No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, but security firm Ambrey said the vessel fit the typical profile of a Houthi target.

 

 

 

Understanding US and Russian policies towards Taliban

Russia has become the first country to recognize Taliban government in Afghanistan. It is on record that the United States and Russia have had different policies toward Taliban due to their distinct strategic interests, historical experiences, and regional alliances. Here’s a breakdown of some of the key reasons behind this divergence:

The United States has fought Taliban directly for over two decades after 9/11, viewing them as terrorist allies of al-Qaeda. This includes the US led NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to topple the Taliban regime.

Interestingly, Russia has not fought Taliban directly but has a history of conflicts in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion (1979–1989), where the US and others supported the Mujahideen, some of these are now termed Taliban).

Russia sees Taliban as part of the post-Soviet regional security dynamic, not necessarily as a direct enemy.

Most interesting is the US perspective because it considers Taliban a threats to US homeland and allies. The history shows that Afghans/ Taliban never attacked the United States. It is also said that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, which supported Mujahideen in averting the USSR attack on Afghanistan to get access to the warm waters.

The US, which never wanted to leave Afghanistan believes that Taliban rule could once again turn the country into a safe haven for global jihadis like al-Qaeda or ISIS-K. Some analysts openly say that be it al-Qaeda or ISIS-K, these are ‘B’ teams of CIA.

The prime focus of Russia is more on Central Asian stability and drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Russia fears spillover of extremism into its southern borders but engages pragmatically with Taliban to keep its influence in the region.

Both the US and Russia are keen in engaging with Taliban. The US was initially hostile, but later engaged diplomatically, courtesy Doha talks, culminating in the 2020 US-Taliban agreement. After the 2021 withdrawal, the US maintains non-recognition and economic sanctions, demanding women rights, inclusivity, and action against terrorism.

As against, Russia has hosted Taliban delegations for talks in Moscow and calls for inclusive governance but does not condition engagement as strictly as the US. Russia did not officially recognize the Taliban either, but it was more flexible in diplomacy.

Strategic Interests

The US claims, to that many do not agree, that the super power is busy in global fight against terrorism and avoids getting entangled again in the Afghan conflict. Since withdrawal of troops the US has kept Taliban under pressure through sanctions and diplomatic isolation, including freezing foreign exchange reserves of Afghanistan.

The prime Russian interest is, ending US hegemony in the region. It also wants to protect its interests in Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). On top of all Russia seems to be keen in developing regional alliances that include Taliban as a reality, not a pariah.

Over the decades, the United States has maintained its hegemony through regional alliances, working closely under the NATO umbrella. The US policy towards Taliban is part of a broader Western approach tied to liberal values and counterterrorism.

Realizing its limitations Russia works closely with China, Iran, Central Asian republics. It often coordinates with anti-Western powers and is less constrained by democratic or human rights norms.

To get control over countries two of the world’s largest super powers, the United States as well as Russia have often used arsenal power. As against this China has used diplomacy and economic assistance to establish its influence.

During the election campaign Donald Trump had promised to pull the United States out of wars, but his unconditional support to Israeli genocide in Gaza and direct attacks on Iran prove he is also the tout of military complexes and would never like to end wars where the United States is involved directly or indirectly.

 

US presidents have history of attacking countries without Congress approval

According to The Hill, Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history, Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades.

From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed US military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it.

That history has muddled the Democrats’ current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress.

The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump’s powers to launch them unilaterally.

Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments.

“Since World War II we have had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters after the strikes. “Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.”

Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 

“Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,” Johnson said. 

That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn’t stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions.

“Just because it was wrong then doesn’t mean it’s not wrong now,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a former Air Force attorney who’s now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it’s been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress’s appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 

“That part is unfortunate. Maybe we’ve missed a few opportunities,” Aguilar said. 

“But that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye right now,” he quickly added. “It doesn’t mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.”

The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is “Commander and Chief” of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. 

Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle.

In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him).

The law requires presidents to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch.

As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit US involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran.

One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks, Jim Himes and Adam Smith. Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there’s no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump’s strikes. 

“Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or US facilities. That’s the standard,” said Rep.

Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to US facilities to meet that threshold.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. “If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,” she said. “That didn’t exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.”

Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent.

In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. 

Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. 

Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn’t agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. 

In the same vein, Biden used US forces to target Syria, Yemen and Iraq. 

Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama’s use of force without Congress giving the OK. 

“I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,” he said.

“My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.” 

Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events.

“We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We’ll save that for other days,” Aguilar said. “But what is in front of us today, are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?”

A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. 

On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won’t force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues.

Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the US will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons.

Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn’t hesitate. 

“Without question,” he said. “Absolutely.”

 

 

Trump biggest warmonger, not peacekeeper

It’s been said that Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel’s war with Iran underscores his failures as a peacemaker. This is a preposterous statement because the idea of Trump being “a peacemaker and unifier” has always been nothing short of preposterous.

Yes, long before his ascendance to the White House, Trump had managed to paint him as a peacemaker, promising to end America’s “endless wars.” But most people in the United States of Amnesia seem to have forgotten that during his first four-year tenure in the White House Trump embarked on a dangerous path with a series of reckless foreign policy decisions that threatened peace and made the world a far more dangerous place.

Trump walked away from an Iran deal and withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty while US air wars became broader and “increasingly indiscriminate.”

Iraq, Somalia, and Syria were among the countries that Trump loosened the rules of engagement for US forces. Trump also ordered the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and threatened “fire and fury” against North Korea.

In addition, Trump increased tensions between Israelis and Palestinians by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy there from Tel Aviv.

The president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas said at the time that Trump’s decision undermined all peace efforts and called his actions “a crime,” while the political leader of the Hamas movement, Ismail Haniya, who was assassinated by the Israeli Mossad in Tehran on July 31, 2024, called for a new “intifada.”

Shortly upon assuming the Office of the President of the United States for the second time, Trump embarked on a jingoistic journey by threatening to take over Greenland (an idea he had floated back in 2019), make Canada the 51st state, reclaim the Panama Canal, and attack Mexico. And just as he had done during his first term in office, he withdrew the US from the landmark Paris climate agreement, even though the climate crisis is an existential one and is expected to increase the risk of armed conflict.

Trump’s war mania

According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump sharply criticized Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, on Friday, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.

Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites.

Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender.

Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on June 15 that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader.

"His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the US Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life," Trump said in a social media post.

"I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," he said.

Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the US ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader.

"If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X in the early hours of Saturday.

Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort.

"I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said.

Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point.

 

"Sure, without question, absolutely," he said.

Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear watchdog - or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend.

Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said.

The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13.

However, Iran's parliament approved moves on Wednesday to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites.

 

SCO Defense Ministers Meet in China

Against the backdrop of intensifying global conflicts, defense ministers from the ten member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) convened this week in China’s eastern city of Qingdao, reaffirming their commitment to dialogue, multilateralism, and regional stability.

Hosted by Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun, the annual SCO Defense Ministers’ Meeting on June 26 emphasized strategic coordination in the face of growing international uncertainty—particularly as tensions escalate in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

During a bilateral meeting on June 25, Chinese Defense Minister Dong met with his Iranian counterpart Aziz Nasirzadeh, who is in China to attend the SCO gathering. Dong reaffirmed China’s support for Iran’s legitimate position and criticized unilateralism and hegemonic behavior, calling them major sources of global instability.  

“In a world undergoing profound changes, unilateralism, protectionism, and power politics are eroding the international order,” Dong said. “The defense departments of SCO member states must uphold founding principles of the SCO, deepen practical cooperation, and safeguard a peaceful environment for development.”  

In response, Minister Nasirzadeh thanked China for its understanding and support in the face of the recent aggression.  

“Iran has recently come under attack, and we are grateful for China’s just position. We hope China will continue to play a constructive role in preserving the ceasefire and easing regional tensions,” he said.

In a joint statement released on June 23, the SCO expressed serious concern over the recent escalation in the Middle East, strongly condemning the United States' military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which the organization said violated international law, the UN Charter, and the SCO Charter, particularly the principle of non-use of force in international relations.  

“The attack on Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has seriously undermined regional and global peace and stability,” the statement read, calling for the crisis to be resolved through political and diplomatic means.  

The meeting also saw defense chiefs from India and Pakistan share the same table for the first time since a military flare-up in Kashmir last month.

Belarus and Iran, the SCO’s newest full members, participated in the event for the first time in this capacity—highlighting the organization’s growing breadth and influence.  

Dong welcomed all attendees with a call for greater defense coordination under the Global Security Initiative proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, which promotes common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security.  

Xiao Bin, Deputy Secretary-General of the SCO Research Center at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, described the SCO as a rare example of a multilateral security platform that emphasizes non-alignment, non-confrontation, and consensus-based cooperation.  

“It plays a unique role in stabilizing the regional landscape, curbing destabilizing factors, and promoting peaceful dialogue in times of conflict,” Xiao said.

As the rotating chair, China has overseen a year of active defense diplomacy. According to Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense, recent SCO events have helped build trust and amplify the organization’s collective voice on global security.  

“These meetings provided a vital platform for dialogue and consensus-building among all member states,” Zhang noted.  

The Qingdao meeting, held in a city symbolic for being where China first proposed the “SCO Community of Shared Destiny” in 2018, delivered a timely reminder of the group’s mission, to uphold peace, sovereignty, and shared development in an increasingly fragmented world.

As tensions mount across multiple regions, the SCO has emerged as a platform where strategic communication, mutual respect, and regional cooperation can still flourish.

 

 

Khamenei claims victory over Israel

According to media reports, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said his country emerged victorious over Israel and “delivered a slap to America’s face” on Thursday.

The speech in a video broadcast marked Khamenei's first public comments since a US-brokered ceasefire was declared between the two countries following 12 days of conflict.

He told viewers that Washington had only intervened in the fighting because “it felt that if it did not intervene, the Israeli regime would be utterly destroyed.”

Khamenei said “US has achieved no gains from this war."

“The Islamic Republic was victorious and, in retaliation, delivered a slap to America’s face,” he said, in apparent reference to an Iranian missile attack on a US base in Qatar on Monday, which resulted in all rockets neutralized and no casualties.

Khamenei has not been seen in public since reportedly taking shelter in a secret location after the outbreak of the conflict on June 13, when Israel struck multiple military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

Following a massive US bombing attack last Sunday that struck Iran's main nuclear facility, Fordow, with bunker-buster bombs, Washington and President Donald Trump negotiated a ceasefire that came into effect on Tuesday.

Khamenei did release a video message last Sunday at the height of the conflict, and state-run media outlets announced he would make an appearance in a video message to his compatriots on Thursday.

The ayatollah also congratulated Iran "on the victory" over Israel in a post on X.

Khamenei downplayed the impact of the US strike on three of the country's nuclear sites, suggesting they had "failed to achieve anything significant".

This directly contradicts Donald Trump's claims that the US had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program when 125 military aircraft targeted the sites of Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

Speaking at the Nato summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, Trump rejected a Pentagon intelligence report that suggested the US had only set back Iran's program "by a few months".

Instead, Trump insisted that the nuclear sites in Iran were "completely destroyed" and accused the media of "an attempt to demean one of the most successful military strikes in history".

Standing alongside Trump at the Nato podium, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also dismissed the report, and argued that the evidence of what had been bombed "is buried under a mountain, devastated and obliterated".

And this was followed up by CIA director John Radcliffe, who later said there was "credible intelligence" Iran's nuclear program had been "severely damaged".

Iran's supreme leader said the US military action was never about nuclear issues or nuclear enrichment — but about "surrender".

Khamenei continued, saying that the Iranian people demonstrated their unity — sending a message "our people are one voice".

He said Trump called on Iran to "surrender", but his comments were “too big for the mouth of the president of the United States”.

"For a great country and nation like Iran, the very mention of surrender is an insult," Khamenei added.

He said Trump accidentally revealed a truth — that the Americans have been opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran from the very beginning.

He said Trump had made an “unusually exaggerated” account of what had taken place.

It was clear he needed to do it, said Khamenei, adding that anyone listening could tell the US were overstating things to distort the truth.

"We attacked one of the US’s key bases in the region, and here, they tried to downplay it," he said.

Khamenei's speech came a day after Iran’s parliament approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, as politicians unanimously supported the move against the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to Iranian state media.

The bill, which states that the Supreme National Security Council must authorize any future IAEA inspection, will need to be approved by the unelected Guardian Council to become law.

“The International Atomic Energy Agency, which refused to even marginally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, put its international credibility up for auction,” Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on state television.

“The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran will suspend its cooperation with the IAEA until the security of our nuclear facilities is guaranteed,” he added.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei stated on Thursday morning that Tehran has a "right" to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

"Iran has the full right under Article 4 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and it is determined to uphold that right under any circumstances," Baghaei said.

The US "must be held accountable for the aggression it committed against Iran in collusion with Israel," he added, claiming that the bunker buster strikes "destroyed diplomacy".

China can continue to purchase Iranian oil

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that China can continue to purchase Iranian oil after Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire, a move that the White House clarified did not indicate a relaxation of US sanctions, reports Reuters.

"China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran. Hopefully, they will be purchasing plenty from the US, also," Trump said in a post on Truth Social, just days after he ordered US bombings of three Iranian nuclear sites.

Trump was drawing attention to no attempts by Iran so far to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, as a closure would have been hard for China, the world's top importer of Iranian oil, a senior White House official told Reuters.

"The president continues to call on China and all countries to import our state-of-the-art oil rather than import Iranian oil in violation of US sanctions," the official said.

After the ceasefire announcement, Trump's comments on China were another bearish signal for oil prices, which fell nearly 6%.

Any relaxation of sanctions enforcement on Iran would mark a US policy shift after Trump said in February he was re-imposing maximum pressure on Iran, aiming to drive its oil exports to zero, over its nuclear program and funding of militants across the Middle East.

Trump imposed waves of Iran-related sanctions on several of China's so-called independent "teapot" refineries and port terminal operators for purchases of Iranian oil.

"President Trump's green-light for China to keep buying Iranian oil reflects a return to lax enforcement standards," said Scott Modell, a former CIA officer, now CEO of Rapidan Energy Group.

In addition to not enforcing sanctions, Trump could suspend or waive sanctions imposed by executive order or under authorities a president is granted in laws passed by Congress.

Trump will likely not waive sanctions ahead of coming rounds of US-Iran nuclear talks, Modell said. The measures provide leverage given Tehran's demand that any deal includes lifting them permanently.

Jeremy Paner, a partner at Hughes Hubbard & Reed law firm, said if Trump chooses to suspend Iran oil-related sanctions, it would require lots of work between agencies.

 

Trump Blasts at Israel and Iran on Ceasefire Violations

What began as a high-profile diplomatic success is now unraveling, as US President Donald Trump openly criticized both Israel and Iran on Tuesday for violating the newly declared ceasefire. Speaking bluntly to the press, Trump said both countries have been fighting so long that “they don’t know what… they’re doing.”

The frustration comes after fresh violence erupted just hours into the ceasefire. Iran launched two missiles at northern Israel, prompting Defense Minister Israel Katz to authorize immediate retaliatory strikes on Tehran. In response, Trump expressed outrage over Israel’s rapid air assault, reportedly the most intense bombing campaign yet.

“I’m not happy with Israel,” Trump admitted. “You don’t go out in the first hour and drop everything you have on [them].” He added, “I gotta get Israel to calm down now,” before warning that the scale of the strikes exceeded anything previously witnessed.

While Trump insisted he was equally unhappy with Iran, his focus was on halting Israel’s response. He announced plans to travel to Israel to personally intervene and prevent the conflict from reigniting. “I’m gonna see if I can stop it,” he told reporters.

On social media, Trump doubled down, writing: “Israel is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly 'Plane Wave' to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect.”

Despite his demands, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly held firm during a phone call with Trump, insisting that a retaliatory strike was still “necessary.”

Ultimately, Israeli officials agreed to scale back their response to a single target in Tehran a compromise that maintains deterrence while keeping diplomatic lines open.

Trump’s remarks come at a critical juncture. With the ceasefire already showing signs of collapse, and international attention focused on Jerusalem and Tehran, Israel continues to act within its right to defend itself while weighing the diplomatic costs of continued escalation.

 

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states strongly condemn Iranian attack on Qatar

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states strongly condemned the aggression launched by Iran against the State of Qatar, reports Saudi Gazette.

"Saudi Arabia views this act as a flagrant violation of international law and the principles of good neighborliness," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, while asserting that it is unacceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Saudi Arabia affirmed its solidarity and full support for Qatar, stating that it is deploying all its capabilities to support Qatar in all measures it deems necessary, according to the statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) strongly condemned the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s targeting of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, describing the act as a blatant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace, as well as a clear breach of international law and the United Nations Charter.

The UAE reaffirmed its unequivocal rejection of any aggression that endangers Qatar’s security and undermines regional stability, according to a statement issued by the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The ministry expressed the UAE’s full solidarity with Qatar and its unwavering support for all measures aimed at safeguarding the safety and security of its citizens and residents. The ministry also emphasized the urgent need to de-escalate militarily, warning that continued provocative actions risk destabilizing regional security and could lead the region down a dangerous path with potentially catastrophic consequences for international peace and stability.

Oman’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the ongoing regional escalation in the region, which was caused by Israel with the attack on Iran on June 13 and the continuous exchange of missile attacks since then, including the recent Iranian missile attack on sovereign sites in Qatar.

The Sultanate of Oman has condemned the act that violates the sovereignty of a member state of the Gulf Cooperation Council, contradicts the policy of good neighborliness, and threatens to expand the scope of the conflict, which has no benefit except more damage and destruction and undermines the foundations of security, stability, and the safety of the peoples of the region.

The foreign ministry spokesman expressed Oman's solidarity with the State of Qatar and the measures it is taking to preserve its security and stability. The spokesman also called for an immediate cessation of all military and missile operations, the adoption of wisdom in resorting to peaceful negotiations, and adherence to international law in addressing the causes of the conflict and achieving a just settlement through legitimate means.

Bahrain strongly condemned the attack carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps targeting the sovereignty of the State of Qatar and considered it a blatant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace, as well as a breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

In an official statement, Bahrain affirmed its full support and solidarity with Qatar following the Iranian attack on Qatari territory. Bahrain expressed its unwavering support of Qatar, emphasizing that this solidarity stems from the deep-rooted bonds among the GCC states. The Kingdom underscored the importance of collective unity during this critical period, calling for concerted efforts to exercise restraint, avoid escalation, and resolve disputes through peaceful means.

Kuwait strongly condemned Iran’s missile attack on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Monday, calling the strike a “flagrant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace.” The attack represents a violation of international law and UN Charter, and poses a major threat to regional peace, security and stability, the ministry said.

Kuwait stands fully with Qatar and fully supports all measures it may take in order to protect its sovereignty, security and stability, including its right to retaliate in the way it deems fit, the ministry said, reiterating Kuwait’s readiness to provide all capabilities in helping Qatar.

GCC Secretary General Jassim Albudaiwi condemned in the strongest terms the missile attack launched by Iran against Qatar. "This attack constitutes a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of Qatar and a direct threat to the security of all GCC states," he said while reiterating that the security of the GCC states is indivisible, and that the council stands united with the State of Qatar in confronting any threat to its security and territorial integrity.

"While the State of Qatar and the GCC states strongly condemn the Israeli attacks on Iranian territory and are making every effort to achieve a ceasefire and mediation, they are surprised by this Iranian missile attack, which constitutes a violation of all international and UN norms, treaties, and laws," Albudaiwi said while calling on the international community and the UN Security Council to shoulder their responsibilities in condemning this aggressive act.

He also urged to take effective steps to deter Iran's irresponsible actions, as well as to work to restore stability and prevent further escalation in the region, and adopt dialogue and diplomacy to preserve the security of the region and the peace of its people.