IAEA chief says strike on UAE nuclear plant ‘grave concern’

The competing narratives surrounding the latest US-Iran standoff have become so stark that even basic questions—who is deterring whom, who wants talks and who fears escalation—now produce entirely different answers depending on which capital is speaking.

On Tuesday, Trump again underscored the volatility of the standoff, saying the United States “may have to give them another big hit” and claiming Tehran was “begging” for a deal.

Khabar Online journalist Mohammad Aref Moezzi described the current dynamic as a familiar “neither war nor peace” scenario: sustained pressure and confrontation without a clear decision to escalate into full conflict or pursue a comprehensive agreement.

Both sides, he argued, still believe they can force concessions without paying the cost of war.

Read the full article here.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi pointed to a US congressional report detailing American aircraft losses during the war with Iran, saying it confirmed Tehran’s ability to inflict serious damage on US forces.

“Months after initiation of war on Iran, US Congress acknowledges loss of dozens of aircraft worth billions,” Araghchi wrote on X.

“Our powerful Armed Forces are confirmed as first to strike down a touted F-35,” he added, warning that any future conflict would feature “many more surprises.”

A recent congressional assessment, compiled from Pentagon, CENTCOM and media reports, listed 42 US military aircraft as lost, damaged or destroyed during the conflict, with estimated losses of around $2.6 billion.

The US Senate advanced a measure that would require congressional approval for continued military strikes on Iran, reflecting mounting concern in Washington over the trajectory of the conflict.

The move follows several failed attempts in both the Senate and House to limit President Donald Trump’s authority to continue military operations against Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

Senators approved a motion to discharge the resolution from committee in a 50 to 47 vote. Four Republicans broke ranks to vote with Democrats while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman opposed the measure. 

Iran rejected as “baseless” a claim by the head of US Central Command that the Minab school struck during the opening day of the war was located within an active Iranian cruise missile base.

"This shameless distortion is a clear attempt to obscure the severe reality of the 28 February missile attacks, which resulted in the tragic slaughtering of over 170 school children and their teachers," foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghei wrote on X.

The response came hours after CENTCOM chief Admiral Brad Cooper told Congress the investigation into the deadly strike was “complex” because the girls’ school was situated on an active IRGC cruise missile site.

Reuters previously reported that an initial US military investigation found American forces were likely responsible for the strike on the school in Minab, which Iranian officials say killed more than 160 children and teachers.

Trading resumed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) under strict and highly managed conditions, with parts of the market reopening while 42 major, mostly export-oriented companies remained suspended.

The restart marked a procedural return to activity, but within a framework designed to tightly control selling pressure and limit volatility.

Steel and petrochemical companies — traditionally among the most influential drivers of the TEDPIX index — did not reopen. These firms were reportedly damaged during the war, yet authorities have not disclosed the extent of the damage, the duration of production halts, insurance coverage details, financing arrangements or reconstruction timelines.

No revised earnings projections have been made public. The absence of such disclosures leaves investors without the information needed to reassess valuations in a post-conflict environment.

At the same time, sectors that did resume trading were already structurally fragile before the conflict began. The banking system had been operating with capital constraints and persistent balance-sheet weaknesses.

The automobile industry was loss-making prior to the war, and supply chain disruptions have further intensified those pressures. Capital market intermediaries are functioning in an economy experiencing near-triple-digit inflation, eroding real returns and complicating asset pricing.

The real estate sector is also under strain due to disrupted supply chains and heightened uncertainty over future economic conditions.

Beyond the selective reopening of companies, several administrative measures were reportedly implemented to prevent heavy selling. According to market reports and brokerage channels, institutional investors were restricted from large-scale share sales, and caps were reportedly imposed on major shareholders in certain symbols.

Some leveraged funds also faced selling limits, with reported restrictions such as 100,000-unit ceilings for particular funds. Meanwhile, a number of stocks were reopened without price fluctuation limits due to disclosure requirements, creating a segmented trading environment rather than a uniform restart.

These measures suggest that the reopening was structured not only to resume transactions but also to manage the behavior of the index. In Tehran, TEDPIX functions as a visible signal of economic stability.

A sharp selloff after the prolonged closure would have carried political as well as financial implications. Containing immediate downward pressure appears to have been a central consideration in the design of the reopening.

However, limiting supply and constraining sales does not eliminate underlying uncertainty. Without transparent disclosure of corporate damage, reconstruction capacity and forward earnings expectations, the process of price discovery remains incomplete.

Instead of allowing the market to fully reprice assets based on updated information, authorities have slowed the adjustment through administrative intervention.

The Tehran Stock Exchange is now formally open. Yet with key exporters still suspended, significant trading restrictions in place and unresolved questions about corporate losses, the market’s reopening reflects controlled stabilization rather than a clear restoration of investor confidence.