Insulin costs soar in Iran as insurance fails to keep up

The interview was interrupted while Ghalibaf was explaining the mechanism for releasing Iranian assets abroad.

Video of the broadcast shows his remarks being cut off abruptly, followed by a black screen before the channel switched to other programming.

IRIB later said the interview would continue in a second installment on Wednesday, adding that this had been announced in an on-screen ticker at the end of the program.

Parliament says broadcaster gave no notice

In a statement, parliament's media office said the interview had been recorded more than two hours before broadcast and delivered in full to IRIB.

It said that if the broadcaster had decided not to air parts of the interview, it should have coordinated with parliament beforehand. Instead, it said, "The interview was stopped in the middle of its broadcast without any prior notice."

• 

  Hardline revolt targets Ghalibaf over US agreement

The statement said the cut section covered some of the most sensitive issues in the interview: possible IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, efforts to release frozen Iranian assets, the reported $300 billion reconstruction credit in the US-Iran MoU, responses to remarks by US President Donald Trump, and what it called Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s strategic message last month.

Video of missing segment circulates

Several Iranian media outlets later published what they described as a brief clip from the unaired portion of the interview.

In the footage, Ghalibaf defended the mechanism for releasing Iranian funds, saying critics ignored that similar humanitarian purchase arrangements had existed for years.

"Where were these purchases made over the past 15 years? Weren't the letters of credit opened in London?" Ghalibaf said.

"Why has this suddenly become an issue? Because they do not want to admit that this memorandum of understanding opened the way for OFAC authorization. This is the power of the Islamic Republic. Be proud of it and stand by it. This document is America's defeat, and we achieved it with dignity," he added.

Iranian media reported that about 20 minutes of the interview had not been aired.

• 

  Ghalibaf pushes for the role many thought he already had

Online speculation

Messages sent by viewers to Iran International suggested the interview was cut as Ghalibaf referred to an earlier agreement under late president Ebrahim Raisi that enabled about $6 billion in Iranian funds to be transferred from South Korea to Qatar for humanitarian purchases.

Other audience messages linked the interruption to reports that a senior IRIB executive had returned to the broadcaster after leaving following another controversial live broadcast last month.

During that program, hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian disclosed what he described as confidential correspondence from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei criticizing the US-Iran negotiations before the interview was abruptly cut short. IRIB later said Nabavian's remarks had violated the law and announced the executive's departure.

Iranian news website Jamaran cited unnamed sources saying the executive had returned to work on Tuesday and raised questions about whether the personnel change was connected to the interruption of Ghalibaf's interview. No official has confirmed or denied the report.

Broader political divisions

The dispute over Ghalibaf's interview came amid growing signs of divisions within Iran's ruling establishment over the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

Several Iranian media outlets portrayed the interruption as evidence of widening political rifts. Fararu said it reflected the growing influence within state broadcasting of allies of hardline politician Saeed Jalili and the ultraconservative Paydari Front, arguing that IRIB could no longer tolerate "even the official narrative of the conservative parliament speaker."

The outlet described the episode as "factional monopolization," "another crossed red line," and "media self-sabotage at one of the country's most sensitive political moments."

The controversy follows weeks of public infighting over negotiations with Washington. Hardline figures have repeatedly accused Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and President Masoud Pezeshkian of making excessive concessions, while Ghalibaf and his allies have defended the agreement and pushed back against the criticism.

Regime Change, published this week, portrays a president who continued to believe diplomacy remained possible almost until the operation began.

Yet as negotiations stalled, he grew increasingly convinced Iran was vulnerable, repeatedly telling advisers he had "a good feeling" about striking and, according to the authors Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, wanted to "wipe out the regime and figure out the details later."

Drawing on interviews with senior administration officials, the book reconstructs the White House debate over diplomacy, regime change and military action, including a CIA assessment that Ali Khamenei could likely be targeted if the United States decided to strike him.

The book says Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner continued negotiating with Iranian officials in Oman and Switzerland almost until the attack.

Among the proposals was an offer to supply Iran with free nuclear fuel for the lifetime of its civilian program, intended to test whether Tehran’s insistence on uranium enrichment was driven by energy needs or by a desire to preserve a possible pathway to a nuclear weapon.

Witkoff and Kushner ultimately concluded Iran was "playing games" and dragging out negotiations in the hope of outlasting Trump's presidency, convincing Trump that diplomacy had reached its limits.

At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urging Trump to act, arguing Iran was unusually vulnerable and that the opportunity to strike might not last.

The book says Netanyahu presented Trump with a four-part plan: eliminate Iran's senior leadership, dismantle its military, topple the Islamic Republic and pave the way for a successor government.

As part of the pitch, Netanyahu showed Trump a video outlining how a post-Islamic Republic transition could unfold and identified figures he believed could help lead a new government, including Iranian exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi.

Trump was captivated by the presentation. But while he appeared persuaded that the first two objectives were achievable, he remained less convinced the latter stages would materialize.

Trump concluded that broader questions about regime change would be "their problem," though the book does not clarify whether he was referring to Israel, the Iranian people or another party. Instead, they write, Trump remained focused on what he believed were achievable military objectives: targeting Iran's leadership and dismantling its military capabilities.

Senior members of Trump’s national security team were deeply skeptical of Netanyahu’s vision for regime change. CIA Director John Ratcliffe reportedly called the scenario “farcical,” and Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed it outright, cutting in: "In other words, it's bullshit."

The Final Situation Room

One of the book’s most striking scenes comes in the final Situation Room meeting before the attack, when Ratcliffe briefed Trump on intelligence suggesting Iran’s senior leadership was expected to gather at Khamenei’s compound in Tehran.

If regime change simply meant killing Khamenei, Ratcliffe reportedly told the president, “we can probably do that.”

The account also describes sharp divisions inside Trump’s national security team.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine warned that a prolonged conflict could drain US weapons stockpiles, strain missile interceptor inventories already supporting Ukraine and Israel, put American forces at risk and complicate efforts to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

Vice President JD Vance repeated his opposition to military action, but told Trump he would support the president’s decision if he chose to proceed.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who favored continuing “maximum pressure” on Iran, argued against making regime change the objective. “If our goal is regime change or an uprising, we shouldn’t do it,” he said, adding that destroying Iran’s missile program was “a goal we can achieve.”

The authors write that Trump listened to each adviser before reaching his decision.

"I think we need to do it," he concluded.

According to the book, Trump gave the final order the following afternoon while travelling to Texas.

Seventeen days into the war, the authors describe finding Trump in the Oval Office with printouts of maple trees spread across the Resolute Desk instead of military maps.

“I’m ordering trees for the White House,” Trump told them. “I know how to buy good trees. Maples.”

For months, analysts have debated whether Trump always intended to strike Iran or whether diplomacy served primarily as a delaying tactic.

Regime Change presents a more complicated picture: a president who kept negotiations alive almost until the eve of military action, increasingly trusted his instincts over some advisers’ warnings, and ultimately chose to strike while leaving unresolved what would come next.

The US-Iran memorandum of understanding failed to address human rights and risked leaving Iranians without accountability, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran Mai Sato said, according to a report by Geneva Solutions on Wednesday.

“The Iranian people are barely visible in the framework,” Sato said in the interview conducted last Friday. “It serves geopolitical interests while leaving the Iranian people behind.”

She also said the crackdown on Iran’s nationwide protests should not be forgotten as attention turns to the war and US-Iran diplomacy.

“The war started soon after the crackdown on the nationwide protests that began at the end of December 2025, when the Iranian people spoke up and asked for fundamental change – and I think that should not be forgotten,” Sato said.

She warned that an agreement that excludes human rights could return Iran to its pre-war conditions or make repression worse.

“An MoU, and the final agreement, that doesn't address the human rights situation risks simply reverting to how things were before or worse enabling further repression through a continued lack of accountability,” she said.

Sato said the MoU focused almost entirely on military withdrawal, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and nuclear commitments, with only a reconstruction fund pointing indirectly to the public’s needs.

“It’s worth noting, though, that not all of the economic hardship stems from the war or sanctions; domestic policy decisions have also played a part,” she said.

Sato said she wanted any final deal to include a halt to executions, the release of people arbitrarily detained, a guarantee of open internet access and protection of civic space.

She also said she had contacted US authorities about alleged rights violations during the war but had not received a response.

“I have indeed reached out, but haven't received a response,” she said.

The Saint Peter Evangelical Church, widely referred to locally as the Qavam church after its location on Si-e-Tir Street (formerly Qavam-ol-Saltaneh Street), has served Tehran’s small Protestant community for nearly 150 years.

“Six security forces went into the church and sat through a session, saying they wanted to ‘identify’ people,” said Sasan Tavassoli, a US-based minister with the Presbyterian Church in Iran. “They said they’ll return later to evacuate those living on the premises and take over.”

Established in 1876 by American missionaries on land granted by the Qajar monarch Naser al-Din Shah, the church has long been a focal point for Armenians and Assyrians in Iran - whose numbers have dramatically declined under the Islamic Republic.

Tavassoli noted the property’s significant value: “It’s worth tens of millions of dollars,” describing it as spanning “several hectares” of prime real estate in central Tehran.

The Evangelical Church of Iran has issued an urgent appeal to the international community to intervene.

In a letter signed by the Executive Secretary of the Synod of the Evangelical Church of Iran in Diaspora (SECID), church leaders expressed “severe distress” and accused the regime of becoming increasingly emboldened since negotiations towards a potential US-Iran deal began. “The regime is no longer afraid of the international community,” the letter states.

The authorities have already seized a 10,000 sq m garden belonging to the church, now reportedly occupied by four IRGC officials. A new deed has been issued in the IRGC’s name, with church employees and members now deemed trespassers on what was historically their own property.

Tehran claims the church had improperly rented parts of the premises to members.

Church leaders say the move fits a broader pattern of pressure on Iran’s tiny Protestant community. The latest threats follow the destruction of the Evangelical Church of Mashhad on 4 June.

The synod’s letter warns: “It is clear that without a swift response to this crisis, we may be deprived of our last remaining church centres in the country.” It calls for international action to halt “the ongoing process of expelling Christians from their places of worship and the occupation and destruction of these properties.”

Iran’s Christian communities, particularly Protestants who conduct services in Persian, have faced increasing restrictions since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

While recognised religious minorities such as Armenian and Assyrian Christians have some protected status, evangelical and Protestant groups have repeatedly reported surveillance, forced closures and property seizures. St Peter’s itself was earlier ordered to stop Persian-language services.

As one of the last functioning Protestant sites in the capital, the fate of the Qavam church has become a symbol of the shrinking space for minority religious practice in the Islamic Republic.

Sources inside Iran told Iran International that Khamenei does not intend to extend Eje'i’s term for another five years, breaking with a practice followed for nearly four decades in which judiciary chiefs have usually served two consecutive five-year terms.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision is not aimed at judicial reform but is part of a broader reshaping of power after the recent war.

They said the new supreme leader is seeking to replace key officials in major state institutions with figures more closely aligned with him.

Eje'i’s expected removal could mark one of the first major signs of Khamenei’s effort to rebuild control over the Islamic Republic’s judicial, security and political apparatus after the transfer of power.

Hardliners step up pressure on Eje'i

The decision comes amid growing criticism of Eje'i from hardline figures after the names of Supreme National Security Council members who voted in favor of a memorandum of understanding with the United States were disclosed.

Critics say Eje'i’s vote was at odds with Khamenei’s stated position, after the leader said in a letter that he had, in principle, held a different view on the memorandum of understanding.

Signs of dissatisfaction with Eje'i’s five-year record have also appeared in recent official and semi-official commentary close to the power structure.

In a message marking Judiciary Week, Khamenei did not clearly endorse Eje'i’s continuation in office. Instead, he addressed the judiciary as an institution and called for the “actualization” of demands previously made by former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The message repeated calls for the implementation of the judicial transformation document, fighting corruption inside the judiciary, reviving public rights, blocking the use of recommendations and lobbying, and improving communication with the public.

Eje'i seeks to defend his record

A day later, Eje'i published a letter to Khamenei in deferential language, defending the judiciary’s performance and pledging to continue the path of “judicial transformation.”

“I and all components of the judiciary consider ourselves obliged to carry out Your Excellency’s binding commands precisely, swiftly and without any reduction,” Eje'i wrote.

Media outlets and figures close to the establishment criticized Eje'i for not publishing such a letter before Khamenei’s message. Some also described the new leader’s renewed emphasis on his father’s demands as a negative assessment of Eje'i’s record, arguing that their repetition showed the judiciary had failed to deliver practical results under him.

Rival factions inside the establishment have also stepped up attacks on Eje'i, accusing him of distancing himself from the leadership’s demands.

Media close to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and President Masoud Pezeshkian have described the attacks as part of an effort by the faction aligned with Saeed Jalili, a member of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and the Paydari Front to create divisions among senior officials and weaken the postwar political path.

Media close to the judiciary and Eje'i’s supporters have sought to portray his five-year record as successful, citing reduced imprisonment, electronic court proceedings, shorter trials, anti-corruption efforts and public outreach.

Rights groups point to record of repression

Human rights groups and activists say Eje'i is not a reformist figure but a long-standing part of the Islamic Republic’s repressive judicial and security apparatus.

They point to his record in the Special Clerical Court, the Ministry of Intelligence, and later as first deputy and head of the judiciary, saying his tenure has been marked by continued heavy sentences against protesters, political activists, journalists, prisoners of conscience and minorities.

Rights advocates say the judiciary under Eje'i has continued to act as the legal and executive arm of security institutions in political and security cases.

They also argue that replacing Eje'i alone would not bring meaningful change without structural reform, an end to security interference in judicial cases, guaranteed access to lawyers, a halt to forced confessions, the annulment of political verdicts and respect for fair trial standards.