Iran says no plan for UN nuclear inspections at bombed sites

Mohammad Mohajeri said members of the hardline Paydari Front wanted to use parliament’s podium for their own political interests, citing recent remarks by lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian, who has criticized Iran’s negotiating team.

Mohajeri likened the hardliners to Colonel Vladimir Liakhov, a Tsarist Russian military officer who bombarded and shut down Iran’s parliament in 1908, saying they also “want to bombard parliament.”

He also criticized the current parliament, calling it “one of the most ineffective parliaments in terms of a positive record.”

“It has done nothing useful and has only pursued noise and controversy,” he said.

He made the comments after MP Kamran Ghazanfari announced plans for a protest outside parliament, saying a group of lawmakers will stage a sit-in if the legislature remained closed.

The head of parliament’s Health and Treatment Committee previously criticized the continued closure of parliament, saying lawmakers had been sidelined amid the Islamic Republic’s talks with the US.

“They closed parliament so they could sign whatever they wanted,” Hosseinali Shahriari said.

Shipping traffic through the strait has increased, but Iran has warned that vessels could face penalties or be forced to turn back if they do not seek advance permission from Tehran and sail close to the Iranian coast, the report said.

At the same time, the United States and some western insurers are advising ships to use a route protected by US air cover on the Omani side of the strait, the report said, citing three shipping executives.

The conflicting guidance has left shipowners unsure whether to risk possible Iranian interference or ignore advice from insurers and US authorities, it added.

“Shipowners and operators find themselves caught in a difficult position. If they follow the guidance of underwriters and US authorities by navigating closer to Oman, they risk interference, detention or potential hostile action from Iranian authorities,” said Dr SV Anchan, chair of the US shipping company Safesea Shipping.

The move marks one of the most dramatic shifts in US policy toward Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and follows the recently signed US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented the measure as part of the administration's effort to implement the agreement while negotiations continue toward a broader settlement.

Under the waiver issued by the Treasury Department, Iran will be allowed to produce, sell and transport crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemicals through August 21 while negotiations continue.

The authorization also permits payments in US dollars and allows Iranian oil and petroleum products to be imported into the United States. It effectively suspends key restrictions on Iran's energy sector that had been in place for years under both primary and secondary sanctions.

The Treasury Department said the waiver covers shipping, insurance, vessel management, registration and other services necessary to facilitate oil trade, while suspending restrictions under a range of sanctions authorities that have constrained Iran's energy exports for decades.

For years, Iran has built an extensive sanctions-evasion network to keep its oil flowing to international markets. The system relies on a large "shadow fleet" of tankers, ship-to-ship transfers, intermediaries and opaque financial arrangements designed to conceal the origin and destination of Iranian crude.

Oil exports remain the backbone of Iran's economy and a critical source of government revenue. By allowing Iranian crude and petroleum products to be sold more openly and through conventional financial channels, the waiver provides one of the strongest economic incentives yet for Tehran to convert the current understanding into a permanent deal.

Iranian officials portrayed the move as evidence that negotiations were delivering tangible economic benefits.

Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Iran had also secured an agreement on the release of frozen assets.

"In Switzerland we agreed on the release of $12 billion in frozen assets," Ghalibaf said in remarks carried by state media.

He also argued that the negotiations had helped reduce violence in Lebanon, one of the most contentious issues during the talks.

"Since we entered the Swiss negotiations, we have seen that the enemy's fire against Lebanon has stopped and a large part of the people have returned to their homes," he said.

Ghalibaf said Iran would continue pursuing its objectives in Lebanon through the diplomatic process.

"With the decision made in Switzerland, we will achieve the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Lebanon in these talks, and we will not abandon it until we achieve a result."

His remarks are likely to fuel criticism from opponents of the agreement, who argue Washington has granted sweeping economic concessions before securing major commitments from Tehran on its nuclear program or regional activities.

Critics have pointed in particular to the scale of the sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets, arguing that the administration is moving ahead with incentives while many of the most difficult issues remain unresolved.

Supporters of the agreement, meanwhile, argue that the measures are intended to build momentum for negotiations, secure nuclear inspections and reduce the risk of renewed conflict in the region.

The proposal points to one of the more striking ironies of the emerging US-Iran agreement: using Iranian assets to buy American products from a country the Islamic Republic has long cast as the "Great Satan" and a threat to the revolution.

Speaking in Switzerland on Monday, US Vice President JD Vance said Washington could agree to unfreeze Iranian assets for purchases of American products such as soybeans, corn and wheat.

"If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people," Vance said, adding that the United States and Qatar would oversee the process.

The proposal marks one of the clearest signs yet that the Trump administration may be shifting from its longstanding "maximum pressure" approach toward a strategy centered on incentives and compliance.

It has also revived questions about whether limited economic engagement could eventually evolve into something that once seemed unimaginable: renewed trade between Iran and the United States.

Vance said the proposal was developed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and one of the lead US negotiators, together with Qatari officials.

Close allies turn sworn adversaries

Before the 1979 revolution, Iran was one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East and an important market for American goods and services.

"There was no embargo, no sanctions and no limitation," said Mohamad Machine-Chian, economist and journalist at Iran International. "Iranian industrial infrastructure is American to begin with," Machine-Chian said.

The revolution transformed that relationship. The hostage crisis, sanctions and decades of political hostility largely froze direct commerce between the two countries.

At the same time, the Islamic Republic built much of its identity around opposition to the United States. Iranian leaders frequently portrayed American economic and cultural influence as a threat to the revolution, while late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei repeatedly warned against what he described as Western "cultural aggression."

A market that never disappeared

Yet American products never entirely disappeared from Iran.

Machine-Chian said some US goods continued reaching the country through intermediaries, often passing through several countries and layers of traders before reaching Iranian consumers.

The arrangement was costly and inefficient, but demand remained. And it led to a contradiction that persists today. While many Iranians continued to seek out American products, the country’s rulers repeatedly warned against them.

The Islamic Republic has long viewed unrestricted American economic and cultural influence with suspicion, arguing that it could undermine the values the revolution sought to promote. Khamenei often described such influence as a form of "cultural aggression."

"There is a great deal of potential between Iran and the US," Machine-Chian said. "Iran remains the last untapped developing market in the world … Iranian people love American products and would love a good deal to be able to buy and sell, trade with America."

Still, he cautioned against assuming the latest proposal signals a broader economic opening.

"The result will be decided by compliance, the negotiations and the political aspect of it all," he said. "I wouldn't hold my breath."

Will American goods reach ordinary Iranians?

Supporters of the proposal argue that using frozen assets to purchase food and agricultural products could help ease economic pressure on ordinary Iranians without handing Tehran unrestricted cash.

Mahdi Ghodsi, Economist and Leader of the International Economics Group at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw) and Senior Fellow at the Centre for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG), said the arrangement could help stabilize prices and reduce pressure on Iran's currency reserves.

"It means there is a lower pressure on currency reserves," Ghodsi said. "There could be some stabilization in the currency market of Iran."

He argued that preventing further economic deterioration is important not only for Iran's economy but for ordinary households already struggling with soaring costs.

But Ghodsi also warned about oversight.

"The regime is corrupt. The regime is a kleptocracy," he said. "We cannot be sure that they don't benefit from such behavior to fill their pockets."

Critics, however, argue that the success of any such arrangement would depend on how strictly it is monitored.

Max Meizlish, a sanctions expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former US Treasury official, warned that humanitarian trade does not automatically guarantee humanitarian outcomes.

He said Washington would need safeguards to ensure goods purchased with frozen Iranian assets actually reach ordinary people and are not diverted through networks linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"The question is whether they might be providing an indirect form of support to the IRGC," Meizlish said.

Without a transparent mechanism, he warned, American goods intended for civilians could end up strengthening the very actors Washington says it wants to constrain.

Meizlish also questioned the administration's broader shift in approach.

Just days before the latest proposal, US officials were still describing Iranian oil revenues as a major source of funding for Tehran's armed forces, regional partners and proxies.

"Iran's oil and petroleum exports are a primary source of revenue for its armed forces, terrorist partners and proxies," the State Department wrote in a report sent to Congress on June 16.

For critics, the contrast is striking: a government that only days ago warned that Iranian revenues fund armed groups is now considering a framework that could unlock billions of dollars in Iranian assets under a US-approved arrangement.

Whether the proposal becomes a meaningful opening or remains a narrowly defined humanitarian mechanism remains unclear. Whatever its economic impact, however, the symbolism is difficult to miss.

A state founded on opposition to the United States may soon use billions of dollars in frozen assets to purchase American goods, while a US administration once committed to maximum pressure is increasingly betting on incentives instead.

The broadcaster said in a statement published on Sunday that the operation involved accounts created on messaging platforms including WhatsApp and Telegram that falsely presented themselves as managers, reporters and producers working for the network.

“The main objective of these deceptive contacts is to make fraudulent interview requests or distribute malicious links designed to hack devices, steal sensitive information and conduct phishing attacks,” the statement said.

Iran International attributed the operation to hackers linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, describing the activity as a coordinated effort aimed at individuals who regularly interact with the network.

According to the statement, the fake accounts have contacted a range of public figures and invited them to participate in interviews or engage through links sent via messaging applications.

The broadcaster urged journalists, experts, activists and guests appearing on its programs to verify the identity of anyone claiming to represent the network before responding to messages.

It advised recipients to confirm the authenticity of contacts through official communication channels, including email addresses using the Volantmedia.net domain.

The network also warned users not to click on links sent through suspicious messages, particularly those related to unfamiliar online interview platforms, identity verification requests or file attachments.

Iran International called on anyone receiving such messages to block and report the accounts involved and to notify local security authorities of suspected phishing attempts.

The broadcaster said it condemned what it described as unlawful actions targeting the security of activists and freedom of expression.

“Security and privacy for our experts and guests remain a priority,” the statement said.

Iran International added that it would pursue technical and legal action regarding the cyber campaign through international channels.