More Stories
Iran has objected to the US use of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter in relation to attacks on its nuclear facilities, according to a letter from its UN envoy to the Security Council on Wednesday.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran’s permanent representative to the UN, said in the letter that invoking self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to facilities under full IAEA oversight and confirmed as peaceful.
He said the US position reflects a unilateral interpretation of international law and warned that accepting it could weaken the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's absence from public view has given rise to factions in Tehran including one favoring outreach with the United States led by the president, the New York Times reported citing four senior Iranian officials.
Politicians and military chiefs are vying for influence as the status of veteran leader remains publicly unknown, the sources added, saying the groups differ about nuclear and foreign policy.
President Masoud Pezeshkian leads what the sources cited by the newspaper described as an ascendant faction of relative moderates favoring diplomacy over further confrontation.
The faction includes armed forces chief of staff Abdolrahim Mousavi and judiciary head Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, the New York Times reported.
The ceasefire between Iran and Israel brought relief to millions—but also sharpened fractures within the Islamic Republic and among its opponents.
Hardliners have declared it a strategic victory—some even lamenting that it ended too soon to deliver a heavier blow. Moderates, as ever, are trying to frame the moment as a chance for national reconciliation—“reform” in their lexicon.
“Have you seen the dignity, courage, authenticity, and patriotism of the Iranian people in the face of Israel’s aggression?” journalist Ehsan Bodaghi asked the leadership.
“The most important ceasefire is a ceasefire with your own people. Any path that doesn’t go through that leads to ruin.”
But hardliners have little patience for voices like Bodaghi’s. For them, the war reaffirmed Tehran’s regional standing—and the ceasefire, if anything, came too soon.
“Let’s say hello to a new Middle East!” declared Ezzatollah Zarghami, former head of state TV. “The courage and resistance of the Iranian people changed global equations.”
Ultraconservatives went further, rejecting the truce altogether.
“You can surrender if you like, but we will continue to fight,” said cleric Mohammad Mehdytabar. “It’s just the beginning of a new phase of war,” MP Amir-Hossein Sabeti posted on X.
Relief meets suspicion
Outside the halls of power, the mood is more weary than triumphant. Many Iranians are grateful for the pause—but skeptical that anything will change.
“Mark my words: when the war ends, they will arrest women for hijab again, the internet will be filtered, cronyism and corruption will thrive,” warned entrepreneur Nima Namdari, predicting a return to the regime’s “default mode.”
The warning appears timely: judiciary officials have already proposed amendments expanding espionage laws and widening the powers of security agencies.
Others voiced frustration with exiled opposition figures who, they say, ignored the human toll in pursuit of collapse.
“It’s shameful how some Iranians abroad have reacted after the ceasefire,” wrote Mani Ghassemi, founder of tech outlet Digiato. “They’re upset the war didn’t achieve the outcome they envisioned, yet say nothing about the 700 dead—according to Iran’s health ministry.”
During the war, state media briefly softened its tone. A patriotic song by Moein—an exiled LA-based pop icon—aired on national TV for the first time in decades. Billboards swapped religious slogans for Iran’s pre-Islamic heroes like Arash the Archer.
Some moderate insiders saw in this a cue to shift course.s
“Israel is not an actor with whom one can remain in a decades-long state of ceasefire like with Iraq,” wrote former diplomat Hamid Aboutalebi, urging Tehran to rethink—or face escalation.
Polarization by design
Hours before the truce, exiled prince Reza Pahlavi announced his readiness to return and lead a peaceful transition, calling the moment the “final phase” of Iran’s struggle.
But the day after, Donald Trump made clear he does not support regime change, citing the risk of chaos. For royalists and anti-regime activists, it was a bitter reversal.
Monarchist Alireza Kiani responded by calling for more—not less—polarization.
“Revolutionary moments require it,” he wrote. “On one side are Iran nationalists seeking to overthrow the regime. On the other are its unashamed—and ashamed—supporters. This divide must be continually reinforced.”
But journalist and human rights activist Kambiz Ghafouri warned against placing hope in foreign firepower.
“The Islamic Republic will fall—sooner or later—but by the hands of the Iranian people, not through foreign attack,” he wrote.
“Neither Trump nor Netanyahu is genuinely interested in regime change. For them, a battered Islamic Republic is preferable to a strong, democratic Iran.”
Iran's health ministry spokesman on Wednesday said 610 people were killed and 4,700 wounded throughout a 12-day war with Israel, adding that just over a hundred were killed in the final night of the conflict.
Among the dead were 49 women, two of them pregnant. The ministry added that 13 of those killed were children, the youngest two-months-old.
The figures fell short on independent human rights group HRANA's estimated death toll of 1,054 people, mostly civilians but including at least over 300 military personnel.
US President Donald Trump has rejected a cautious early assessment by his own Pentagon on damage to Iranian nuclear sites and Democrats have doubted the success of air strikes, as Iran policy increasingly divides Washington.
"(The pilots) knew the Success was LEGENDARY, and then, two days later, they started reading Fake News by CNN and The Failing New York Times," Trump posted on social media on Wednesday.
He linked the success of the strikes to his own diplomatic prowess, hitting back at news outlets which published a leaked preliminary assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency saying the air strikes only set Iran's nuclear program by months.
Trump said a press conference on the attacks' impact would prove "irrefutable."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to acknowledge the report's veracity but said leakers had "an agenda."
"I would say that story’s a false story, and it’s one that really shouldn’t be re-reported because it doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening," Rubio told Politico.
The spirited defense came after Trump rounded on Republican critics of his decision to attack without Congressional authorization.
Sidelined Democrats clap back
As the nuclear attack unfolded, the Trump administration briefed Capitol Hill majority leaders from his own Republican Party but not Democrats.
The president's sharing of intelligence along party lines, if confirmed, would break with precedent of most of the recent decades where the commander-in-chief shared information on bipartisan lines.
Lawmakers from the minority criticized the move and wondered aloud what the strikes had accomplished.
"Iran’s highly enriched uranium could be moved in as little as 10 carloads," Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia wrote on X.
"Do we really have confidence we know where this is? Do we really have confidence it wasn’t moved before our strikes?"
During two months of US-Iran talks, Democrats had largely remained silently supportive of Trump's diplomatic effort to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Democratic Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado accused the Trump administration of withholding classified information on Iran from Congress.
"The nation's intelligence agency leadership must attend tomorrow's Senate briefing in addition to Secretaries Hegseth and Rubio," he posted on X.
