UK charges man accused of spying on RAF base for Iran's IRGC

The State Department's Rewards for Justice program announced Thursday that it was seeking information on Kimia Part Sivan Company (KIPAS), which it described as the drone-production arm of the IRGC's overseas Qods Force.

According to the statement, KIPAS has conducted unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flight tests for the IRGC-Qods Force, provided technical assistance for drones transferred to Iraq for use in IRGC operations, and procured critical UAV components from companies outside Iran.

Washington also named six senior KIPAS officials—Hasan Arambunezhad, Abolfazl Ramazanzadeh Moshkani, Mehdi Ghaffari Naghneh, Reza Nahar Dani, Abbas Sartaji and Hadi Jamshidi Zavaraki—saying they had been involved in the testing, development and supply of drones, particularly for Iranian-aligned armed groups in Iraq, Yemen and Syria.

The officials were sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department in April 2024 for acting on behalf of the IRGC-Qods Force, while KIPAS itself was designated in 2021 under U.S. counterterrorism authorities for providing material support to the organization.

The announcement marks the latest step in Washington's expanding "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran, which has intensified in recent weeks as the United States and Iran remain locked in a confrontation over the Strait of Hormuz.

The Trump administration has increasingly paired military pressure with financial measures aimed at disrupting the IRGC's access to revenue and procurement networks.

On Thursday, the United States sanctioned international networks accused of supporting Iran's Mahan Air, saying the airline facilitated logistics and procurement for the IRGC.

A day earlier, Treasury imposed sanctions on companies and tankers it accused of helping Iran profit from commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz by forcing vessels to purchase IRGC-linked maritime insurance.

The Rewards for Justice statement said proceeds from Iran's sales of military equipment, including drones exported to Russia and supplied to regional armed groups, help finance the IRGC-Qods Force's activities abroad.

Washington accuses the force of supporting groups including Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran-backed militias in Iraq, allegations Tehran rejects.

Under the reward program, the United States is seeking information that would disrupt the IRGC's financial networks rather than information leading directly to arrests.

The reward of up to $15 million is among the largest routinely offered under the program for intelligence related to Iranian security organizations.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Iran had considered retaliating by striking a Ukrainian port before diplomatic efforts helped defuse the crisis, reinforcing the impression that, despite its rhetoric, Tehran is seeking to avoid opening another front.

Establishment figures have largely portrayed the attack as part of a broader US and Israeli effort to widen the conflict, warning Tehran against responding in a way that would play into that strategy.

Mohsen Sani, a member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, argued that the attack on the Iranian vessel and recent strikes against Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces should be viewed within the same strategic framework.

"The United States is trying to pursue its objectives through proxy actors such as Ukraine and Saudi Arabia," he told the conservative news website Tabnak.

‘International dimension’

Former Iranian ambassador to Kuwait Mohammad Irani likewise accused Israel of encouraging Kyiv to open a new front against Tehran.

"The coming together of Netanyahu and Zelensky, in my view, represents the formation of a new front of confrontation or preparations for a new regional order," he told ILNA.

Irani nevertheless argued that Tehran should avoid creating conditions that would draw additional countries into the conflict.

"Because of pressure from Trump, Israel's hands are temporarily tied. They therefore want to bring another party into the confrontation so that the conflict expands beyond the region and acquires an international dimension," he said.

"If an immediate response is considered, every possible consequence and every option that could be used against us must also be taken into account so that the opposing side does not achieve greater cohesion."

A Western trap

Nour News, a media outlet closely aligned with Iran's Supreme National Security Council, argued that Ukraine's actions formed part of a coordinated US strategy stretching "from Yemen to the Caspian Sea," designed to increase pressure on Iran while allowing Israel time to recover militarily and politically.

In a separate editorial, the outlet argued Kyiv's subsequent diplomatic outreach—including Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha's assurances to Abbas Araghchi that Ukraine sought no escalation—reflected concern over Iran's deterrence capabilities rather than a genuine attempt at reconciliation.

The conservative daily Resalat likewise argued Washington was attempting to use Ukraine as another proxy against Iran while warning that escalation in the Caspian Sea could ultimately draw Russia more directly into the conflict.

The moderate conservative newspaper Jomhouri-ye Eslami similarly urged Tehran not to fall into what it described as a Western trap, arguing that reducing tensions with Kyiv would better serve Iran's interests than opening another front.

Little appetite for escalation

Javid Ghorbanoghli, Iran's former ambassador to South Africa, said another Ukrainian attack was unlikely, arguing that Tehran had already signalled it would respond to any repeat incident.

"It is highly unlikely that Tehran seeks to expand the war," he said. "Iran prefers not to allow its already tense relations with European countries to deteriorate even further."

He added that Iran's political establishment was trying to avoid opening new fronts that could generate additional political and economic pressure.

Russia analyst Rouhollah Modabber argued the attack was intended to disrupt the International North-South Transport Corridor and undermine Iran's economic cooperation in the Caspian region.

He also claimed President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly accepted responsibility in an effort to secure additional US military and financial support.

Speaking on Iran International's Titre Aval (The Lead) program on Wednesday, Des Roches said the United States had limited military options after adopting an air campaign and argued Trump was unlikely to accept the political cost of ending the operation without achieving his objectives.

Three options

"The United States went in with an air power-only strategy," said Des Roches, now an associate professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Security Studies.

"That usually is flawed because once you do that, and if you look historically at how we've used an air power-led strategy in Korea, Vietnam, even World War II, but I think the illustrative point is Kosovo."

"If you don't achieve your strategic goals initially against a small target set, your options are to either introduce another element of warfare, and we don't have time to do that. To have a credible ground invasion force would take a year to build up, or you bomb more intensively."

"You widen the target list to include dual-use infrastructure, like bridges, the power grid, the national communications, television, and radio. This is what the US did against Serbia to stop the massacre of Muslims in Kosovo, or you leave."

"Those are really your three options, and I think that President Trump does not relish the prospect of leaving. That's too close to Joe Biden."

100%

More strikes likely

Des Roches said he believed the White House was most likely to increase military pressure rather than expand into ground operations.

"So I think, you know, he doesn't really have the ability to introduce another domain of warfare," he said.

"But really, I think his main option is to try to increase pain on the regime, and I think that that will mean an expansion into the targets towards dual-use targets and an expansion of intensive bombing to include not just areas adjacent to the Persian Gulf, but also areas inland, and especially the capital Tehran."

• 

  What does Trump mean by 'finish the job' in Iran?

Politics driving the conflict

Asked about reports that Trump had been advised against escalating the conflict because of concerns about US weapons stockpiles, Des Roches said he believed political and economic factors were more important than military constraints.

"Some, but I think it's not really driven by military action or missile inventories," he said.

"I think it's political and economic. So we have midterm elections coming up. The Islamic Republic knows this. The leaders within the Islamic Republic know it, and they have calculated that if they can draw the war out, keep gasoline prices high, that President Trump will be in a worse position, or may even be impeached and removed."

"I think that they're kind of overplaying their hand."

• 

  US sanctions Iran's Hormuz scheme amid shipping standoff

Revolutionary Guards and internal divisions

Des Roches said recent Iranian actions might not reflect a unified government position.

"I'm not sure if the actions we're seeing reflect a unitary position of the Iranian government, but rather the actions of different factions of the Iranian government, probably the Revolutionary Guard, who are vying for supremacy and are trying to wreck any possibility for negotiations."

He argued that an end to the conflict would shift public attention inside Iran toward domestic issues.

"Obviously, if peace breaks out, then the focus within Iran goes from a national rally around the flag, oppose the Zionist entity and the Great Satan, towards looking at things like where has all the money gone over the year? Why is Tehran running out of water when the Revolutionary Guard controls the major construction companies in the country, and why are their children driving Lamborghinis in Spain and ours are having a hard time getting water in Tehran?"

"So it's a challenging period, but I think the hardliners, particularly in the Revolutionary Guard, are at risk of severely overplaying their hand."

• 

  Tehran tests a more confrontational strategy

Regime change

Asked whether regime change had become part of US strategy, Des Roches said he believed Trump was pursuing a different approach from previous US interventions.

"My view is President Trump's theory of victory is not that the US will impose a new regime the way we did, for example, in Iraq, because that didn't work out well."

"I think he feels that economic pressure will lead the Iranians to have their own regime change."

Des Roches said Trump appeared to believe the anti-government protests in late 2019 had brought Iran close to internal political change.

"I think he feels that in December that was about to happen. It was only the violence of the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, the massacres of between 1,300 and 4,000 Iranians - we don't know the exact number - that would have done it."

"I think that's why we're here now. It's not because Netanyahu led it. It's because, in the face of what he saw as a vindication of his policy, I think he believes that had he remained president after 2020, regime change would have been accomplished from within by about 2022."

After Iran fired several ballistic missiles toward a US military base in Jordan early Wednesday Tehran time, US President Donald Trump vowed to hit back hard.

Hours later, the naval arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced it had struck and detained three "offending" oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

Several analysts said the combination of the Jordan strike and Tehran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz suggested Iran was no longer content to react to US pressure but was instead trying to seize the initiative and reshape the course of the confrontation.

Political analyst Ruhollah Rahimpour told Iran International the overnight missile launches and the Hormuz operation reflected a deliberate strategy of escalation.

"I think last night's missile operations in Jordan and the Strait of Hormuz are part of the Islamic Republic's strategy of escalating tensions and trying to accelerate a full-scale war with the United States and Israel, forcing them into conflict before they are fully prepared," he said.

‘Ready for broader conflict’

Despite the latest escalation, Trump insisted talks with Tehran would continue. A day earlier, he told Fox News negotiations were progressing well but warned that if no agreement was reached, Washington could strike Iran's underground facilities, bridges and power plants.

The strike also marked the first time Iran had targeted a US military installation without first coming under direct US attack, although Tehran has repeatedly argued that the continuing US maritime blockade itself constitutes an act of war.

Political analyst Shahir Shahid Saless argued Tehran appears to have concluded that maintaining the current status quo is no longer strategically sustainable while Iran remains under severe economic pressure and a maritime blockade.

According to Shahid Saless, Iranian leaders believe that if Washington's strategy is to prolong a "no war, no peace" situation indefinitely, Iran will gradually be worn down while the United States enjoys the benefits of an undeclared ceasefire.

"From Tehran's perspective, this situation must be disrupted, even if the cost is a broader conflict," he wrote.

He added that renewed attacks carry only a limited risk of triggering all-out war while serving a more important strategic objective: demonstrating to Washington that it cannot unilaterally determine when conflict begins or ends.

Hormuz complicates diplomacy

The military escalation has unfolded alongside increasingly difficult negotiations over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Oman had proposed dividing responsibility for a new shipping lane equally between the two countries, but insisted the arrangement failed to address Iran's concerns.

Former Israeli intelligence official Danny Citrinowicz argued the latest attacks reflected what he described as a post-Khamenei doctrinal shift, with Tehran now prepared to initiate offensive operations rather than relying primarily on deterrence.

"Today Iran is also prepared to initiate offensive moves and to rely deeply on its missile array, drones and regional proxies,” Citrinowicz wrote on X.

"The leadership in Tehran is prepared to take significant risks because it sees the current confrontation as a decisive battle over its regional status and its ability to shape the security reality in the Middle East."

Former Iranian diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi argued Oman has little room to accommodate Tehran because of its obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and pressure from Washington and regional states.

"The problem now is that the Strait of Hormuz has become an issue of prestige for both Iran and the United States, making it unlikely that either side will easily accept the other's conditions."

Regional conflict widens

Saudi Arabia announced Tuesday that it had intercepted several drones launched from Iraq towards Saudi oil facilities, blaming Iran-backed groups.

In response, Saudi and US forces jointly bombed positions held by the Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq for the first time, reportedly killing numerous fighters..

The US Central Command and Saudi officials described the operation as retaliation for more than 30 drone attacks over three days targeting US forces and Saudi energy infrastructure, allegedly carried out by Iraqi groups aligned with Iran under IRGC direction.

Iran's state broadcaster IRIB quoted an unnamed military official as denying any Iranian involvement in projectiles launched from other countries towards Saudi Arabia and calling claims linking Tehran to such attacks "a major miscalculation."

Commenting on the broader trajectory of the crisis, social media commentator Tohid Javadi warned that a much larger confrontation could lie ahead.

"A major—perhaps very major—conflict may be approaching. Under the current circumstances, neither the Islamic Republic can surrender nor does Washington appear willing to reach an understanding without extensive bombing and breaking a few of Iran's bones."

Speaking at a briefing attended by Iran International, the official said Trump and Netanyahu discussed three possible paths: reaching an agreement with Tehran, maintaining sanctions alongside intermittent military strikes, or launching a broader military campaign.

While stressing that the final decision rested with Trump, the official said the two leaders were aligned on the objective of preventing Iran from rebuilding its military and nuclear capabilities.

The official said Israel favoured maximising economic pressure while maintaining a credible military threat, arguing the combination would place Tehran under increasing strain without immediately requiring another full-scale war.

Trump, however, remained concerned about the impact of renewed conflict on energy markets and the global economy, according to the official.

Netanyahu acknowledged those concerns but argued they could be addressed by further squeezing Iran's already fragile economy. He also warned that Tehran was trying to use the Strait of Hormuz to extract concessions from Washington.

Tuesday's meeting—the first between the two leaders since the outbreak of the 40-day war on Feb. 28—came as Trump continued to pursue negotiations with Tehran while weighing the possibility of renewed military action.

Several hours later, Iran launched missiles at a US base in Jordan, its first direct attack on American forces since Washington paused strikes on Iran last Friday.

The official also addressed the condition of Mojtaba Khamenei, saying Iran's current leader was believed to be alive, although no one could confirm having seen him publicly.

According to the official, it remained unclear whether recent decisions attributed to Khamenei had in fact come directly from him. The official added that Khamenei had instructed those around him not to act without his approval and had become angry when that instruction was ignored.

The official dismissed reports that Netanyahu had presented Trump with a specific intelligence dossier on the underground Pickaxe Mountain nuclear facility during the meeting.

Israel believes thousands of centrifuges are concealed at the site but assesses that uranium enrichment is not currently taking place there, the official said, adding that intelligence sharing between the two countries occurs through established security channels rather than during leaders' meetings.

The official also said Tehran remained concerned about the possibility of a US ground operation targeting underground nuclear facilities and assessed that Iran's operational missile arsenal had been significantly depleted, with production capacity close to a halt.

The official described the Islamic Republic as being in its weakest economic and political position in years, citing soaring inflation, a deepening fuel crisis and a wave of executions.

The official said Israel viewed the continuing repression as evidence that Iran's leadership feared its own population.