Iran ramps up threats to Mideast energy sites as fears of major US strike grow

His comments came days after Iran publicly hanged two protesters in the central city of Isfahan, prompting renewed international condemnation and a rare display of public defiance.

He argued that the executions cannot be separated from the mass killing of protesters during January's nationwide uprising.

"There is no doubt that we have a crime against humanity," Akhavan told Eye for Iran.

“What we actually have in Iran are arbitrary executions. These are killings. They are murders,” Akhavan said. "Specifically, the case can be made that this is a crime of extermination, given the large scale of the killings."

Akhavan, who testified before the UN Human Rights Council during its January special session on Iran, said the scale and method of the killings could support the more specific charge of extermination.

The crime against humanity of extermination involves mass or large-scale killing. Unlike genocide, it does not require proof that the perpetrators intended to destroy a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Public hangings provoke defiance in Isfahan

Iran publicly hanged Amirhossein Safari and Abolfazl Sepahi on July 28 in Isfahan's Alikhani Square after accusing them of involvement in the killing of four police officers during the January 8 unrest.

The two men were among a group sentenced to death in connection with the case. Golmohammad Mohammadi and Erfan Esfandiari were executed in prison on July 19, while eight others reportedly remain under sentence of death.

The judiciary says Safari and Sepahi took part in the killings. Rights groups, however, have raised serious concerns about the proceedings, including restrictions on access to lawyers and case files, the rejection of potentially exculpatory evidence and the use of televised confessions that may have been obtained under coercion.

UN human rights experts called on Iran to halt the executions one day before the hangings, warning that coerced confessions must not be admitted as evidence and that broadcasting them before trial violates the presumption of innocence.

Rather than intimidating the public into silence, the hangings triggered a rare display of defiance.

Hundreds of people gathered near the execution site before dawn. Videos showed crowds booing police and chanting “shame on you” as the call to prayer rang out. Security forces later dispersed them through surrounding streets, with witnesses reporting the use of tear gas, Tasers and warning shots.

An online campaign opposing the death penalty was shared hundreds of thousands of times within a day. At Ghezel Hesar prison near Tehran, an estimated 1,500 death-row prisoners also staged a hunger strike as part of the “No to Executions” campaign.

“A death sentence which is carried out without any due process and on legal grounds that are entirely unacceptable is not really a lawful execution,” he said. “It becomes a form of murder or extrajudicial execution.”

International human rights law permits capital punishment only for the most serious crimes in countries that have not abolished it and only following strict respect for due process.

Akhavan said many of Iran’s death sentences instead rely on vague national-security charges, including moharebeh, or “waging war against God,” as well as forced confessions and trials in courts that cannot be considered independent or impartial.

“What we’re witnessing today in this surge in executions is not an isolated phenomenon,” Akhavan said. “It is inextricably connected with the events of January and it is really a continuation of the same criminal transaction.”

Article 7 of the Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity as certain acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

From January’s massacre to extermination

The UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran previously concluded that serious violations committed during the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising amounted to crimes against humanity.

Its investigation into the January 2026 crackdown is ongoing. Akhavan acknowledged that the mission must complete its own investigation before issuing formal conclusions, but said his legal assessment is clear.

He cited the internet blackout, restrictions on reporting, allegations that hospitals were pressured to record gunshot deaths as natural causes and accounts of bodies being transported in refrigerated trucks and potentially buried in unmarked graves.

He also pointed to statements by senior Iranian officials depicting protesters as combatants, foreign agents or people “waging war against God,” language he said effectively created a licence to kill.

There is also evidence of snipers, heavy machine guns and armour-piercing ammunition being used against unarmed protesters.

“The case can be made that this is a crime of extermination, given the large scale of the killings.”

Executions as a display of control

Iran carried out at least 2,159 executions in 2025, Amnesty International has said, most in drug-related cases.

Since the January uprising, rights groups have documented a sharp increase in politically motivated executions. Amnesty says at least 52 people have been arbitrarily executed this year for alleged offences connected to the protests following torture-tainted and grossly unfair Revolutionary Court proceedings. At least 60 others remain at risk, including three who were children at the time of their alleged offences.

Public political executions remain comparatively rare. The last widely reported case was the 2022 hanging of Majidreza Rahnavard during the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising.

Akhavan said the return of cranes as public gallows was therefore particularly shocking and appeared designed to project strength and frighten a population that continues to challenge the state.

“Under cover of war, they are escalating executions in order to create fear,” he said.

“The biggest threat to the Islamic Republic is not the US and Israeli military operations, as damaging and unlawful as they may be. It is the Iranian people first and foremost.”

The authorities have now expanded their pressure beyond those facing execution. Tehran’s prosecutor has opened cases against an unspecified number of people accused of opposing executions or supporting defendants linked to the January uprising and the recent war.

The chaotic gathering at the luxury shopping complex, where teenagers and young adults—predominantly from Generation Z and Generation Alpha—assembled to meet content creator Nima Tekedo, triggered widespread debate across Iranian media and academic circles.

Although officials were forced to confront Generation Z during the nationwide protests of 2022, several sociologists argue that Generation Alpha remains almost entirely outside the state's field of vision.

Moderate daily Shargh and centrist newspaper Sazandegi both argued that the surprise surrounding the Iran Mall incident reflected a deeper failure to understand younger Iranians.

They warned that repeatedly overlooking new generations had already left authorities unprepared for successive waves of unrest since 2017 and cautioned that the same blind spot persists today.

The gathering had been publicly announced on YouTube, Telegram and Instagram, yet authorities appeared unaware that thousands would attend.

A parallel universe

Sociologist Nima Shojaei told Shargh that over the past two decades traditional forms of political participation, including elections, campaigns and party politics, had steadily lost their appeal among young Iranians, while their social lives increasingly unfolded beyond the state's view.

He argued that reference groups had shifted dramatically, leaving the government unable to understand the evolving identities of younger generations.

Shojaei also pointed to the contradictions of a state that continues to portray all Iranian youth through an ideological lens—via state media, school textbooks and Friday prayer sermons—as devout Muslims committed to official values.

Believing its own narrative, he argued, the state gradually lost sight of the society it sought to govern.

The Iran Mall gathering, Shojaei said, was neither a political protest nor an act of resistance. Rather, it reflected a generation retreating into everyday life after losing faith in conventional politics.

‘Gen Z charting its course’

Another sociologist, Foad Habibi, criticized commentators who responded by blaming or mocking teenagers instead of examining broader social change.

"Attacking powerless youth is the cheapest form of analysis because it carries no personal cost, whereas criticizing state power does," he said.

Habibi agreed that the problem lay not with young people themselves.

"Generation Z has not erred; it has simply charted its own course and moved forward. The failure lies with policymakers and social scientists," he said.

Sazandegi argued that the incident highlighted a broader shift in cultural authority from formal institutions to decentralized online networks.

The paper pointed to similar episodes that had repeatedly caught authorities off guard, including a large gathering in Tehran Pars in 2024 to see hip-hop artist GodPouri.

Unlike traditional mobilization built around parties or hierarchical organizations, the newspaper argued, today's youth assemble rapidly through shared online interests and peer-to-peer communication.

What appears to older generations as a spontaneous crowd is, in reality, a highly networked social world capable of mobilizing thousands within hours.

For Sazandegi, the Iran Mall gathering was therefore less about a celebrity appearance than a glimpse of a generation that no longer looks to political parties, religious institutions or state media for authority, but chooses its own communities, its own heroes and increasingly, its own way of life.

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.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) has refused to comply with a ruling by the IRIB Supervisory Board ordering it to stop censoring President Massoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Parliament Speaker and chief nuclear negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

The dispute has drawn criticism from government officials and reformist and moderate newspapers while prompting little public sympathy.

Instead, many Iranians mocked the complaints, saying state television had long ignored ordinary people and was now simply extending the same treatment to members of the political establishment.

Before the Supervisory Board issued its ruling, government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said the public expected the national broadcaster to uphold professional ethics, democratic principles and the national interest.

"All tastes and viewpoints must be reflected in the national broadcaster's narrative," she said.

Little public sympathy

On social media, many users joked that it was refreshing to see senior officials finally experiencing the neglect ordinary citizens had long endured from state television.

A Tehran-based journalist summed up the mood more bluntly, saying most people did not care whether politicians appeared on television; they wanted to see themselves and their own problems reflected instead.

For years, many Iranians have complained that IRIB neither reflects their lives nor represents their concerns.

Critics say television dramas rarely portray people like themselves, while supposedly spontaneous interviews on political and social issues feature only carefully selected voices. Others note that cooking programmes routinely feature meals beyond the reach of many families.

Meanwhile, IRIB responded to Araghchi's complaint with a sarcastic remark, saying it was "impossible to give him 24/7 coverage."

A watchdog without teeth

Earlier this week, the IRIB Supervisory Board formally warned the broadcaster over its repeated censorship of senior officials.

Board secretary Mohammad Mirzaei said "necessary cautions were issued" and that IRIB had pledged to implement reforms and prevent similar incidents from recurring. Deputy political director Hassan Abedini also publicly promised fairer coverage of officials' remarks and activities.

Yet the broadcaster showed no sign of changing course, declining even to report the Supervisory Board's meeting—a story carried by nearly every major Iranian news agency.

Established under Article 175 of Iran's Constitution, the Supervisory Board brings together representatives of the executive, parliament and judiciary to oversee IRIB's editorial conduct.

It can issue warnings, but ultimate authority over the broadcaster, including appointing its chief, rests with the Supreme Leader.

Current IRIB chief Payman Jebelli and his management team have long faced criticism over partisan editorial policies, discrimination and censorship directed at both ordinary citizens and politicians outside the ultraconservative camp.

Leadership under scrutiny

Jebelli's five-year term expires in less than a month, raising questions over whether Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei will retain the current management or appoint a new leadership team.

The latest dispute comes amid an unusually coordinated campaign by media close to the Pezeshkian administration.

Last week, the reformist dailies Etemad and Shargh, together with the government's own newspaper Iran, accused IRIB of systematically censoring senior officials and promoting voices at odds with government policy.

Iran newspaper also alleged that the broadcaster censored remarks by Judiciary Chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei praising Pezeshkian.

The episode has exposed more than a dispute over television coverage. It has highlighted the growing gap between Iran's formal institutions and the centres of authority that increasingly operate beyond their reach.

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.