Israel says Iran funded, planned Hezbollah underground infrastructure in Lebanon

Calls for a tougher response have grown louder as fighting expands beyond the Strait of Hormuz and US pressure on Iranian oil exports intensifies.

In parliament, ultraconservative lawmaker Mohammad Taghi Naghdali has called for a stronger response to prevent further weakening of Lebanese Hezbollah, while Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesman for parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, has argued for measures aimed at strengthening Iran’s deterrence.

Other hardline figures have gone further, renewing calls for Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, end remaining international monitoring and adopt a more confrontational nuclear posture.

The Revolutionary Guards said Thursday its navy had targeted two US vessels, eight oil tankers and 10 other ships in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz in response to US attacks on five Iranian tankers.

The escalation is taking place against severe economic pressure at home. Food inflation reached 127.5 percent year-on-year in the month to late August, while the rial has fallen to record lows against the dollar.

For advocates of escalation, the calculation is that greater military pressure can produce strategic leverage before the economic and military costs become harder to sustain.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors this week reported Iran to the UN Security Council over breaches of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, the first such referral in 20 years.

Tehran rejected the decision, accusing Western governments of using disruption caused by US and Israeli attacks on its nuclear facilities as a pretext for further pressure.

Calls to leave the NPT or further restrict international monitoring could give Tehran another means of raising the stakes. They could also deepen its isolation and increase the risk of further military action at a time when diplomatic options are already limited.

But what are Iran’s alternatives?

Yet judging the hardliners’ strategy solely against Iran’s vulnerabilities misses the other side of the calculation.

President Donald Trump said this week that negotiations with Iran “could happen,” but added that talks were “not something we’re looking at” for now. US forces, meanwhile, have continued attacks on Iranian oil tankers and enforcement of Washington’s maritime blockade.

Trump also said he wants any eventual agreement to go beyond the nuclear issue, potentially making a negotiated settlement more difficult to reach.

Senior advisers have privately warned Trump that Iran could continue resisting US pressure and that the conflict could last through the remainder of his presidency, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Iran’s latest attack on the US base in Jordan required American forces to fire roughly 30 Patriot interceptors, according to a US official, adding to concerns about the rate at which the war is consuming sophisticated air-defense missiles.

Precise stockpile figures are classified, but independent estimates and recent reporting have pointed to significant pressure on US inventories of Patriot and other high-end interceptors, which can take years to replenish.

The disparity in overall military and economic power remains considerable, while Iran is already contending with high inflation, disruption to its oil trade and the costs of sustained military operations.

But the calculation in Tehran appears to be that Iran can impose sufficient costs on the United States and its regional partners before its own vulnerabilities become overwhelming.

It is a strategy with considerable risks. But with no clear diplomatic off-ramp, the harder question is whether Tehran’s hardliners are ignoring the options available to Iran—or responding to how few remain.

The attack on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base on Tuesday damaged an A-10 Thunderbolt II, commonly known as the Warthog, as well as about eight F-15 fighter jets, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The F-15s sustained light damage and were returned to service.

The exchange began after US forces destroyed five Iranian crude oil tankers.

Washington said the strikes were carried out after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps twice targeted a US Navy warship with ballistic missiles over the previous two days.

Iran then launched ballistic missiles at the American base in Jordan, forcing US forces to fire roughly 30 Patriot interceptors, the official said.

That expenditure comes amid growing concern in Washington over the rate at which the war is consuming some of the US military’s most sophisticated missiles.

Precise stockpile figures are classified, but independent estimates and recent reporting suggest inventories of Patriot, THAAD and other high-end munitions have fallen sharply during the Iran war.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in July that the United States had expended about 65 percent of its prewar Patriot interceptor inventory, leaving between 759 and 827 missiles from an estimated 2,330 before the conflict.

The concern is less that the United States is about to run out of missiles for the Iran war than that rebuilding inventories could take years, potentially reducing Washington’s ability to respond to another major conflict.

CSIS has estimated that replenishing several key weapons, including Patriot, THAAD and Tomahawk missiles, will be a multiyear undertaking.

The aircraft damaged in Jordan add to mounting US equipment losses since the war began in February.

According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, 42 US military aircraft had already been lost or damaged in the conflict. The losses included more than two dozen drones, fighter aircraft hit by Iranian strikes and aircraft lost in accidents.

Eighteen US service members have been killed and more than 800 injured since the war began.

A butcher in Karaj told Iran International that some customers now ask for their meat to be placed in black bags so it does not attract attention.

He described an elderly woman who had just bought meat when a man on a motorbike snatched the bag from her hand, causing her to fall and suffer injuries.

Police and judicial authorities do not publish detailed statistics on food theft, making it impossible to establish its scale or whether such crimes have increased. But basic groceries feature repeatedly in recent media reports of theft.

Some cases appear to involve people with no previous history of crime.

Meat, rice, cream

State news agency IRNA reported the case of a woman caught hiding two tubs of cream under her chador. When stopped by a security guard, she said her children were hungry. Her husband, described as a day labourer, reportedly knew nothing about the theft.

In a review of similar cases, IRNA said some of those accused, including housewives, had no criminal record and were facing theft charges for the first time. Cheese, yoghurt, cream and cooking oil were among the goods being stolen, it said.

The newspaper Jahan-e Sanat has separately reported thefts of cheese, butter and meat from shops.

The reports come as the cost of basic food has risen far faster than overall prices.

According to the Statistical Center of Iran, year-on-year inflation for food and drink reached 127.5 percent in the month to late August, meaning average prices in the category had more than doubled in a year.

Some staples rose considerably faster. Solid vegetable oil increased by more than 383 percent, eggs by nearly 294 percent, chicken by around 177 percent and red meat by 148 percent.

Iranian media reported last month that a kilogram of beef fillet cost around 42.7 million rials, about $19. At that price, one kilogram was equivalent to roughly seven and a half days of earnings at the minimum daily wage of 5.54 million rials, or about $2.50.

Armed robberies

But food is also appearing in crimes that have little apparent connection to immediate hunger, suggesting that sharply higher prices have made groceries more attractive to thieves.

In eastern Tehran, members of a gang who police said confessed to more than 10 house burglaries were stealing rice alongside gold, dollars and coins.

Police have also reported larger thefts, including around 1.5 tons of rice and other groceries from a storeroom in Tehran and approximately 15 tons of rice from a private warehouse in Rey.

Local media reported two armed robberies of shops in Iranshahr, in Sistan and Baluchistan province. In one, attackers took six sacks of rice, around 12 bottles of cooking oil, tinned food and pulses. In another, robbers fired shots before taking rice and cooking oil.

The cases cannot establish that food theft is increasing, nor do they point to a single motive. Shoplifting by someone struggling to feed a family is plainly different from a gang stealing rice alongside gold or raiding a warehouse.

What connects them is the changing value of food after years of inflation, particularly the steep price rises of recent months. Basic groceries have become increasingly difficult for many Iranians to afford — and valuable enough to steal.

The cabinet has opposed a report by parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee concerning the proposal, state news agency IRNA reported, citing Iran’s national database of laws and regulations.

The published notice did not specify which parts of the committee report the government opposed. The decision was taken at an August 23 cabinet meeting and formally communicated on September 8 by First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref.

Alireza Salimi, a member of parliament’s presidium, hit back Thursday, saying the government had exceeded its authority and was approaching the legislation politically rather than on its merits.

“This is a parliamentary proposal, not a government bill, and therefore the government’s action in opposing it is illegal,” Salimi told parliament’s ICANA news agency.

Controversial measure

The confrontation is the latest stage in a dispute over legislation that would significantly broaden the state’s powers to police contacts with foreign governments, media, universities and international organizations in the name of combating espionage and infiltration.

Parliament approved the proposal’s general principles in August by 183 votes to four, but lawmakers have yet to complete consideration of its individual provisions.

A publicly circulated draft would impose new restrictions on sharing information and contacts with foreign institutions and give the Intelligence Ministry and the Revolutionary Guards’ Intelligence Organization roles in identifying prohibited foreign links.

Critics have warned that its broad language could expose journalists, academics, researchers and others engaged in academic, cultural or civil-society cooperation abroad to prosecution.

Pezeshkian’s administration had already raised objections before the cabinet’s formal decision.

Brain drain risk

Vice President for Legal Affairs Majid Ansari said in August that the proposal conflicted with constitutional protections for individual freedoms and could sharply restrict academic contacts with institutions overseas.

He also argued that Iran already had laws and security agencies to combat foreign intelligence activity.

“If every type of contact and communication faces restrictions and is criminalized by law, naturally they will prefer to migrate and carry out their scientific and research activities in a free environment,” Ansari warned.

Salimi said any defects should instead be addressed as parliament considers the proposal.

“If there are flaws in parliament’s proposal, they should be corrected through expert review,” he said.

He also questioned why government representatives had not raised their objections earlier with the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.

The dispute leaves the government and parliament at odds not only over the scope of the proposed restrictions, but over the administration’s authority to challenge a security initiative originating in parliament.

Mohammad-Sadegh Motamedian did not identify which institutions were using the schools or disclose how many educational facilities had yet to be returned to the Education Ministry.

“These educational spaces must be handed over to the Education Ministry before the start of the school year, and where there are challenges, the relevant institution should inform the province so alternative space can be provided and the issue resolved,” Motamedian said.

The Revolutionary Guards, Basij paramilitary force and police used schools to station personnel during and after the war.

Dozens of schools used during war

An Iran International investigation published in March found that security and military forces moved personnel, weapons and equipment into at least 70 civilian sites across 17 provinces during the US-Israeli strikes from March 2 to 14.

100%

Nearly half of the locations – 34 – were primary or secondary schools. Other sites included hospitals, stadiums, universities, mosques, parks and government offices.

Footage from several cities showed security vehicles, personnel or military equipment on school grounds.

‘Schools offered greater security’

Journalist Ali Hossein Ghazizadeh said schools offered forces large courtyards, numerous rooms and locations among residential buildings at a time when military bases were being targeted.

• 

  Iran’s military uses schools and civilian sites during US-Israeli war

“Being in schools provides greater security for them,” Ghazizadeh told.

Schools were particularly useful for relocating personnel after bases and other facilities were struck, and their location among civilian buildings provided additional protection, Ghazizadeh said.

The use of educational facilities did not necessarily end with the fighting, Ghazizadeh said, adding that Iran International had received information indicating that some institutions sought to retain schools for longer-term use.

Civilian protection concerns

Schools are generally protected as civilian objects under international humanitarian law but can lose that protection if their use makes them military objectives. Attacking forces remain bound by rules including distinction, proportionality and precautions to limit civilian harm.

100%

Iranian officials have denied using civilians as shields and accused Israel of targeting civilian infrastructure during the conflict.

The Israeli military confirmed to Iran International in March that it had identified Iranian forces deploying personnel and weapons at civilian sites, including schools, mosques and stadiums.