Venezuela summons Iranian envoy over 'inappropriate' remarks

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.

Hardline commentators argue the United States paused its campaign because military pressure and disruptions to regional energy supplies have exposed American vulnerabilities.

Moderate and pragmatist voices, meanwhile, see a narrow window to pursue indirect diplomacy before renewed fighting further weakens Iran's economy.

The debate comes as indirect diplomacy appears to be regaining momentum after three nights without direct US or Iranian attacks.

President Donald Trump told supporters in Michigan on Monday that "very friendly negotiations" with Tehran were underway, while warning that "you got to beat them, and we'll beat the hell out of them" if diplomacy failed.

Tehran, however, has continued to portray the lull as temporary. Iran's joint military command said the US naval blockade amounted to an expansion of the conflict, accusing Washington of threatening Iranian commercial vessels and oil tankers in Iran's territorial waters over the past three days.

Outside political circles, public reactions have been more cautious than optimistic. Many Iranians reportedly interpret the sudden quiet as evidence of behind-the-scenes diplomacy rather than a genuine breakthrough, with some saying they remained unable to sleep despite the absence of airstrikes.

Official statements have also avoided describing the lull as a "ceasefire," instead referring to it as a "pause" or "hold," reflecting Tehran's continued distrust of US intentions.

For hardliners, that makes negotiations even more dangerous.

The conservative newspaper Kayhan urged the Foreign Ministry to "formally declare the end of all indirect diplomatic communications and backchannel negotiations," arguing that nearly three weeks of fighting had shown Washington only moderates its military pressure when global energy supplies come under threat.

The paper argued the pause reflected dwindling US precision-guided munitions rather than any diplomatic opening.

"The brief pause in nighttime airstrikes is not a signal of American goodwill or diplomatic flexibility—it is a tactical breathing space meant to allow the enemy to replenish depleted precision munitions and distract Tehran from exercising its strategic leverage."

The IRGC-linked newspaper Javan advanced a similar argument, saying US offensive capabilities were showing signs of "structural fatigue" and warning that any hesitation would allow Washington to rebuild regional air-defence networks and supply lines.

It also called for a forceful response to what it described as attempts to expand pressure into the Caspian Sea through recent attacks on Iranian shipping.

Moderate outlets drew almost the opposite conclusion.

Government-aligned Etemad argued that every night without airstrikes represented a crucial opportunity to prevent further deterioration in municipal services, inflation and currency markets, urging officials to make full use of regional mediation efforts, particularly those led by Oman.

Economic daily Donya-ye-Eghtesad likewise described the lull as an opportunity for indirect de-escalation that could help stabilise foreign exchange and gold markets.

Moderate Shargh, meanwhile, warned against opening a new maritime front following the reported attack on Iranian shipping in the Caspian Sea, arguing that escalating the confrontation northwards would only deepen Iran's economic isolation and threaten critical trade corridors.

Perhaps the mood was best captured by Etemad, whose front-page headline distilled both the opportunity and the uncertainty confronting Iran's leadership: "Diplomacy in the enclosure of distrust."

Deputy Parliament Speaker Hamidreza Haji Babai made that resistance explicit on Monday, telling lawmakers that Iran would "never reach an understanding with the United States."

"We should not allow America to wage war whenever it wants and declare a ceasefire whenever it wants," he said during a virtual parliamentary session.

Former vice president Mohsen Mansouri, who served under the late President Ebrahim Raisi, voiced similar opposition in a social media post, arguing that Iran was discussing negotiations precisely when its military position had strengthened.

"We struck several ships, closed the strait and fought even harder than before. An arrow set Aramco ablaze, oil prices rose, and Iran's power became more evident than ever," he wrote.

"Why is it that just when our position is stronger and the enemy is more desperate, some immediately begin talking about negotiations, a ceasefire and reopening the strait?"

He added: "Do not restart this flawed cycle. The path to peace does not pass through negotiations and agreements. Struggle, jihad, vengeance and resistance are the road to peace."

The hardline pushback comes despite mounting signs that indirect diplomacy has resumed.

President Donald Trump said Monday that Washington was engaged in "very serious negotiations" with Iran while warning the United States would resume "very powerful military action" if diplomacy failed.

According to Turkey's Anadolu Agency, citing Pakistani sources, Pakistan and Qatar have intensified exchanges between Washington and Tehran.

The report said the mediators had proposed restoring the status quo that existed before July 9 through a two-week ceasefire, reopening maritime routes and resuming negotiations.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed in an interview with Austria's ORF television that Iran and the United States were exchanging messages through intermediaries.

At his weekly press briefing on Monday, however, he denied that Tehran had requested negotiations, insisting Iran had only been discussing shipping arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz with Oman.

Baghaei also rejected reports of a proposed ceasefire, saying Iran "has never allowed, and will never allow, the United States to determine the timing of war and peace."

Not everyone inside Iran shares the hardliners' view.

The reformist newspaper Etemad argued Monday that recent developments marked a turning point, with military confrontation giving way to deterrence and renewed diplomacy.

Former diplomat Abdolreza Faraji Rad wrote in Arman Emrooz that several developments—including the suspension of US attacks and Trump's latest remarks—suggested behind-the-scenes negotiations had either already produced results or were close to doing so.

He argued both sides still appeared to regard their earlier memorandum of understanding as valid.

Others dismissed that assessment.

Fada-Hossein Maleki, a member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA) that the reduction in US military operations reflected the impact of Iranian attacks on American logistical and operational infrastructure rather than diplomatic contacts.

"Iran has entered the offensive phase," he said. "In the offensive phase, there is certainly no discussion of negotiations."

The United States halted its nightly strikes on Friday after nearly two weeks of attacks, while Iran has not launched further strikes on US bases in the region since shortly after Washington's final operation.

Whether the lull develops into renewed diplomacy or merely precedes another round of fighting remains uncertain.

What has become increasingly clear, however, is that the military pause has opened a new political battle inside Tehran over whether Iran should negotiate from what some see as a position of strength or continue pressing its advantage on the battlefield.

Rallies were held on July 25-27 in cities across Germany, the United States, Britain, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Finland, Greece and New Zealand. Participants commemorated the Pahlavi dynasty, waved Iran's pre-1979 lion-and-sun flag and chanted slogans against the Islamic Republic.

In Berlin, demonstrators endorsed Prince Reza Pahlavi as a leader for a political transition and called on the international community to support Iranians' demands for freedom, democracy and change.

Similar gatherings took place in Frankfurt, Cologne, Hamburg and Hanover, where participants chanted "King Reza Pahlavi" and "The lion-and-sun flag shines across the world."

Rallies across Europe and North America

In London, Iranians held a memorial in the city center, highlighting what participants described as the legacy of Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah.

Events were also held in several US cities. Los Angeles hosted a ceremony honoring the Pahlavi monarchs, while New York held a gathering attended by Iranian cultural, political and social figures to commemorate the last Shah of Iran.

In Sweden, demonstrators marched through central Stockholm chanting "No to the Islamic Republic" and expressing support for a democratic transition. Similar events took place in Malmö and Gothenburg, where participants sang the patriotic song Ey Iran.

Events span

In Melbourne, Iranians marked the 47th anniversary of Mohammad Reza Shah's death by planting a Persian cypress tree, which organizers described as a symbol of resilience. Similar commemorations were held in Perth.

In Canada, participants in Calgary praised the Pahlavi dynasty's role in Iran's modernization and expressed support for Prince Reza Pahlavi during a transition from the Islamic Republic.

Additional gatherings were reported in Bern, Helsinki, Lisbon, Athens, Madrid and Auckland, underscoring the continued visibility of monarchist supporters within the Iranian diaspora.

“The bombs are making noise and the world is looking at Iran, but what about the silence that is killing innocent people every day?” Azadeh Afsahi, founder of Iran House, told Iran International’s Eye for Iran podcast.

Rights groups say the war did not create the crackdown but has provided political cover for the Islamic Republic to fast-track death sentences, conceal executions from families and intimidate a population already traumatized by the violent suppression of nationwide protests in January.

Accelerated executions raise alarm

Rights groups estimate that around 100 political prisoners and protesters have received death sentences, while hundreds more face capital charges. More than 70 people are awaiting execution in Dastgerd Prison in the central city of Isfahan, according to Iran Human Rights.

Iran Human Rights says at least 24 people have been executed in connection with the January protests since March 19, most recently Mehdi Khaneki, a 26-year-old law graduate who was put to death on July 22.

Others have been executed over alleged ties to banned opposition groups or on espionage charges.

Those facing execution include people arrested following protests in Isfahan on January 8.

Iran executed Erfan Esfandiari, reportedly 18, and Gol Mohammad Mohammadi, a 23-year-old Afghan national, on July 19. Iranian authorities accused them of involvement in the deaths of four members of the security forces.

100%

Rights groups say the defendants were denied fair trials and access to independent legal representation. Ten other men prosecuted in the same case remain at risk of execution, according to UN investigators.

The UN Human Rights Council-mandated fact-finding mission called on Tehran on Thursday to halt the executions immediately. It said relatives of at least two prisoners had been summoned for what appeared to be final visits, raising fears that further executions could be imminent.

The mission also raised alarm over efforts to expedite protest-related proceedings. It noted that Tehran prosecutor Ali Salehi announced on July 15 that cases connected to the protests and recent hostilities had been finalized and referred to court following an order from judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i to accelerate proceedings.

ARTICLE 19, citing figures compiled by Hengaw, said Iran executed 109 people in June, including three women—a 10% increase from the same month last year. Only seven of those executions were officially announced, while at least 12 families received no advance notice, according to the organization.

The lack of warning has left some relatives learning about executions through official media.

According to AFP, the family of Vahid Baniamerian, a 34-year-old physics lecturer, received no warning before his execution. A relative said they were still awaiting a Supreme Court review when reports of his imminent execution began appearing in state media.

Baniamerian was executed alongside five other men convicted of alleged membership in the outlawed People’s Mujahedin Organization.

The executions also drew a response from US President Donald Trump, who wrote “Savages!!!” while reposting an image and account of Mohammadi’s execution. He also shared posts about Esfandiari.

Trump had previously warned Tehran against executing protesters. During the January 2026 uprising, he said the United States would take “very strong action” if authorities carried out hangings and told Iranians that “help is on its way.”

Human rights advocates, however, say public condemnation has not been matched by sufficient action.

Fear of another uprising

Shahin Milani, executive director of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, said the regime views internal rebellion as a greater threat to its survival than the prospect of a large-scale foreign invasion.

He said the Islamic Republic may fear its own population more than US military action. “The most serious threat that they face is from internal rebellion. This is from Iranian people bringing the regime down.”

Milani said the severity of the January crackdown demonstrated how seriously the authorities viewed that threat.

“They set a new standard in their own regime for brutality,” he said.

The executions, Milani argued, are intended both to frighten the wider population and demonstrate strength to regime supporters who might otherwise consider defecting.

He said they may delay further unrest but cannot resolve the economic hardship and political discontent driving opposition to the government.

“You cannot kill your way out of economic misery and discontent,” he said, predicting renewed demonstrations could emerge within months or years.

Afsahi said the crackdown has deepened depression and trauma among survivors and victims’ families, while international attention remains concentrated on the military conflict.

“Everybody cares about the bombs, but nobody cares about the hanging that is happening every day,” she said.

Despite that trauma, Afsahi said many survivors remain prepared to protest again.

“They’re just waiting,” she said. “They’re ready for that next ignition to be able to go out again.”

Brandon Silver, an international human rights lawyer and director at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, said the executions should be viewed within the broader context of Iran’s record of domestic repression.

He pointed to the country’s high rates of executions, executions of people convicted of crimes allegedly committed as children, state hostage-taking and imprisonment of journalists.

“There is an effort to obfuscate, to hide these staggering statistics,” Silver said, describing the executions as part of “an ongoing campaign of mass domestic repression.”

He argued that abuses inside Iran have repeatedly spilled beyond its borders through hostage-taking and alleged plots targeting journalists, dissidents and human rights advocates abroad.

“When they’re able to carry this out within Iran, it puts all of us everywhere in danger,” he said.

Silver called on governments to move beyond statements by expelling officials involved in repression, imposing visa bans and freezing and seizing the foreign assets of regime figures. Those assets, he proposed, should be redirected to victims of the Islamic Republic.

Iranian prisoners have also begun challenging the execution campaign from inside the country. About 1,500 prisoners sentenced to death for drug-related offenses in Unit 2 of Ghezel Hesar Prison have staged a hunger strike and sit-in since July 13. The protest began after six inmates were transferred to solitary confinement in preparation for execution.

The protest has added a rare form of resistance from inside Iran’s prisons to the growing international campaign against the executions, according to the advocates interviewed by Eye for Iran.

They said the executions may demonstrate the regime’s capacity for repression, but they also reveal its fear that the anger driving Iran’s protest movement remains unresolved.

The war may have pushed that movement out of the headlines. It has not, they warned, eliminated it.