US issues new Iran-related sanctions targeting tankers

Khorasan Daily, published in Tehran and Mashhad for nearly a century, asked this week whether China's sharp cut in crude purchases "ruined Iran's Strait of Hormuz strategy" or was simply a commercial response to a war zone.

The question would be unremarkable in a Western think tank. In a paper aligned with the man running Iran's negotiations, it reads as something else: the talks camp auditing, in public, the war camp's central weapon.

The shock that never came

For decades, Iranian crisis planning has rested on one assumption: disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil normally flows, and crude rockets past $200 a barrel, forcing the world to restrain Washington. During the current war, the strait has indeed been closed to Iranian exports and contested for weeks. The spike never arrived.

Khorasan's explanation is the buyer, not the seller. China purchases heavily discounted Iranian crude in calm periods, then pivots to Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) drawdowns and Russian pipeline oil the moment escalation begins, draining the drama out of the market. Western and regional reporting describes the same pattern as a deliberate "shock absorber" policy designed to neutralize Persian Gulf risk.

The paper offered two readings of Beijing's behavior. In the darker one, "real market power shifted from the producer to the largest consumer, and Iran's game was effectively neutralized by its biggest customer."

In the gentler one, China simply stepped back from a market where war-risk premiums would have bankrupted its refiners, "rather than entering intense price bidding with other global buyers."

A question from the talks camp

Where the analysis comes from matters as much as what it says. Khorasan sits in the orbit of Ghalibaf, who is not only Tehran's lead negotiator with the United States but also officially holds the China portfolio in Iran's foreign relations.

A paper in his camp questioning whether the Hormuz card still works is, in effect, an argument for his own project: if the economic weapon no longer detonates, negotiation is not weakness but arithmetic.

That may also explain the analysis's careful landing. Khorasan concluded that Beijing's buffers, reserve drawdowns and reduced refinery runs, are temporary and unsustainable without causing domestic inflation and fuel shortages.

"China did not necessarily act within a framework of ruining Iran's game," the paper wrote. Beijing's retreat "changed the traditional formula from a rapid oil shock to a gradual attrition, but it did not eliminate the core impact of the conflict on the market." The conclusion spares the partner its patron cannot afford to alienate.

Reformist and centrist outlets took the argument further. Shargh noted that while China and Russia provide diplomatic protection and veto cover at the UN Security Council, neither has any intention of entering a military or financial confrontation with Washington on Iran's behalf.

Khabar Online asked whether the two powers are helping Iran withstand Western pressure or using the confrontation as leverage in their own dealings with Washington.

Etemad and Donya-ye Eqtesad went at the doctrine itself: an energy-shock strategy assumes the customer has no alternatives, a premise they argue no longer holds.

The war camp pushes back

The other side of Iran's establishment read the same data and refused the conclusion. Tasnim, Javan and Kayhan, the outlets closest to the camp that favors fighting on, rejected the notion that Beijing "ruined Iran's strategy," reframing the story around Western supply strain and the slow grind of market friction, the "gradual attrition" that Khorasan itself conceded is still working on the world economy.

The dispute is not really about China. It is about which lever Iran has left. The war camp needs the Hormuz card to be live, because it is the argument for endurance. The talks camp needs it to be spent, because that is the argument for a deal.

What Khorasan put in print is that Iran's biggest customer may have already settled the question, and that the answer favors the men at the table.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told Iranian state television Tuesday Oman had proposed a 50-50 arrangement under which the inbound route would be on one country’s side and the outbound route on the other’s.

Tehran rejected that formula, he said, because it would not adequately address Iran’s national security concerns.

Instead, Gharibabadi said Tehran proposed placing one shipping lane entirely within Iranian territorial waters and part of the other within Iranian waters, citing national security concerns.

“Our proposal is for one route to lie entirely within the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with part of the other route also passing through Iranian territorial waters, so that Iran can effectively exercise oversight over both inbound and outbound traffic.”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Oman had proposed a joint regional mechanism to manage shipping through the strategic waterway and collect voluntary fees.

The proposal has regional backing and would prevent Iran from exercising sole control over the strait, the report said citing a source from a Persian Gulf country.

The future of shipping through Hormuz was also part of Iran’s wider regional discussions. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tuesday that he had held separate phone calls with his Omani and Saudi counterparts the previous evening.

He said the conversations covered regional developments, diplomatic efforts to restore stability and insecurity in the Strait of Hormuz.

Parallel US-Iran contacts

The negotiations over Hormuz were unfolding alongside contacts between Tehran and Washington over the broader conflict.

Gharibabadi said Iran had not requested negotiations with Washington over the past 15 days, adding that it was the United States that sought talks and conveyed through Oman that it would not carry out military action against Iran.

Trump, however, said Tuesday that Washington was holding “good talks” with Iran and had a chance of reaching an agreement. He added that the United States held a “very strong position” with Tehran and that he would prefer to avoid attacks on Iranian power plants and bridges.

Trump later hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where the two leaders agreed that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon, an Israeli source familiar with the talks told Iran International.

The source described the meeting as a “major moment of coordination,” saying Washington and Jerusalem agreed on their objective but could differ over how to achieve it.

The diplomatic activity unfolded as more than 20 US Navy warships operated across the Middle East in support of military missions, including enforcement of what the US military called a “steel wall blockade” against Iran.

CENTCOM said Tuesday in a post on X that, as of July 28, it had redirected 18 commercial vessels, disabled two and boarded two while enforcing the blockade.

One sailor was killed and three others wounded when the vessel was struck on Saturday near Russia’s Astrakhan port in the Volga Delta.

While Iranian officials condemned the strike as an act of aggression and vowed it “will not go unanswered,” commentators remain divided over how Tehran should respond and whether opening a new front would strengthen or further strain Iran’s position.

Conservative newspapers portrayed the attack as part of a coordinated Western and Israeli effort to widen the conflict and divert Iran’s attention from the Strait of Hormuz.

The hardline daily Kayhan described the strike as a “strategic warning,” arguing that its purpose was to draw Iran into a new northern front.

“It is not impossible that Ukraine’s serious entry into this arena could ignite another world war, because all the signs of a global war are visible,” the newspaper warned.

Farhikhtegan argued that Zelensky would not have authorized the operation without European backing.

“Tehran knows Kyiv is not the principal actor but Europe’s and NATO’s proxy for testing the battlefield,” the conservative newspaper wrote, adding that the attack could not have taken place without Washington’s knowledge.

Military analyst Nima Akbarkhani went further, arguing that Tehran should retaliate against Ukraine’s European supporters rather than Kyiv itself.

“The strategic and precise response is to target European interests, not an emotional action,” he told state broadcaster IRIB. “The only people who can restrain Zelensky are those financing his war.”

Tehran-based journalist Afifeh Abedi also called for a “proportionate response,” describing the strike as an attempt to expand both the geography and nature of the Russia-Ukraine war.

She suggested Ukraine may be acting under Israeli pressure to bring European and US positions closer together and “merge the two wars” against Iran and Russia.

“Ukraine’s action against Iran was entirely deliberate and intended to raise tensions,” she told ISNA.

Warnings against a new northern front

Other Iranian commentators warned that retaliation could bring far greater risks than benefits.

Conservative political activist Ali Gholhaki, who is close to Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, cautioned that direct action against Ukraine could mobilize European governments alongside the United States.

“Iran must ensure that any response to Ukraine does not mobilize all of Europe alongside America against Iran,” he said.

Former diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi warned that the emergence of a northern front could force Iran to redeploy military assets toward the Caspian region, creating new vulnerabilities elsewhere.

He also questioned how the United States, Europe, Turkey and Russia would react if Iran attacked targets in the Black Sea region or inside Ukraine.

Military analyst Mohsen Reyhani highlighted the practical obstacles facing Tehran. In a post on X, he said drone strikes on Odesa from the Caspian would require Russian cooperation, while missiles launched from northwestern Iran could have to cross Turkish airspace, risking NATO involvement.

He said strikes on cities such as Kyiv would require missiles with ranges of about 1,700 to 2,500 kilometers.

Political analyst Maziar Aghazadeh argued that missile or drone attacks on Ukraine would offer little deterrent value while exposing Iran to a prolonged conflict.

Such retaliation, he wrote in Asr-e Iran, could open “a futile and exhausting new front” in which Iran would bear far greater costs than Ukraine.

Diplomats try to de-escalate

The Iranian and Ukrainian foreign ministers spoke on Tuesday in an effort to contain tensions. Abbas Araghchi said Andrii Sybiha had assured him the strike was unintentional and that Kyiv did not seek escalation.

Araghchi said Iran also sought to avoid escalation but demanded restitution for the loss of life and damage.

Sybiha said in a post on X that Ukraine had not intended to target civilians or civilian vessels and urged Tehran to refrain from escalating and end its support for Russia’s war.

Hostile ties shaped by the Russia war

Relations between Tehran and Kyiv were already deeply strained before the ship attack.

The Revolutionary Guards’ downing of a Ukrainian passenger jet over Tehran in 2020 caused a lasting rupture. Tensions later deepened over Iran’s transfer of Shahed drones and production technology to Russia.

Kyiv considers Tehran a direct contributor to Moscow’s war effort. Zelensky has argued that Iran effectively entered the conflict by supplying drones, transferring technology and enabling their production inside Russia.

Tehran denies being a formal military ally of Moscow, although Iranian officials have acknowledged earlier drone transfers and technology cooperation. The two countries’ comprehensive strategic partnership, signed in January 2025, does not include a mutual defense clause.

The relationship deteriorated further after Ukraine offered to help counter Iranian drones during Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the United States, reinforcing Tehran’s perception that Kyiv had aligned itself with Iran’s regional adversaries.

Russia, meanwhile, strongly backed Tehran after the ship strike.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the incident demonstrated “the clear threat Ukraine poses to the regional security of Caspian littoral states,” while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said an attack on the Iranian vessel was “like an attack on Iran itself.”

The debate in Tehran now centers less on whether the attack requires a response than on what form that response could take without pulling Iran into an expanding conflict stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea.

People in Isfahan and cities across Iran described staying awake through the night in the hope that the executions would be halted, mourning the two men after dawn and praising those who gathered despite a heavy security presence around the execution site.

Amirhossein Safari and Abolfazl Sepahi were among 12 young men sentenced to death in what became known as the Alikhani Square case, stemming from clashes during nationwide protests in Isfahan on January 8.

Iranian authorities accuse the defendants of killing four security personnel, as well as arson and vandalism. Rights groups and United Nations experts have questioned the fairness of the proceedings, citing allegations of coerced confessions, closed court hearings and the defendants' young ages.

• 

  Iran executes two protesters amid heavy security in Isfahan

Iran's judiciary news agency Mizan said Safari and Sepahi were executed early Tuesday, bringing the number of people put to death in the case to four after Golmohammad Mohammadi and Erfan Esfandiari were executed on July 19. Eight other defendants remain under sentence of death.

"They chased people through the alleyways of Isfahan last night," one witness said. "People were running through the streets, and the officers followed them. They did not even spare a thought for those mothers."

Witnesses said security forces maintained a heavy presence around Alikhani Square throughout Monday night after reports that an iron scaffold had been erected there. Social media accounts described confrontations between officers and people who had gathered in the hope of preventing the executions.

Iranians in London also gathered outside the Iranian embassy Monday night to protest the executions, extending demonstrations over the hangings beyond Iran's borders.

'We stayed awake until morning'

Many of the messages focused on the hours before dawn, describing a night spent waiting for news from Isfahan.

"We wished until sunrise that morning would never come to Isfahan," one person wrote.

Another summed up the night in historical terms: "Write in history that people in Iran fought with their bare hands until 5 a.m. to save two of their fellow citizens."

Messages from Bandar Abbas, Pardis, Khomein and other cities suggested many people viewed the gatherings in Isfahan as a sign that opposition to the executions had spread well beyond the city.

"The people of Isfahan showed that when the next call comes, millions across the country will return to the streets," one resident of Bandar Abbas said. "We fight for freedom even with empty hands."

Another resident of Bandar Abbas added: "Thank you to the people of Isfahan for gathering and showing that we are still standing together and still remember everyone who has been executed."

One student said news of the executions overshadowed an examination.

"I did not even know what I was writing during my exam," the student said. "All I could think about were the young men who were executed in Isfahan last night."

Grief turns to defiance

Many reactions expressed sympathy for the families of the two men while arguing the executions would intensify rather than suppress dissent.

"My heart breaks for the families of those two young men who watched them being executed," one message said.

Others said the executions had strengthened their determination.

"We are saddened by these executions, but we are not afraid," one resident of Pardis, near Tehran said. "We have become angrier. We will return to the streets soon."

Another reaction echoed that sentiment: "Did you think executing our brothers and sisters would make us retreat or become afraid? It has only made us more determined."

Several people criticized governments engaged in diplomacy with Tehran for failing to do more to stop the executions.

"Countries that have influence over the authorities, why do they do nothing to stop these executions?" one message asked.

Others addressed US President Donald Trump directly, questioning why preventing executions had not featured more prominently in negotiations with Iran.

International pressure

The public reaction followed an appeal by United Nations experts led by Special Rapporteur Mai Sato, who urged Iranian authorities on Monday to halt the executions of the remaining defendants.

"Sentencing 12 people to death in one hearing, in a closed courtroom and without clarity as to each defendant's individual responsibility violates established fair trial standards," the experts said.

• 

  I stayed awake for them

The experts said the convictions relied heavily on confessions broadcast on state television, while Revolutionary Court hearings were held behind closed doors and the judgments were never made public.

They also said several defendants had reportedly been subjected to arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and, in some cases, ill-treatment.

It is three o'clock in the morning and I am trying not to fall asleep. By the time the dawn call to prayer reaches my window, three young Iranians may be dead.

I know there is nothing I can do. Still, sleep feels like a kind of surrender. So I keep refreshing whatever scraps of internet still work, hoping to see a message saying the executions have been postponed, that the rumours were wrong, that someone, somewhere, changed their mind.

The three young men have spent weeks waiting for this night. Convicted over their alleged role in the January protests, they now face the possibility of being taken to the gallows before most of Iran has opened its eyes.

Their names are spreading quickly, far beyond their hometown of Isfahan. That is why so many of us are awake.

Videos circulating online show heavy security around Isfahan's Alikhani Square, where scaffolding has been erected ahead of the possible public hangings. Small groups of people hover nearby despite the risks. They know they are unlikely to stop anything, but they go anyway.

There is something profoundly human about it: standing in the darkness simply because another person should not have to die alone.

The authorities would probably describe it as law enforcement. Most people I know call it something else: state killing. The only thing in Iran that never pauses.

War or peace, summer or winter. Presidents come and go, mediators arrive and leave. Bombs fall. Ceasefires are declared. The scaffold remains.

That continuity has become its own form of terror. Executions are part of our lives because the state has made them part of our lives. Deliberately.

Tonight feels different only because people know where to look. Some are watching the square from nearby streets. Others, like me, stare at flickering phone screens. We tell ourselves that daylight would make it harder.

As if numbers could somehow interrupt a machinery that has spent decades perfecting itself. It is an irrational hope. But hope often is.

People outside Iran often ask why sanctions, assassinations or bombs have not broken this system. Well, perhaps look at Alikhani Square.

Bombs can destroy buildings. They cannot, on their own, dismantle a system that has learned to absorb them. Ordinary people are different. They are the only force capable of challenging it from within. So the regime continues to reserve its greatest brutality for us.

The call to prayer will come soon. I still do not know whether I will sleep before then. I tell myself that once the sun is up there will be more eyes on the streets, more phones recording, more people standing nearby.

I convince myself that staying awake might help. I know it won’t. But tonight it feels unbearable not to try.