Iranian lawmaker accuses IAEA chief of 'serving Israeli and Western interests'

Iran has lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations over the Israeli and US military strikes, accusing them of targeting civilian infrastructure and committing violations of international law, the judiciary news agency Mizan News reported on Friday.

In a letter addressed to Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nasser Seraj, head of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, condemned what he described as “aggressive military attacks” on Iranian soil, including strikes on residential areas, prisons, hospitals, media offices, and nuclear facilities.

“These attacks constitute a clear violation of fundamental principles of international law, international human rights law, and humanitarian law,” Seraj wrote.

The letter alleged that Israel deliberately targeted Iran’s state broadcaster facilities, killing and injuring media staff, and bombed medical centers and Red Crescent buildings, causing widespread civilian casualties and destruction of public infrastructure.

It also accused the United States of direct involvement, including through satellite support, refueling fighter jets, and aiding in attacks on nuclear sites in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.

Seraj urged the UN to launch an independent investigation and hold those responsible accountable, warning that failure to act would undermine global human rights norms and further threaten international peace and security.

Israeli strikes on Iran could have triggered “a widespread and uncontrollable war in the region” if left unanswered, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in a video address to the Eurasian Economic Forum in Belarus on Friday.

Pezeshkian said the attacks included “a series of illegal and criminal operations” targeting Iranian military personnel who were off duty or located outside official military sites, as well as university professors and civilians.

On Thursday, President Massoud Pezeshkian thanked all Iranians for their restraint during the conflict, including political prisoners.

The relative moderate was, in effect, praising the absence of street protests even as the state failed to protect civilians or address their fears.

Sociologist Saeed Moidfar, chairman of the Iranian Sociological Association, countered with a stark warning: “Unless the government takes serious steps to bridge the widening gap between the system and the people, the war’s end may not bring peace—but rather a fresh social crisis.”

A nation on display

Since the ceasefire, the vocabulary of Islamic ideology has yielded to an appeal to national identity. Headlines now lead with “Iran,” pushing aside references to Islam.

Even in Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s latest speech, the phrase “Islamic Iran” appeared only once, with no further mention of Islam.

State-affiliated outlets echoed the shift.

Reformist dailies Etemad and Arman Melli ran front-page features lauding “national coherence” and praising public figures who promoted solidarity.

In a symbolic flourish, the Tehran Symphony Orchestra performed the patriotic anthem “O Iran” beneath the Azadi Monument.

Dozens of artists and cultural figures gave scripted interviews celebrating the country’s cultural legacy. Etemad devoted an entire front page to their portraits.

A government in debt

Calls for unity came with a growing sense that the state now owes the public something in return.

Reformist sociologist Hamid Reza Jalaipour urged the state “to reward the people after the cease-fire as a gesture to strengthen national unity.”

Even some conservatives echoed the theme.

“It is now the government’s turn to respond to the people’s resistance during the war,” former newspaper editor and pundit said—a tacit admission that officials failed to shield citizens from missile strikes.

The elephant in the room

Members of parliament have also been busy readjusting to the post-war reality—calling for changes to show they stand with the people, even as they unanimously voted to sever Iran’s cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog to affirm their ‘revolutionary’ credentials.

“The government must overhaul both its economic and foreign policies,” national security committee member Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani said, calling for urgent measures to rectify failure and improve people’s livelihoods.

Committee colleague Behnam Saeedi also urged policies that would ease economic pain and “reconcile with critics alienated from the system.”

In nearly every appeal for reform, the word “government” functions as a cautious euphemism. Almost no one dares name the real decision-maker.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei bears ultimate responsibility for leading Iran into this war. His directives, even implicit gestures, determine the country’s foreign, military and economic policy.

Only he can authorize a course correction—something few expect him to do.

For now, Iran’s leadership is leaning on a language of inclusion and patriotism. Whether or not it lasts, and whether it can translate into meaningful change, remains uncertain.

A senior Iranian lawmaker has warned that the ceasefire with Israel and the United States should not be trusted, describing the war as a failure for Tehran’s enemies and a moment of “national empowerment.”

In an interview with Tasnim News, Parliamentary Secretary Sodeif Badri said the strikes on Iran by Israel and the US were aimed at weakening the country and failed to achieve either maximum or minimum objectives.

Badri cautioned that the current calm should not be mistaken for security. “We must not trust this ceasefire,” he said, adding that Iran’s armed forces are “ready with their fingers on the trigger.”

Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile was relocated from its key Fordow facility ahead of last weekend’s US airstrikes, according to preliminary intelligence assessments shared with European capitals, the Financial Times reported on Friday.

The move, if confirmed, would suggest that Iran retained much of its 408kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity — close to weapons-grade — despite US President Donald Trump’s assertion that the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.

EU officials cited by the FT said Iran’s stockpile was likely distributed across multiple sites and not concentrated at Fordow at the time of the attack. One early intelligence report indicated “extensive damages, but not full structural destruction” at the underground Fordow facility near Qom.

The US has not provided definitive intelligence to European allies on the current status of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and Washington’s future diplomatic direction remains unclear, EU officials told the FT.

Talks between European ministers and Iranian officials had taken place just before the strikes, but follow-up diplomacy is stalled. “We’re in a volatile place where the E3 is waiting on the US, who appear to themselves be waiting on the Israelis,” one source said.