Ukraine says it struck vessels carrying Iran-linked military cargoes in Caspian Sea

The newspaper said the operation was centered on Unit 700, a logistics and smuggling arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force that Britain sanctioned in 2024 for facilitating activities intended to destabilize the UK and other countries.

According to the report, an Iranian official described Britain's support for US military operations against Iran as making it a target, telling the newspaper: "Our armed forces' message was very clear yesterday - stay away from the carnage."

The official also said: "At the moment we have people right there in London ... They wait for us to tell them what to do," adding that Tehran could "easily make London unsafe" and that "we do not need a missile to target London. It's easier than that."

A second unnamed Iranian official went further, saying Iran had people in Britain who could "even target their prime minister's house" if Tehran chose to do so, according to the newspaper.

Smuggling network

The Telegraph said two people smugglers familiar with routes into Europe told the newspaper that parts of the network were controlled by the Iranian government.

• 

  UK outlaws support for IRGC under new national security powers

One smuggler was quoted as saying that "some legs of the network" used to move migrants into Europe "are actually owned by the government," while another said controlling a route meant "you can do what you like."

The report said the routes, originally established to move weapons, money and supplies to Iran-backed groups in the Middle East, were also being used to move migrants into Europe, including Britain.

Security experts skeptical

The newspaper said British security experts questioned whether Iran had the capability to establish long-term covert networks in Britain.

It quoted Lynette Nusbacher, a former senior adviser to the Cabinet Office on security matters, as saying Iran lacked the "strategic patience" to plant genuine covert agents in Britain, while Kristian Gustafson of Brunel University said Tehran's objective could instead be to create enough fear to weaken British support for US operations.

The survey by the Iranian Students Polling Agency (ISPA), conducted between June 15 and June 21, found that 46.1% of internet users said the shutdown of international internet access made them "very" or "to a great extent" angry and frustrated. Another 47.1% said it caused little or no anger.

The poll found that 89.3% of Iranians aged 15 and older use the internet.

Among users, 38.8% said losing access to the global internet created serious difficulties communicating with friends and family, while 33.6% said the main impact was on entertainment, including watching videos and listening to music.

Almost one-third, or 29.6%, said their work and income would have been completely disrupted if international internet access had not been restored, underscoring the reliance of many Iranians on online connectivity for their livelihoods.

The survey also suggested the restrictions did not drive most users to state media. During the outage, 39.2% said they followed news through state television, while 21.3% relied on domestic social media platforms such as Baleh and Eitaa and 14.5% turned to satellite television channels.

The findings also highlighted widespread dissatisfaction with internet services. Some 72.3% of users said they were little or not at all satisfied with internet speed, while 56.9% said increasing internet speeds would be their top policy priority. Another 21.5% said reducing internet filtering should be the priority.

The survey found 61.1% opposed unrestricted, unfiltered internet access for government officials, while 24.6% supported such access.

The communications ministry has estimated the internet shutdown cost Iran's economy about 5 trillion rials ($58 million at the official exchange rate) a day, according to the report. The survey also found that 58% of respondents viewed internet-based businesses as a key driver of job creation.

The survey was conducted on behalf of the communications ministry among a sample of 4,545 people.

The dispute has reignited a long-running confrontation between Pezeshkian's administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), which reformist and pragmatic politicians have for years accused of partisan coverage and a pro-hardline editorial line.

The omitted remarks came during a televised interview in which Pezeshkian described how Iran's leadership decided to resume negotiations.

"After the Twelve-Day War, the martyred Supreme Leader officially announced that we would no longer negotiate with the United States," Pezeshkian said. "State television broadcast those statements as well."

According to the president, he and other senior officials later met Khamenei to explain the country's circumstances, reminding him that he himself had argued that a prolonged state of "neither war nor peace" was unsustainable.

"We asked, 'What should we do?' He instructed us to go and negotiate," Pezeshkian said.

"He also sent a message saying, 'Go and resolve the problem,' because it was not possible to continue under conditions of neither war nor peace."

Pezeshkian stressed that opening negotiations did not amount to a concession, adding that even now, despite what he described as "difficulties communicating with the Leader," the government's diplomatic steps continued to be taken "under his guidance and instructions."

The remarks appear to describe a distinction between Khamenei's public stance and his private guidance to senior officials, although Pezeshkian did not explain why the two differed.

The president's office later complained that the passage had been removed from the version broadcast by state television, prompting criticism from government supporters and renewed accusations that IRIB had selectively edited the interview.

The broadcaster has not publicly explained why the segment was omitted.

The clash is the latest in a series of disputes between Pezeshkian's administration and IRIB.

Since taking office, government officials and reformist politicians have repeatedly accused the broadcaster of favouring hardline political factions, selectively editing interviews and undermining the elected government through its news coverage.

IRIB has consistently rejected accusations of political bias, saying its editorial decisions are made according to professional standards.

“We’re talking to them right now,” Trump said Friday when asked whether Americans should expect major strikes. He said the United States could continue attacking Iran “piece by piece” or intensify the campaign “in a more rapid fashion,” while describing a negotiated agreement as the smarter option.

Trump said Iran appeared increasingly serious about reaching a deal but warned that negotiations could still fail. Any agreement, he said, must prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

His comments came after The New York Times reported that he had met senior advisers to consider intensifying US military operations against Iran. The discussions followed US Central Command’s announcement Thursday that it had completed a 13th consecutive night of strikes on Iranian military and maritime targets.

Persian Gulf states enter the fight

The Wall Street Journal reported that Bahrain and Kuwait secretly sent warplanes to strike drone- and missile-storage facilities and other military sites inside Iran in early July, marking their first direct retaliation against Tehran.

The United Arab Emirates provided intelligence and defensive air cover, according to the report. Bahrain and Kuwait both host US military bases and have repeatedly come under Iranian missile and drone attack.

Kuwait’s military said Friday that its air defenses were confronting “hostile” drones launched from Iran, while Bahrain said it had intercepted and destroyed several Iranian aerial attacks.

Iran also stepped up its warnings to countries supporting US military operations.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said countries that allowed the United States to use their bases or territory for attacks would place themselves “among the aggressors.”

Mediation channels

Pakistan and Oman were working to keep channels open between Washington and Tehran as fighting continued.

Pakistan was exploring a possible route to restart stalled US-Iran talks after a diplomatic push by China, three Pakistani sources told Reuters. They said major obstacles remained, including Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia and other regional states.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, meanwhile, accused Washington of a “breach of commitments” and “excessive demands” during a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart in Kyrgyzstan.

The Iranian and Omani foreign ministers also spoke by phone as an Omani delegation arrived in Tehran for talks on managing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the state-run IRNA news agency reported.

Maritime conflict spreads

Maritime tensions intensified across two of the region’s most important shipping routes.

The United States and Britain were planning a high-level meeting in London on forming an international coalition to protect commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington was seeking allied contributions including de-mining vessels, naval ships and drones.

In the Red Sea, the Saudi vessel NCC Masa suffered minor hull damage in an attack but continued to its destination after checks confirmed that the ship and crew were safe. The incident came four days after the Iran-backed Houthis announced an immediate naval blockade on Saudi-linked shipping through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

As fighting continued across the region, rhetoric from Tehran also pointed toward further escalation.

Major General Ali Abdollahi, commander of Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said Iran would kill one American service member for every Iranian citizen killed in US attacks.

“For every proud citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran who is martyred, one American force will be sent to hell,” Abdollahi was quoted as saying by IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News.

He added that Iran had prepared “free, direct tickets to hell” for US troops.

On Friday, Trump met his top advisors to discuss the possible escalation but later told reporters he had not yet decided whether to launch major new strikes. He at the same time warned that the US military is “locked and loaded” to escalate the campaign.

His comments came one day after he told Axios he was considering launching a military strike on Iran "larger than all previous attacks" and that he was close to making a decision.

Inside Iran, however, the focus quickly shifted from Trump's words to what they might signal.

International affairs analyst Amir-Ali Abolfath drew parallels with the opening hours of the war.

"I have the same feeling I had on the night of February 28th before the major attack," he wrote. "It may not happen tomorrow, but if the current trajectory continues, another day like that—or an even bigger one—could lie ahead."

Another widely shared post by X user Tohid Javadi reflected similar anxiety.

"All the signs point to extensive bombing of Iran in the coming hours and days. Unless Iran fully surrenders, this situation will continue."

Military exchanges widen

The speculation was reinforced by another night of military exchanges.

US Central Command carried out strikes mainly across southern Iran targeting military installations, logistics facilities and air defense systems.

Iran, meanwhile, continued attacks on US positions in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq's Kurdistan Region.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed it had struck a US base in Kuwait as well as an Amazon data centre in Bahrain, alleging the facility had provided intelligence support to the US military.

Iran's army also claimed attacks on Isa Air Base in Bahrain and Al-Azraq Air Base in Jordan.

In a separate statement, the IRGC urged civilians in those countries to remain at least 500 metres away from potential Iranian targets.

Social media activist Hatef Salehi argued that the scale of the American military buildup suggested Washington was preparing for more than coercive diplomacy.

"This enormous military buildup and deployment of advanced US equipment to the region is highly unlikely to be merely psychological or diplomatic pressure on Iran."

War or pressure campaign?

Not everyone believes the latest escalation points to an imminent regional war.

Political analyst Amin Shayegan argued that the confrontation remains "more a contest of endurance than a purely military competition."

According to Shayegan, Washington is attempting to gradually erode Iran's military and economic capabilities, while Tehran is seeking to tie the costs of the conflict to global energy markets and international trade in an effort to alter US calculations.

Diplomatic activity has added another layer of uncertainty.

Britain announced the withdrawal of all its diplomats from Tehran, while reports circulated that US military aircraft had departed British air bases for operations related to Iran.

Iranian media also reported that French and German diplomats had left Tehran. France's embassy denied those reports, while the German embassy told Iran International that it remained open but was currently providing limited consular services.

Attention also focused on the arrival of an Omani delegation in Tehran.

Officially, IRNA said the visit concerned coordination of shipping management in the Strait of Hormuz. But Oman has long served as the principal intermediary between Tehran and Washington, prompting widespread speculation online that Muscat could also be carrying messages related to the rapidly escalating conflict.

Some users interpreted the visit as a final warning before a larger US military operation, while hardline commentators instead portrayed it as another attempt to revive negotiations—an outcome they argued Tehran should reject.