The United Nations said on Thursday it could not confirm Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref’s statement that Secretary-General António Guterres told him the June war with Israel had ended efforts to topple the Islamic Republic.
“I’m not able to confirm that the Secretary-General would ever have said that,” UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters in New York. He said Aref appeared to be referring to an August meeting in Turkmenistan and pointed to the UN readout from August 5 as the accurate record.
Aref told Iranian state media that Guterres had said “the file of overthrowing the establishment was closed after the 12-day war.” He did not say when or where the conversation took place.
Guterres has made no such remark publicly. During the June conflict, he said on X that he was “gravely alarmed” by the use of force by the United States against Iran, calling it a dangerous escalation and a threat to international peace.
The 12-day war began with Israeli strikes that killed Iranian nuclear scientists and ended with US bombings of three key nuclear sites.
Aref spoke days after US President Donald Trump warned Washington would strike Iran again if it restarted its nuclear program. Speaking at a Navy anniversary event in Virginia, Trump called the June 22 airstrikes “perfectly executed” and said Tehran had been weeks from building a nuclear weapon.
Iran says it does not seek confrontation but will respond if attacked. Aref said the conflict showed US forces “could not achieve their objectives.”
The remarks came as Britain, France and Germany moved to reimpose UN sanctions lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal.
A conservative Iranian lawmaker said parliament is reviewing an emergency motion to stop the implementation of Iran’s conditional approval to join a United Nations convention against terror financing, arguing it would expose the country’s sanction-busting networks.
Mojtaba Zonouri, a member of parliament from Qom, said on Friday the measure on joining the UN Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) remains suspended in parliament, and that a “triple-urgency motion” submitted by Tehran lawmaker Malek Shariati is under review to prevent it from taking effect.
“As long as we are forced to bypass sanctions to meet the country’s needs, joining the CFT is like putting a rope around our own necks,” Zonouri said, according to Iranian media. He added that Iran could join the convention only “when sanctions are fully lifted.”
His remarks come after Iran’s Expediency Council — the body overseen by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that resolves disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council — conditionally approved the country’s accession to the UN convention earlier this month, after years of delay.
The CFT, one of the 49 measures linked to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, requires countries to track and report financial transactions to combat money laundering and terror financing. Hardliners argue that joining would expose Iran’s financial channels used to evade sanctions and support allied armed groups across the Middle East.
The conditional approval followed the reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran on September 28 under the nuclear deal’s snapback mechanism. In April, over 150 lawmakers had urged the Council to reject the convention until “the risk of renewed sanctions is entirely eliminated.”
The United States has long accused Tehran of using its regional allies to fund and coordinate attacks across the region, labeling Iran the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism for 39 consecutive years.
An outlet close to Iran’s security chief Ali Larijani has republished a 50-year-old interview with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in an apparent bid to draw historical legitimacy to Tehran’s current hardline stances.
In the 1975 conversation with celebrated Egyptian journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, then editor of Al-Ahram, the Shah boasted about Iran’s military buildup, including air defenses capable of striking targets a few hundred kilometers beyond Iranian airspace.
“We wish to be powerful in the region where we live,” he told Heikal, adding that “no government would base its defensive policy” on appearing weak—a line that now echoes in the rhetoric of Iran’s current leadership.
The interview was republished by the Khabar Online news outlet, which is close to Ali Larijani, a veteran political insider, Iranian security chief and confidante of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Tehran has stepped up visual references to Iran's mythical and pre-Islamic past since a punishing June war with Israel in the United States, in a move once unthinkable for the imagery's association with the ousted monarchy.
Likely a bid to bolster popular support, the strategy had previously stopped short of outright references to the royal family.
“The military force we are building is meant to confront those who threaten us,” the Shah, who was dethroned in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, said.
“I do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb for two reasons,” he continued. “One is the cost, and the other is that we do not have the means—such as ships or missiles—to carry the bomb to its target.”
Yet he added pointedly: “If someone comes out of the bush and wants to have a nuclear bomb in this region, Iran should undoubtedly have one of those bombs too.”
Curious timing
Khabar Online said the remarks were part of a broader exchange reflecting Iran’s growing self-assertion during the oil-boom years.
Like other encounters between the late Shah and media figures such as Mike Wallace, Oriana Fallaci and Barbara Walters, Heikal’s questioning was probing—and the Shah relished the opportunity to rebut his interviewer.
At one point, he scolded Heikal for misnaming the Persian Gulf and “misstating facts” about Iran, a scene that captured his combative, self-assured style.
“The Shahanshah was very serious in his statements and he believed in what he said,” Heikal later recalled, deploying a term meaning king of kings. “I did not expect that, and I did not have an answer to convince him.”
The Shah, aware of Heikal’s ties to Egypt’s late president Gamal Abdel Nasser and his sympathy for Iran’s ousted premier Mohammad Mossadegh, used the interview to frame Iran as a regional power surrounded by covetous rivals.
“We wish to have good ties with the Arab world,” he told Heikal, comparing Iran’s armed forces to “a lock on a door” and describing deterrence as “an opportunity for our friends and anyone else who wishes to help us.”
On Israel and Iran’s future
In another passage that might resonate in Tehran today, the Shah dismissed Israeli criticism while cautioning its leaders against overreach.
“The Israeli press are the only ones that heavily attack us,” he said. “But we are not bothered by that. We have told Israeli leaders they cannot occupy the entire Arab world … but the Israelis do not take any advice.”
In the West, the interview is remembered less for its atomic undertones than for the Shah’s sweeping ambition.
“I want the standard of living in Iran in ten years’ time to be exactly on a level with that in Europe today,” he said. “In twenty years’ time we shall be ahead of the United States.”
Half a century later, its selective resurrection serves as a reminder that Tehran’s language of power transcends time—and the ruler’s outfit.
While top officials in Tehran remain silent on the Gaza–Israel peace deal, Iranians across the political spectrum have flooded social media, some hailing Hamas’s “victory” while others condemned Iran’s costly involvement.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Thursday reaffirmed its support for ending what it called the “genocide in Gaza,” urging the withdrawal of Israeli forces, unhindered humanitarian access and the realization of Palestinian rights.
The statement also called for “global vigilance against Israel’s actions,” stressing that ending the war does not absolve the international community of its duty to “pursue justice and prosecute those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.”
Hardline media its their supporters have largely portrayed the peace deal as a triumph for Hamas and Iran’s armed allies in the region.
‘The Resistance has won’
“The myth of Israel’s deterrence has been shattered,” conservative journalist Mehran Karimi wrote on X. “Despite its crimes, the enemy has been forced to accept the Resistance Front’s conditions, and Palestine has become the world’s foremost issue.”
Another user, Mahmod Sakavandi, argued that the agreement was a sign of the Palestinians’ upper hand. “Israel was forced to sit at the table, he wrote, “and every time the enemy negotiates out of weakness, the resistance has won.”
Others, however, see Hamas’s actions as reckless and catastrophic.
“Gaza has been destroyed; over 70,000 people killed, hundreds of thousands injured or disabled, and a million displaced,” activist M. Yousefinejad posted on X. “Was Hamas’s move on October 7 rational?”
‘Ungrateful’
Some also criticized Hamas for failing to acknowledge Tehran’s support in its post-agreement statement.
“Iran bore the greatest cost for Palestine and Gaza,” financial consultant Mohammad-Hossein lamented on X. “Hamas in its statement thanked Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and even Trump—but not Iran. Why did we involve ourselves with these vile ingrates?”
A different camp drew lessons from Hamas’s shift toward negotiation.
“If Trump’s Gaza peace deal is being called a victory for the Resistance, then our government too should reach a direct deal with the United States and bring such a victory to the Iranian people,” reformist journalist Amir-Hossein Mosalla wrote on X.
Blaming Khamenei
A user going by the name Mohammad-Hossein commented that “the courage required for peace is greater than the bravery needed for war.”
“But fools turn the likes of Yahya Sinwar and Saeed Jalili into heroes, and the likes of Khalil al-Hayya and Mohammad-Javad Zarif into traitors,” he added.
A growing number of users placed responsibility for Gaza’s devastation—and the region’s broader instability—on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
One wrote: “Hamas accepted Trump’s peace plan. What remains is Khamenei’s utter humiliation for his direct and indirect support of the October 7 operation, which led to death, displacement, and suffering for thousands.”
Another, identifying as Saman, went further: “As long as the Islamic Republic exists and Ali Khamenei is alive, there will be no peace—not in Gaza, not in Yemen, not in Syria.”
The newly published text of a draft Iranian anti-espionage law increases punishments for the use of Elon Musk's Starlink internet technology, including the death penalty if used for spying.
The use of Starlink or other unauthorized satellite internet services for personal purposes is explicitly banned and punishable by six months to two years in prison.
"The use, possession, purchase, sale, or import of unlicensed electronic, internet, or satellite communication devices—such as Starlink—for personal use is prohibited and punishable by sixth-degree imprisonment, with the equipment to be confiscated," it says.
"If any of these actions are committed with the intent to act against the system or for espionage, and the perpetrator is deemed to be an enemy agent, the punishment is death," it added.
Iran suffered serious blows and intelligence failures during its 12-day war with Israel and the United States in June. The draft law was introduced following the conflict.
It further specifies that “any intelligence or espionage activity for the aforementioned regimes, governments, groups, or their affiliates shall result in confiscation of all property and the death penalty" and frequently cites the charge of "corruption on earth."
The religious phrase constitutes a formal charge under Iran’s Islamic legal system and is frequently used by Revolutionary Courts to hand down death sentences against political prisoners.
Since Starlink is an American company, activities related to its use, distribution or import could fall under the scope of “corruption on earth” charges.
Starlink, owned by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, became a symbol of digital freedom in Iran after it was used to bypass government internet shutdowns during the Woman, Life, Freedom nationwide protests.
The unrest began in September 2022 after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in the custody of Iran's morality police, who detained her for allegedly violating hijab rules.
Western governments had encouraged the deployment of Starlink to help Iranians access the open internet when the regime imposed widespread restrictions.
Iran is poised to implement a new anti-espionage law expanding government control over social media and online activity which could expand the death penalty for internet speech.
The text of the law, which was published by the moderate outlet Entekhab on Wednesday, details sharp new penalties for alleged national security offenses online.
"The fabrication or dissemination of false reports, or the creation or publication of any content that typically causes public fear and panic or is contrary to national security, shall—if not constituting the crime of corruption on earth—be punishable, at the court’s discretion, by third-degree imprisonment," it said.
Corruption on earth is a formal charge in Iran's theocracy which carries the death penalty. It has long been invoked in Islamic Revolutionary courts to win death penalty convictions of political prisoners.
Third-degree imprisonment refers to 10 to 15-year terms.
The law's wording equates dissemination of fear-inducing content with crimes such as manufacturing explosives or weapons, both of which can carry the death penalty.
"The sending of videos, images or information to foreign networks, media outlets, or social media pages, if deemed contrary to national security—and similarly, the sending of such materials to hostile networks, media outlets, or pages—shall, unless subject to a more severe punishment, be punishable ... by fifth-degree imprisonment," it added, referring 2-5 years in prison.
'Hostile' states
Formally titled "The Intensification of Punishment for Espionage and Cooperation with the Zionist Regime and Hostile States Against National Security and Interests," the law was passed by parliament in late June following a 12-day war pitting Iran against Israel and the United States in June.
The United States and Israel are explicitly defined as hostile states, and any contact, activity, or content connected to them is considered an act against Iran’s national interests, subject to the death penalty.
The Guardian Council, the 12-member body of clerics and jurists that vets Iran’s legislation and elections, initially sent the bill back in July citing ambiguities.
After revisions, it approved the law last week, saying it no longer conflicted with Islamic law or the constitution.
The parliament speaker on Tuesday referred the bill to Iran’s president for implementation, state broadcaster IRIB reported.
The legislation was first introduced following a surprise Israeli air campaign in June that exposed Tehran's intelligence failures and killed hundreds of military personnel and civilians.
Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, prompting Tehran to retaliate with missile salvoes.
Iranian authorities later announced the arrest of hundreds of people accused of spying for Israel and the United States, executing several.
Starlink
The use of Starlink or other unauthorized satellite internet services for personal purposes is explicitly banned and punishable by six months to two years in prison.
"The use, possession, purchase, sale, or import of unlicensed electronic, internet, or satellite communication devices—such as Starlink—for personal use is prohibited and punishable by sixth-degree imprisonment, with the equipment to be confiscated," it says.
"If any of these actions are committed with the intent to act against the system or for espionage, and the perpetrator is deemed to be an enemy agent, the punishment is death," it added. "Otherwise, if the act does not constitute corruption on earth, enmity against God, or a more severe offense, it is punishable by fourth-degree imprisonment," or 5-10 years.
The bill instructs the ministry of intelligence to publicly identify hostile networks, media outlets and online accounts within one month of the law’s ratification and to update the list at least every six months.
