• العربية
  • فارسی
Brand
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Theme
  • Language
    • العربية
    • فارسی
  • Iran Insight
  • Politics
  • Economy
  • Analysis
  • Special Report
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
All rights reserved for Volant Media UK Limited
volant media logo

US, Iran clash at UN over Bahrain attacks and Hormuz tensions

Jul 2, 2026, 20:26 GMT+1Updated: 21:37 GMT+1
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz addresses a United Nations Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, at the United Nations headquarters, in New York City, U.S., June 29, 2026.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz addresses a United Nations Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, at the United Nations headquarters, in New York City, U.S., June 29, 2026.

The United States and Iran clashed at the UN Security Council on Thursday as US Ambassador Michael Waltz warned that President Donald Trump’s patience was “not unlimited” in the face of Iranian attacks on its Arab neighbors and commercial shipping.

The Security Council's meeting followed Iran's drone and missile attacks targeting Bahrain and Kuwait over the weekend, and its attacks on commercial vessels in or near the Strait of Hormuz, incidents that have threatened the June 17 memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US.

Ambassador Waltz said Iran had continued attacks despite diplomatic efforts and accused it of disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz in violation of its MoU commitments.

“I cannot stress enough the possibility of real transformative positive opportunity for the nation and people of Iran is on the table,” Waltz said, adding: “But President Trump’s patience is not unlimited.”

He said Iran "cannot, and we cannot allow it to, hold the world’s economy hostage," urging Tehran to stop attacks on its neighbors and keep the international waterway open.

Bahrain’s foreign minister Abdullatif Al-Zayani, in turn, accused Iran of "deliberately" targeting civilian facilities, critical infrastructure and residential areas, resulting in the deaths of three innocent civilians and injuries to 465 others during its attacks on the Arab state.

Iran’s representative rejected the US and Bahraini statements as baseless and accused Washington and its allies of trying to silence Tehran’s position at the council. But Waltz pushed back sharply.

“Let me remind you where you are. This is not Tehran. This is the United States of America. This is the United Nations Security Council. You will not silence this body,” Waltz responded.

Waltz displayed photographs of damage in Bahrain, asking whether civilians, hotel guests and first responders hit by Iranian strikes were “lying.”

He rejected Iran’s claim of self-defense, saying the closure of international waterways and attacks on Singaporean and Panamanian-flagged vessels could not be justified under the UN Charter.

“It is a cynical, sad, and sick attempt at global blackmail. Plain and simple,” Waltz said.

Iran’s representative responded that 10 regional countries, including Bahrain, had facilitated US and Israeli attacks by allowing their territory and airspace to be used.

“I think that it should be clear for our neighboring countries that the presence of American bases in their countries not only does not bring security to their countries but also make their countries vulnerable,” Amir-Saeed Iravani said.

He also accused Washington of blocking international vessels from reaching Iranian ports.

Al-Zayani rejected Iran’s arguments, saying Security Council Resolution 2817 had already condemned Iranian attacks on neighboring states and threats to international navigation.

Addressing the same meeting, UN Assistant Secretary-General Elizabeth Spehar said the Secretary-General welcomed the joint decision by the United States and Iran “to de-escalate and exercise restraint,” saying the MoU offered “a measure of hope that dialogue and diplomacy can regain momentum."

Diplomatic efforts to implement the June 17 memorandum remain under strain following two days of talks in Doha, which covered frozen assets, the Strait of Hormuz and Lebanon.

The talks paused on July 1 and are expected to resume after funeral processions for slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, set to begin in Tehran on July 4 and end with his burial in Mashhad on July 9.

Most Viewed

How Trump decided to strike Iran: new book reveals final hours
1

How Trump decided to strike Iran: new book reveals final hours

2

IRGC moves to seize historic Protestant church in Tehran

3

Iranians barely visible in US-Iran deal, UN rapporteur says

4

Iran parliament cries censorship after Ghalibaf interview cut short

5
ANALYSIS

Mojtaba Khamenei’s key word for Iran’s future: a people given a mission

Banner
Banner
Banner

Spotlight

  • Talk of dissolving IRGC revives debate over Iran's dual military

    Talk of dissolving IRGC revives debate over Iran's dual military

  • Mojtaba Khamenei’s key word for Iran’s future: a people given a mission
    ANALYSIS

    Mojtaba Khamenei’s key word for Iran’s future: a people given a mission

  • Iran parliament cries censorship after Ghalibaf interview cut short

    Iran parliament cries censorship after Ghalibaf interview cut short

  • How Trump decided to strike Iran: new book reveals final hours

    How Trump decided to strike Iran: new book reveals final hours

  • Khamenei to end Eje'i’s judiciary tenure after one term
    EXCLUSIVE

    Khamenei to end Eje'i’s judiciary tenure after one term

  • Iran among top foreign espionage threats to Germany, security report says

    Iran among top foreign espionage threats to Germany, security report says

  • Two-week banking disruption leaves Iranians struggling to access money
    VOICES FROM IRAN

    Two-week banking disruption leaves Iranians struggling to access money

•
•
•

More Stories

Trump says US getting along well with Iran as Doha technical talks end

Jul 1, 2026, 20:26 GMT+1
Trump says US getting along well with Iran as Doha technical talks end
100%
US President Donald Trump speaks at the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC, US, June 29, 2026.

Iran said its Doha meetings with mediators had concluded Wednesday as US President Donald Trump said recent meetings in Qatar had been positive and Tehran’s denuclearization was progressing well.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the Iranian delegation’s talks in Doha had concluded, state news agency IRNA reported. He said the meetings were held with Qatari and Pakistani delegations and without the presence of a US delegation.

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani held talks in Doha on Wednesday with US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on US-Iran negotiations and developments in Lebanon, the Amiri Diwan said.

A source with direct knowledge of the talks earlier told Reuters that indirect technical talks between Washington and Tehran had begun in Doha on Wednesday, mediated by Qatar and Pakistan. A senior Iranian official told Reuters the talks focused on Iran’s frozen assets and the Strait of Hormuz.

Doha talks and de-escalation

Axios reported, citing a US official, that Washington and Tehran had reached an understanding to “keep things quiet” for the coming week to allow progress on the memorandum of understanding “without missiles flying.”

“We have reached an understanding that we will keep things quiet for the coming week, so progress on all aspects of the MOU can be worked on in a productive environment, without missiles flying,” Axios quoted the official as saying.

The official added that Trump had been clear that “every time they shoot, we will shoot more — and at targets that further degrade their position in the Strait.”

Gharibabadi said a communication channel would be established to report and discuss breaches of the memorandum of understanding. He also said part of Iran’s $6 billion in frozen funds would be used to buy goods based on Tehran’s needs.

But Axios cited US officials as denying that any understanding had been reached in Doha on releasing the first tranche of frozen Iranian funds held in Qatar. Israeli outlet i24NEWS also reported, citing a US official, that no Iranian assets would be released unless the conditions of the memorandum of understanding were met.

US Vice President JD Vance said Washington still had “options” if Iran rebuilt its nuclear program, threatened its neighbors or funded terrorism. White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said negotiations were continuing toward a final deal to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but warned that the United States would fire back if Tehran attacked.

Hormuz remains flashpoint

The Strait of Hormuz remained central to the talks and to the fragile truce. Two senior Iranian sources told Reuters that Tehran was seeking international recognition of its control over the waterway, including the right to charge ships passing through it, and was prepared to use force if needed.

The sources said Iran would not move to other issues in peace talks with the United States until the matter was resolved and planned to begin charging ships for passage in mid-August if the interim agreement expired without an extension.

Shipping employers and unions said they would continue to treat Hormuz as a war zone until at least July 9, keeping double pay and refusal rights for covered seafarers after attacks killed at least 14 seafarers and hit more than 40 ships.

Iranian state TV said a foreign ship had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz after sailing outside a route designated by Iran. Tanker Trackers said the vessel was the Comoros-flagged tanker ARISTA, part of a US-sanctioned network linked to Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Iran’s slain security chief Ali Shamkhani.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency warned airlines to continue avoiding airspace over Iran, Iraq and Lebanon and to exercise caution across the wider Middle East, citing uncertainty over the durability of the US-Iran ceasefire.

Israel warns of further Iran strikes

Article 1 of the memorandum of understanding concerns the ceasefire in Lebanon, where Washington has told Tehran it intends to restrain Israel and ensure it abides by the truce.

During the Doha talks, US negotiators told Iran they intended to continue restraining Israel and ensure it abides by the ceasefire in Lebanon, according to a regional source cited by Axios. The source said Washington viewed Israel’s withdrawal from two pilot zones in southern Lebanon as a first step that could lead to further withdrawals if properly implemented.

But on Wednesday Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would remain in a “protective strip” in southern Lebanon for as long as necessary, while adding that Israel would “do everything” to eventually reach a peace agreement with Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also said Israel had twice carried out “proactive preemptive attacks” against Iran and would strike a third time if necessary.

“We crushed the nuclear program it was advancing and removed an existential threat from over the citizens of Israel,” Katz said.

Netanyahu also said a third confrontation with Iran was possible “if necessary.”

How Trump decided to strike Iran: new book reveals final hours

Jul 1, 2026, 09:09 GMT+1
•
Negar Mojtahedi
How Trump decided to strike Iran: new book reveals final hours
100%
US President Donald Trump looks on as he sits in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, June 26, 2026.

US President Donald Trump was still pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran even as military plans for an attack were falling into place, according to a new book that offers a detailed account of how diplomacy gave way to strikes on the Islamic Republic.

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.

Iran media urged to avoid spotlighting political disputes during Khamenei funeral

Jun 30, 2026, 15:36 GMT+1
Iran media urged to avoid spotlighting political disputes during Khamenei funeral
100%

A confidential directive by Iran’s top security body urged media outlets to avoid spotlighting political disputes during slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s funeral and limit coverage of US talks and regional developments, according to a copy obtained by Iran International.

The directive by the Supreme National Security Council said that, with programs linked to what it called the “historic funeral procession of the martyred Leader of the Revolution” beginning Friday, media outlets should help preserve national cohesion and maintain a focused media narrative.

It recommended that issues related to follow-up on the Islamabad memorandum of understanding — including the “balanced implementation of commitments,” especially over Hormuz, developments inside Lebanon, what it called the destructive role of the Lebanese government, the need to end Israeli attacks and opposition to externally imposed solutions — be gradually removed from media priority over the next 48 hours.

Instead, the directive said media capacity should mainly be used to explain the “personal, intellectual, cultural, political, historical and national dimensions of Iran’s martyr,” reflect “the presence and solidarity of the people,” and provide the “most magnificent possible coverage” of the ceremonies.

It said that if any “transgression or aggression” by enemies occurred during the period, “the issue of continuing defense alongside the holding of extensive ceremonies related to the funeral procession will naturally receive attention.”

The directive also urged outlets to avoid amplifying “internal political disputes, factional disagreements, media controversies” and issues that could polarize public opinion or divert attention from what it called a “national and historic occasion.”

News and analysis related to “negotiations, the agreement and other political and regional developments” should be covered “only to the extent necessary,” it said, warning media outlets not to turn those issues into the main focus of coverage or reproduce and amplify “rival media narratives about Iran’s defeat or retreat.”

Pezeshkian says Khamenei backed US MoU amid attacks on negotiators

Jun 30, 2026, 09:10 GMT+1
Pezeshkian says Khamenei backed US MoU amid attacks on negotiators
100%
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian meets Ayatollah Hashem Hosseini Bushehri, chairman of the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom, in Qom, Iran, June 30, 2026.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian defended the country’s negotiating team on Tuesday, saying the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the United States was reached in full coordination with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

“Unfortunately, some groups, in line with the psychological operations of hostile media, are trying to weaken this achievement by attacking the negotiating team and questioning national decisions,” he said.

He added that the memorandum of understanding was reached within the framework of the Islamic Republic’s broader policies and with the support of the Supreme National Security Council.

Pezeshkian made the comments during a meeting with members of the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom, an influential body of senior Shi'ite clerics.

The remarks came as Pezeshkian’s government faced mounting pressure from ultraconservative factions over the memorandum of understanding with the United States.

In recent weeks, some hardline figures have accused the president and the negotiating team of making concessions and questioned whether key security decisions had the backing of the Supreme Leader.

The attacks have exposed divisions within Iran’s conservative camp, with some establishment-aligned conservatives pushing back against the most radical critics.

  • Far-right overreach against Pezeshkian exposes cracks in the hardline camp

    Far-right overreach against Pezeshkian exposes cracks in the hardline camp

At Tuesday’s meeting, Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom Chairman Ayatollah Hashem Hosseini Bushehri voiced support for the negotiating team and said running the country under current conditions was difficult.

Other members of the group reportedly raised concerns including alleged violations of parts of the Iran-US memorandum of understanding, the need to explain the talks more clearly to the public.

100%

The president insisted that Iran would not retreat from its national rights or core principles, adding that the dominant view in the Supreme National Security Council had been to use diplomacy to consolidate gains made on the battlefield and protect national interests.

Pezeshkian said his government had pursued negotiations from a position of “dignity, power and national interest” and would not give in to imposed demands.

He said the final text of the agreement with the US had been reviewed by expert and security bodies before receiving what he called firm backing from the Supreme National Security Council.

Pezeshkian also said much of his government’s capacity over the past two years had been spent managing crises.

“Over the past two years, a large part of the government’s management capacity has been spent on managing crises, reducing the effects of foreign pressure and preventing the consequences of these challenges from being transferred to people’s daily lives,” he said.

Every flare-up narrows space for diplomacy in Tehran

Jun 30, 2026, 03:27 GMT+1
•
Behrouz Turani
Every flare-up narrows space for diplomacy in Tehran
100%
A screengrab from a handout video showing a missile launched by Iran, released on June 28, 2026.

Intermittent US-Iran escalations are giving Iran's anti-US hardliners fresh ammunition, strengthening their case against diplomacy and putting the country's pro-negotiation camp under growing pressure.

The latest exchange of strikes has allowed opponents of the Tehran-Washington memorandum of understanding (MoU) to argue that even a limited agreement cannot prevent conflict or deliver the economic relief promised to ordinary Iranians.

A majority of members of the Assembly of Experts seized on the renewed tensions over the weekend by issuing an unusually political statement questioning key elements of the MoU.

They criticized the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, insisted Iran's nuclear rights must remain outside negotiations and called for those responsible for the killing of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—including US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—to be punished, saying anyone with access to them had a religious duty to kill them.

The statement was followed by a commentary in the hardline newspaper Kayhan, whose editor Hossein Shariatmadari echoed calls for retaliation against Trump.

The intervention marked one of the clearest signs yet that recent military exchanges have emboldened factions that have long opposed negotiations with Washington.

At the same time, hardliners renewed attacks on President Massoud Pezeshkian and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, arguing that diplomacy has failed to produce either a durable ceasefire or meaningful economic relief.

Throughout the past month, outlets such as Kayhan and Raja News, along with ultrahardline factions including the Paydari Party, have steadily intensified their criticism of the 60-day framework agreement.

Kayhan has described the MoU as "diplomatic capitulation under Western pressure," while Raja News has portrayed it as a retreat from Iran's red lines without securing comprehensive sanctions relief.

By linking economic hardship directly to continuing military pressure, these groups have shifted the domestic debate from how best to implement the agreement to whether negotiations with an adversary still engaged in military action can produce any meaningful benefit.

From their perspective, each exchange of strikes reinforces the argument that Washington cannot be trusted and that diplomacy merely gives the United States and Israel time to regroup.

Renewed maritime incidents and the slow pace of sanctions relief have become central to that narrative.

Hardline lawmakers including Kamran Ghazanfari and Mahmoud Nabavian have likewise criticized provisions allowing the resumption of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that Iran has reopened one of its most important strategic levers without securing sufficient concessions in return.

More pragmatic conservatives and state-aligned outlets, including the Ghalibaf-affiliated Khorasan newspaper, have found themselves defending the agreement as a state-approved tactical pause rather than a final settlement—an indication that the political debate is increasingly being fought on hardliners' terms.

The latest military exchanges have not fundamentally altered the balance of power inside the Islamic Republic, but they have strengthened the political position of those who opposed negotiations from the outset.

Whether that advantage proves temporary or enduring will depend largely on whether the ceasefire holds and whether the negotiations begin producing tangible results.

For the government, the immediate challenge extends beyond managing relations with Washington. It must also persuade skeptical political and clerical constituencies that diplomacy can still improve Iran's security and economic position.

Failure to do so could further strengthen arguments that negotiations have produced neither stability nor prosperity, narrowing the political space available to diplomats such as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and others advocating continued engagement with the United States.

Whether the current ceasefire ultimately survives may prove less significant than what the latest escalation has already changed inside Iran's domestic debate. Each renewed exchange of fire gives opponents of diplomacy another opportunity to argue that negotiations cannot deliver either security or economic relief.

Unless the ceasefire becomes durable and visible economic benefits begin to emerge, the balance of political momentum is likely to continue shifting toward those advocating a more confrontational course.