UK expands Iran sanctions over nuclear program and hostile activity

The strikes targeted civilian and economic sites in Abha, Khamis Mushait, Jizan and Najran, according to Turki al-Maliki, spokesperson for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. He said women and children were among those injured.

Yahya Saree, the Houthi’s military spokesman, also said that the group launched a “broad military operation” deep inside Saudi territory with drones and ballistic missiles to target Saudi energy sites belonging to oil giant Aramco.

Saudi Arabia’s Energy Ministry said the attacks caused fires at several energy facilities and utilities, temporarily halting some operations. Emergency crews were working to extinguish the fires, secure the affected sites and assess the damage.

“The coalition will take all necessary operational measures to deter this terrorist militia,” Maliki said, pledging a firm response.

The attacks came after Iranian officials warned that energy infrastructure across the Persian Gulf, including US oil and gas interests, was vulnerable following renewed exchanges of attacks involving vessels around the Strait of Hormuz.

• 

  Houthis more effective Iran ally than Hezbollah, Yemen expert says

Houthi attacks helped push oil prices to their highest levels in more than six weeks, according to Reuters. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea has already slowed amid threats to commercial vessels and uncertainty over access to the two critical waterways.

The Houthis, who control Yemen’s capital and much of the country’s north, declared a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia in July and have since attacked vessels in the Red Sea and targets inside the country.

100%

The GCC denounced the strikes, describing them as a threat to regional security and backing measures taken by Riyadh to protect its territory and population. Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan also issued separate condemnations.

The attacks mark a further escalation in the war that began with US and Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. Repeated missile and drone strikes, along with attacks on shipping and energy infrastructure, have punctuated lulls in the fighting.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday that oil prices would fall sharply once the United States won the war, adding that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Naser Mansoursharifloo, an Iranian citizen, applied for the visa in January 2024. About six weeks later, government records marked his case as “approved pending info from partners,” but no final decision followed for more than two years.

By the time the case reached a court hearing in August, the application had spent about 911 days in security screening, far longer than government processing estimates for Iranian visitor visas during the period.

Mansoursharifloo holds a doctorate in mechanical engineering and previously worked as a project manager at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. He also served as head of engineering at Islamic Azad University in central Tehran, according to the court.

The court said the government had not provided enough evidence to explain why the screening had taken so long. It ordered authorities to make a decision within 60 days of the September 1 ruling.

The order does not require Canada to approve Mansoursharifloo’s visa and the court did not find that he was inadmissible. It only requires the government to make a decision.

• 

  Canada vows action against transnational repression after Iran threats

Canada steps up action against Iranian officials

The case comes amid a broader push by Canada to keep out or remove former senior officials of the Islamic Republic, particularly people whose past government roles could make them inadmissible under Canadian law.

Ottawa moved in 2022 to bar senior Iranian government officials from entering or remaining in Canada after the Islamic Republic’s crackdown on nationwide anti-establishment protests.

Canada has since pursued a number of cases involving former Iranian officials already in the country, while immigration authorities have increased scrutiny of applicants with backgrounds in Iranian government institutions.

Canada also listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity in 2024, adding another layer to its increasingly confrontational approach toward people and institutions tied to the Islamic Republic.

• 

  Canada says ex-Iranian official 'critical' to revenue tied to terror funding

Former officials face deportation cases

In one recent case, Canadian authorities are seeking to deport Abbas Omidi, a former senior official in Iran’s Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade who lives in Toronto.

Canadian government documents reported by Global News said Omidi had played a significant role in Iran’s mining sector and that revenue generated by the sector helped support the Iranian government, its military and the IRGC.

Omidi acknowledged during his deportation proceedings that he had served as a deputy director general in the ministry but said his position was mainly technical.

• 

  Canada deports former Iranian official linked to 2019 protest crackdown

The Canada Border Services Agency is seeking his removal on the grounds that he served as a senior Iranian government official.

Canada has also pursued other former officials under measures introduced after 2022, including people connected to Iranian state institutions and security bodies.

In a response to Iran International, Public Safety Canada said authorities continuously monitor such threats and can respond through investigations, criminal charges and disruption activities.

“Canada takes allegations of foreign interference, including transnational repression, extremely seriously,” the department said, adding that protecting Canadians, safeguarding democratic institutions and defending the country’s national interests remain top priorities.

The response came after Abolfazl Shekarchi, senior spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, accused Iran International, BBC Persian and Radio Farda of links to foreign intelligence services and described their journalists as “soldiers of Israel and the United States.”

He said journalists working for the outlets could be included in a “bank of military targets” because Tehran did not regard the organizations as media outlets.

Public Safety said Canada remained vigilant against transnational repression “by any state” and that the RCMP investigates reports of foreign interference regardless of their country of origin. Canada’s security and intelligence agencies, it said, employ “a full range of tools” to protect people in Canada and Canadians abroad from threats including terrorism, organized crime, foreign interference and transnational repression.

The department pointed to measures taken against Iran in recent years, including the designation of the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code, sanctions and Iran’s continued designation as a state supporter of terrorism.

Canada has also expanded its legal framework for countering foreign interference. The Countering Foreign Interference Act, adopted in 2024, strengthened authorities under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and updated offences related to foreign interference and sabotage.

A foreign influence registry established under separate legislation came into force in August, requiring greater disclosure of certain activities undertaken on behalf of foreign principals.

Global Affairs Canada earlier condemned Shekarchi’s remarks in a separate response to Iran International, saying journalists must be able to work without fear of reprisals, political interference or intimidation.

“Journalists, activists, and media workers are the cornerstone of fair, strong, and vibrant societies and must be free to do their work without fear of reprisals, political interference, or intimidation,” Global Affairs said.

The government said it would continue informing the public and supporting communities that may be disproportionately targeted by transnational repression.

The European Union has welcomed additional economic pressure on Tehran, including through the US-led Operation Economic Outcast, but has not formally endorsed every element of Washington’s strategy.

Yet the distinction over formal alignment conceals a more consequential reality: since the United States withdrew from the nuclear agreement in 2018, Europe has increasingly behaved as Washington’s junior partner on Iran.

This alignment predates the current war. Since the late 2000s, Europe has increasingly substituted declaratory diplomacy for autonomous action, defending multilateralism and dialogue while adapting in practice to US policy.

This gap became particularly evident after Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and reimposition of US sanctions on Iran in 2018: despite European opposition, the blocking statute and INSTEX failed to sustain meaningful trade, as almost every major European company abandoned Iran to preserve access to the US market.

This choice was economically rational. The US market and financial system are vastly more important to European companies than Iran. The international dominance of the dollar enables Washington to impose sanctions with effects far beyond US territory.

European banks, insurers, shipping companies and industrial groups remain highly exposed to US regulators and financial markets. Whatever the official position of their governments, companies have overwhelmingly prioritized continued access to the United States over commercial opportunities in Iran.

The weakness of direct EU-Iran trade should not obscure Europe’s remaining economic significance. According to the European Commission, trade in goods between the EU and Iran amounted to €3.7 billion in 2025, comprising €2.97 billion in EU exports to Iran and €760 million in imports from Iran.

This left the EU a significant trading partner for Iran, even though Iran accounted for only around 0.1 percent of EU exports.

These figures also underestimate indirect commercial links. European products reach Iran through Türkiye and, above all, the United Arab Emirates, which serves as a crucial platform for re-exports.

Stronger US pressure on Ankara, Dubai-based traders, logistics companies and regional banks would therefore affect European-origin goods even when European firms have no direct contractual relationship with an Iranian buyer.

“Economic D-Day” is not directed solely against Iran: it is designed to force Iran’s remaining commercial intermediaries to choose between Tehran and access to the US financial system.

Europe’s gradual alignment also has a political and diplomatic dimension. In August 2025, following unsuccessful talks with Tehran, France, Germany and the United Kingdom triggered the UN “snapback” mechanism with US support.

UN sanctions were restored on September 28, prompting the EU to reimpose its own nuclear-related economic and financial restrictions the following day.
The EU formally reimposed those measures on September 29.

After the deadly repression of the January 2026 protests, the EU went further, formally designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization in February and imposing additional sanctions targeting human rights violations, Iran’s missile and drone programs, and Iranian operations on European soil.

This convergence has since extended to the multilateral arena. In September 2026, the United States and the E3 began pressing for an International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolution reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years.

The push has further deepened the confrontation over inspections: IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said on September 7 that Tehran had told the agency it would not cooperate until there was progress in broader political negotiations, while Iran warned it would take reciprocal action if the resolution was adopted.

Grossi said the agency was receiving no information and had been told Iran would not cooperate without progress in broader political negotiations.

The proposed referral would mark a significant escalation in the nuclear standoff and further narrow the space for Europe’s long-standing ambition to pursue a third way between Washington and Tehran.

The war launched by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026 initially generated considerable European frustration. European leaders had not been consulted or even properly warned by their principal ally, despite their earlier coordination with Washington over the snapback process.

They called for restraint and respect for international law while expressing concern about the regional and economic consequences of the offensive.

But this dissatisfaction did not produce an autonomous European strategy. Europe lacked the military capabilities, economic leverage and political unity needed to shape the conflict.

The decisive talks involved Washington, Tehran and regional intermediaries such as Pakistan, Oman and Qatar. European governments remained largely peripheral, even as they condemned Iranian attacks against neighboring countries and commercial vessels.

The current hardening of the European position should therefore also be understood in the context of transatlantic relations and the war in Ukraine. For European leaders, preserving US support for Ukraine and preventing a strategic rapprochement between Washington and Moscow remain overriding priorities.

Iran offers them a potential means of demonstrating their usefulness to the Trump administration. By cooperating with Washington on sanctions, nuclear restrictions and regional security, Europeans hope to facilitate dialogue with an administration whose disengagement from Ukraine is their greatest strategic fear.

This calculation resembles the strategy adopted by several European governments at the beginning of Trump’s second presidency: concede or cooperate on secondary issues to preserve US engagement on the issue considered existential for European security. Iran is thus treated partly as a bargaining instrument within the transatlantic relationship.

This does not mean that European and US objectives are identical. Most European governments remain wary of regime-change strategies, uncontrolled military escalation and the humanitarian consequences of comprehensive sanctions.

They continue to emphasize diplomacy and international law and have not formally subscribed to Washington’s campaign of total isolation. The Trump administration is consequently overstating Europe’s political endorsement.

Yet the practical difference is narrower than European rhetoric suggests. Europe’s declaratory autonomy cannot compensate for its financial dependence, limited military capabilities and reliance on the United States for its own security.

Nor can European governments fully control the commercial decisions of private companies, which overwhelmingly prioritize access to the US market and the dollar-based financial system over limited opportunities in Iran.

Washington may therefore be exaggerating when it says that Europe has joined “Economic D-Day.” But since 2018, the structural alignment it describes has become increasingly difficult to deny.

Rapidly rising prices are forcing families to think less about what they can afford next year or next month and more about what they should buy today before their money loses more value tomorrow.

“If you are an average Iranian, you know what you can buy today. You might not buy tomorrow — and by tomorrow, I mean 24 hours later,” economist Ali Dadpay told Iran International’s Eye for Iran podcast. .

“This is an economy that right now saving in eggs makes more sense … than saving in tomans,” he said.

An egg now costs roughly 25,000 tomans. But the story is not its dollar value. It is how quickly the purchasing power of the toman is eroding. Money put aside today may buy noticeably less within days.

“You have to tell people the frustration, the anger, the feeling of inability to provide for one’s family or afford healthcare services, pay for prescription drugs,” Dadpay said.

Average monthly income is below $200, by his estimate, while housing consumes an increasingly large share of household earnings.

Meat and other proteins are disappearing from some families’ diets. Even damaged fruit, once bought by the poorest or given to the homeless, is increasingly becoming an option for ordinary households trying to stretch their money.

“We are not approaching an economic disaster,” Dadpay said. “We are in the middle of an economic disaster.”

Economic pain, political anger

The erosion of Iran’s middle class has been underway for years, but the pressure is accelerating. Saving itself has become less about building wealth than preserving purchasing power, with gold and foreign currency used to make sure today’s earnings can still pay for necessities weeks or months from now.

“This is an economy that has stopped to invest in its future,” Dadpay said.

The political question is what happens when years of impoverishment collide with shortages, unemployment and declining public services.

Iranian authorities appear increasingly concerned about that possibility. Officials have identified gasoline, unemployment and livelihoods as potential triggers for unrest.

Judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei has threatened a tougher response to renewed protests, while leaked Basij audio has exposed concerns about further unrest.

Strategic forecaster Kamran Bokhari cautioned against treating economic deterioration as evidence that political rupture is imminent. Economic misery alone does not bring down governments, particularly those with an extensive coercive apparatus.

“It’s a meltdown and we’re watching it in real time,” Bokhari said.

For now, people can still adapt. Stores open, supply chains continue to function and families cut spending, change what they eat and plan around what they can afford over the next few weeks rather than the next few years.

But adaptation has limits.

You cannot eat paper

Tehran can continue paying its forces, at least in nominal terms.

Iran is a large economy of roughly 90 million people, with extensive borders and black-market networks capable of keeping some goods moving. The government can prioritize spending and print more money.

What it cannot print is the food, medicine, fuel and other goods that money is supposed to buy.

“When there are not enough products in the society, when there is not enough bread and butter for people, then the money is not going to solve the problem,” Dadpay said. “It’s just paper. You cannot eat paper.”

That creates a problem for a government relying heavily on material benefits to maintain loyalty. A higher salary offers diminishing protection against discontent if inflation rapidly destroys its purchasing power or shortages mean there is less available to buy.

Gasoline captures the contradiction particularly well.

Iran possesses enormous oil and natural gas reserves, yet Iranians have faced fuel shortages and long lines at filling stations. Dadpay traces the problem partly to decades of cheap subsidized gasoline, inefficient domestic cars, fuel smuggling and limited competition.

For years, there was still enough wealth to keep that system functioning.

Dadpay compared it to dividing a cake. Different groups could continue receiving a piece even as the cake became smaller. Now, he said, “there is no cake.”

Few easy ways out

Even an easing of external pressure would not necessarily resolve the deeper problems.

Powerful economic networks tied to the IRGC have benefited from monopolies and restricted competition, while greater foreign investment and competition could threaten those interests.

For Bokhari, that helps explain why Iran’s crisis is about more than sanctions, war or access to money.

“The kind of reforms needed means that this regime will not be what it is today,” he said.

Neither economist nor forecaster is putting a date on political rupture. Economic deterioration can persist for years, and the Islamic Republic has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use force to contain unrest.

But the immediate crisis is less abstract. Families are getting poorer, shortages are adding to the strain and money itself is becoming increasingly unreliable as a store of value.

Dadpay’s measure of that decline is strikingly simple. “This is an economy that right now saving in eggs makes more sense … than saving in tomans.”