Iranian lawmakers are reviewing a new internet regulation bill that could expand authorities' powers to restrict online access, raising concerns over further controls after months of nationwide internet shutdowns.
The proposed Cyberspace Regulation Bill is being examined by a parliamentary committee, but its official text remains unpublished, Iranian news outlet Jamaran reported.
Parliament received the proposal on August 3, but lawmakers reviewing it have declined to disclose its provisions.
"A decision has been made not to publicize the details of the Cyberspace Regulation Bill for the time being," Rouhollah Abbaspour, spokesman for the parliamentary committee, said.
An unofficial 12-article draft circulating online resembles the controversial Internet Protection Bill, known as the Sianat plan, which stalled in the previous parliament. However, a committee member told local media that the version under review differs from the circulating text.
Lawmakers divided over restrictions
The proposal has drawn criticism within parliament, with some lawmakers questioning the need for additional controls when international internet access is already heavily restricted.
Mostafa Pourdehghan, a member of parliament's Industries and Mines Committee, criticized repeated attempts to restrict international connectivity and expand domestic alternatives, citing existing filtering, poor internet quality and rising costs.
Pourdehghan warned that further restrictions during wartime could increase public anxiety, particularly among young people, and predicted the bill would meet the same fate as the earlier so-called Protection Plan.
Lawyer warns of sweeping powers
Lawyer Kambiz Norouzi warned that the proposed legislation could give the Supreme Council of Cyberspace extensive authority while weakening government oversight.
In an editorial published by Shargh newspaper, Norouzi criticized Article 1 of the circulating draft, which designates the council as the highest authority for internet policymaking.
Article 6 would also allow internet access to be suspended or restricted on orders from judicial authorities or other competent bodies, without clearly identifying those additional authorities.
"This provision amounts to creating unlimited and unregulated power to violate fundamental freedoms and is certainly unconstitutional and illegitimate," Norouzi wrote.
Norouzi also argued that the bill would concentrate decision-making in an institution whose proceedings are largely closed to public scrutiny.
The official parliamentary text has not been published, leaving uncertainty over whether these provisions appear in the version under review.
Months of shutdowns and previous restrictions
The proposal follows months of internet disruption affecting millions of Iranians.
Authorities imposed a nationwide blackout on January 8, 2026, during anti-government protests. Connectivity was only partially restored before another near-total shutdown began on February 28 following the outbreak of war involving Iran, Israel and the United States.
The second blackout lasted 88 days, with international connectivity beginning to return on May 26.
Restrictions disrupted businesses, education and communications. Iran's Chamber of Commerce estimated direct economic losses at $30 million to $40 million daily, with indirect losses potentially doubling that figure.
The legislation follows years of attempts to expand state control over online communications.
The earlier so-called Protection Plan sought greater oversight of foreign platforms but stalled following public opposition.
In July 2025, President Masoud Pezeshkian's administration also withdrew a separate cyber censorship bill following criticism over its potential impact on free expression.
Authorities have continued developing the National Information Network, which allows selected domestic services to operate independently of international connectivity.
The Supreme Council of Cyberspace, established by former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2012, already plays a central role in internet policymaking.
For now, lawmakers remain divided over the proposal's prospects, while the refusal to release its official text has left its scope, legal implications and potential impact on internet access unclear.
Iran's acting oil minister Hamid Bovard is facing questions over his role in recovering billions of dollars in oil revenues and allegations of his brother's involvement in senior appointments, news outlet Rouydad24 reported on Wednesday.
The report follows the resignation of Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad on October 4 and Bovard's appointment as caretaker minister, despite his previous responsibility for overseeing oil operations as managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).
The controversy has intensified following a debate hosted by the Revolutionary Guard-affiliated Fars news agency over billions of dollars in outstanding oil revenues, the performance of Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company and the circumstances surrounding Paknejad's departure.
The debate raised questions about Bovard's appointment as acting oil minister, given his previous responsibility for overseeing oil sales as head of the National Iranian Oil Company, and whether he should also be held accountable for the failure to recover export revenues.
The criticism centres on the failure of intermediaries, commonly known in Iran as trustees, to transfer proceeds from oil exports back to the country.
Reports have put the outstanding revenues at several billion dollars, including an estimated $4.7 billion associated with sales during Paknejad's tenure.
Questions over family influence
Rouydad24 also raised questions about the possible involvement of Bovard's brother, Javad Bovard, in recent management appointments across the oil sector.
The outlet cited unverified reports and rumours suggesting that Javad Bovard may have influenced personnel decisions.
The National Iranian Oil Company has previously denied allegations that family connections were being used to secure business advantages, saying certain contracts dated back to the previous administration.
Among the appointments highlighted was Mohammad Salehi Dolabi's selection as managing director of Oil Exploration Operations Company (OEOC), an upstream oil services company.
Rouydad24 questioned the limited publicly available information about his technical qualifications and previous experience in exploration and drilling, saying the lack of transparency had contributed to concerns over the selection process.
Uncertainty over permanent minister
Bovard's appointment as caretaker minister does not guarantee that he will become the permanent head of the ministry.
Under Article 135 of Iran's constitution, President Masoud Pezeshkian has three months to nominate a replacement minister for parliamentary approval.
Rouydad24 identified several potential candidates, including former economy minister Masoud Karbasian, former minister Mohammad Shariatmadari and former Social Security Organization chief Mostafa Salari.
The report suggested Bovard could face competition from candidates with greater ministerial or managerial experience.
The unresolved oil revenues and questions surrounding senior appointments have placed the ministry's leadership under renewed scrutiny, with the government yet to announce its nominee for the permanent post.
A senior Iranian official said on Wednesday that Qatar had presented Tehran with ideas that were unacceptable rather than a new peace proposal, casting doubt on diplomatic efforts to end the US-Israeli war on Iran as Washington weighs further military action.
The unnamed official told Reuters that Tehran would show no flexibility on the nuclear issue, a key point of dispute in efforts to reach an agreement.
The remarks came hours after Reuters cited another unnamed official briefed on the negotiations as saying that Qatari mediators had presented Iran with a new draft agreement in Tehran on Sunday, with a response expected by the end of the week.
Qatar pushes seven-day agreement
According to the official briefed on the negotiations, the draft sets out a seven-day timeline to address concerns on both sides, requiring each side to take daily confidence-building steps.
The process could begin early next week, while several countries would act as guarantors of the agreement. The official also said there had been concerns ahead of Sunday's meeting in Tehran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could resume attacks on Iran this week.
Trump leaves military options open
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday declined to rule out further strikes on Iran after the November 3 US midterm elections, saying "anything is possible."
"I can't tell you that," Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland when asked whether he planned to attack Iran after the elections. "But anything is possible."
Trump said Iran wanted an agreement and might be waiting until after the elections, but warned that delaying a deal "is not going to help."
"We've decimated their military. We've decimated the finances. They have no money. They have inflation the highest in the world, 300 percent. The government is gone. But we'll see what happens," Trump said.
His remarks came as the Wall Street Journal reported that Washington had warned several Arab states in the Persian Gulf to prepare for a possible short, intense military campaign against Iran after the elections.
US and Israel prepare for possible strikes
The United States has sent warnings through diplomatic and military channels as Washington and Israel prepare for a possible new round of attacks aimed at weakening Tehran and pushing it toward negotiations, the Journal reported, citing people briefed on the discussions.
The US military is moving a Patriot missile defense system from Texas to strengthen regional defenses and has relocated troops from vulnerable bases in preparation for a possible escalation, according to the report.
US forces have also been replenishing munitions, while bombers and fighter jets are being prepared for potential operations.
An additional aircraft carrier strike group and a Marine expeditionary unit are expected to join roughly 20 US warships in the Middle East next month, although some vessels could rotate out, the Journal reported.
Trump has not made a final decision but is leaning toward a large-scale attack after the elections that could target Iranian infrastructure and nuclear facilities, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with his thinking.
Israel has also prepared plans and identified targets for possible strikes, while Netanyahu has pushed for renewed military action against Iran, according to the report.
The White House declined to comment on "sensitive military plans that may or may not exist," but said Trump "keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon."
Iran’s budget planners are considering oil at $130 per barrel for the next Iranian year even as the conflict driving global prices higher has severely restricted Tehran’s ability to export crude.
The scenario, reported by the IRGC-linked Fars News Agency, would put the assumed price at more than twice the $55 used in the previous budget and highlights an increasingly difficult calculation for Tehran.
Plan and Budget Organization chief Hamid Pourmohammadi said Sunday that Iran’s Economic Council had approved the directive for drafting the budget for the year 1406, which begins in March 2027, and that the bill would be submitted to parliament within a month.
He did not disclose the baseline oil price the government intends to use. Fars reported separately that the PBO was considering a scenario based on oil reaching $130 per barrel.
An agreement with Washington could ease restrictions on Iranian exports but push global oil prices lower. Continued conflict could keep prices elevated while making Iranian oil even harder to sell.
A $130 scenario
Global oil prices have risen sharply since the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel and the regional conflicts that followed, climbing from around $70 to roughly $117 per barrel.
Some Iranian oil-market commentators say prices could reach $130 if the conflict continues and Tehran and Washington fail to reach an agreement.
But Iranian budgets have traditionally used more conservative oil-price assumptions to reduce the risk of revenues falling short.
Tehran’s Haft-e Sobh newspaper described the $130 figure as a “shock,” while the economic news website Faraz Energy also reported that it was under consideration.
Iran’s ability to sell crude has been severely constrained by the US naval blockade and sanctions. The higher global price therefore does not necessarily translate into higher revenues for Tehran.
Disputed export figures
Iranian officials insist that oil continues to leave the country despite US efforts to stop exports.
Mohsen Zanganeh, a member of parliament’s Planning and Budget Committee, said Iran earned more than $11.5 billion from oil during the first four months of the year and achieved 85% of its projected oil revenue.
He also claimed that Iran continued to export at least 600,000 barrels of crude per day despite the blockade and sanctions.
The US military’s Central Command presents a sharply different picture, saying its blockade of Iranian ports has prevented at least $25 billion in crude exports and that no goods other than humanitarian supplies have moved by sea.
The competing claims from parties to the conflict have not been independently verified.
Iran’s oil infrastructure has also suffered serious damage during the war, while the government has resorted to rationing and other austerity measures to curb domestic energy consumption.
Risk of a shortfall
Hossein Selahvarzi, a former head of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, warned in comments published by the economic daily Donya-ye Eghtesad that the greatest danger would be to prepare the 1406 budget as though Iran were facing a normal year.
Such an approach, he argued, could combine optimistic revenue forecasts with existing spending commitments, producing a deficit that would fuel inflation and discourage investment.
The uncertainty surrounding both prices and export volumes makes the eventual assumptions particularly important.
If $130 becomes the government’s baseline rather than merely one scenario, and either prices or export volumes fall short, Tehran would have to find other ways to close the revenue gap.
Those could include borrowing from the National Development Fund, selling government bonds or relying indirectly on financing from the Central Bank—measures that could add to inflationary pressure and further weaken the rial.
The government has yet to disclose which oil price or export volume it will ultimately use. But the $130 scenario illustrates the unusual calculation facing Tehran: the conflict that has made oil more valuable has also made Iran’s considerably harder to sell.
A visit to Tehran by senior Saudi, Turkish and Pakistani officials has exposed divisions among Iranian commentators, with some hailing it as recognition of Iran's influence and others warning that the visitors may be seeking concessions over Yemen and in talks with Washington.
The four-way meeting ended with a cautious statement committing the participants to continued dialogue on regional peace and security, without announcing specific agreements on the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel, the Strait of Hormuz or Iran's nuclear program.
Reuters reported, citing a Pakistani official, that Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, had presented Tehran with a proposal to end hostilities that had the approval of US President Donald Trump.
According to the official cited by Reuters, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar would act as guarantors if Iran accepted the proposal.
The prospect of regional powers helping broker an agreement has raised a question among Iranian commentators: whether the visitors came to offer Tehran a way out of the confrontation or to press it into concessions.
Recognition or pressure?
The state-run Iran newspaper chose the headline "Without Iran, Never" for its Tuesday report on the meeting, arguing that the presence of senior officials from three major regional powers demonstrated that no regional security order could be established without Tehran.
Abdollah Ganji, a hardline commentator and former editor of the IRGC-affiliated Javan newspaper, went further, describing Iran as the center of an emerging regional security arrangement.
"Iran is the axis of security creation in West Asia," he wrote on X, adding that a new "anti-Zionist bloc" was taking shape.
Former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif proposed a broader West Asian security network based on non-aggression, confidence-building and shared prosperity.
"Regional security cannot be imported; it must be built together by the people of this region," he wrote.
But many hardliners were considerably less enthusiastic.
"It is far too early to judge the results of this meeting, but it does not seem that trust has replaced mistrust or cooperation has replaced competition," hardline commentator Mostafa Najafi wrote on X.
"In today's Middle East, meetings are more about managing crises and tensions, or avoiding their consequences, than resolving them."
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a former chairman of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, argued that Yemen remained a more immediate concern for the visiting countries than Iran's confrontation with Washington.
"As long as the Yemen issue remains unresolved, the Iran issue will not be put on the agenda," he told Khabar Online.
Yemen at the heart of the mistrust
The Houthis' attacks on Saudi Arabia and regional shipping have made Yemen a major security concern for Riyadh. But Tehran's relationship with the group is also regarded by hardliners as an important source of Iranian influence.
Hossein Shariatmadari, managing editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, questioned the purpose of the meeting in a commentary titled "Tehran Summit: Water or Mirage?"
He warned that cooperation with countries involved in the Mecca defense pact could lead to pressure on Iran to distance itself from the Houthis, insisting that Tehran would not abandon the group.
Hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian portrayed Saudi Arabia's difficulties in confronting the Houthis as a reason for Riyadh's participation in the talks.
"Let the Saudis know that as long as the unjust blockade against the oppressed people of Yemen continues, Ansar Allah's attacks will continue, and assistance from other countries will be of no benefit to them," he wrote on X, using the Houthis' official name.
Hardline journalist Fereshteh Sadeghi was equally suspicious, interpreting the visit as an attempt to warn Tehran over Yemen.
"Iran would have to be foolish to accept their words and warnings," she wrote, arguing that the Houthis would continue acting independently even if Tehran came under pressure.
The disagreement illustrates a central obstacle to regional diplomacy: measures Saudi Arabia might seek to protect itself from Houthi attacks could be viewed by Iranian hardliners as concessions that undermine Tehran's regional influence.
Can regional powers guarantee a deal?
Beyond Yemen, the meeting has also prompted debate over whether Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Qatar could help provide assurances against another US or Israeli attack on Iran.
Tehran has sought guarantees that any agreement with Washington would prevent renewed hostilities, an issue that has become central to discussions about reviving diplomacy.
Maryam Salari, diplomatic editor of the state-run Iran newspaper, argued that the possibility of regional guarantees showed that the principal issue was no longer simply what Iran might concede over its nuclear program.
"The question is not whether Iran should make concessions on the nuclear issue now," she wrote. "It is what guarantee there is that war will not break out again if it makes concessions."
She suggested that the visiting officials had come to Tehran to address that concern.
Reformist journalist Farid Modarresi also saw an opportunity for diplomacy, arguing that Saudi Arabia and Turkey could bring greater regional influence to mediation efforts previously led by Pakistan and Qatar.
But the contrasting reactions among Iranian hardliners show how difficult that effort could prove.
For some Iranian hardliners, the visit signals recognition of Tehran's regional influence. For others, it raises the prospect of being asked to surrender some of that influence in exchange for peace.
Two men accused of assisting Iranian intelligence knowingly helped prepare attacks on Iran International journalists, a prosecutor told a London court on Tuesday, citing photographs and videos of addresses linked to them.
At Woolwich Crown Court, prosecutors alleged that Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 57, and Farhad Javadi Manesh, 46, knowingly assisted Mostafa Sepahvand, 41, in targeting Iran International journalists Mojtaba Pourmohsen and Kambiz Hosseini.
All three defendants deny the charges brought under Britain's National Security Act. Prosecutors allege they gathered information for Iranian intelligence to prepare for serious violence against at least one target, with Sepahvand expected to carry out an attack.
Prosecutor Bill Emlyn Jones accused Noori of being a trusted member of Sepahvand's surveillance team, citing photographs, messages and mobile phone location data. Noori denied knowingly participating in the alleged plot, saying he had taken photographs and videos at Sepahvand's request without understanding their purpose.
Late-night filming and repeated visits
Jones questioned Noori about a video filmed on St Dunstan's Avenue, an address linked to Hosseini, and sent to Sepahvand via WhatsApp at 11:56 p.m. on December 12, 2024.
Noori acknowledged taking the video but said they had gone for a drive because they were bored. He said Sepahvand asked him to film near a park, send the recording and delete it.
Jones challenged that account, suggesting the camera had deliberately focused on a particular house rather than randomly filming the area.
The prosecutor also cited phone and vehicle location data indicating repeated visits to the Malthouse Court area, linked to Pourmohsen, arguing that the movements were part of coordinated surveillance.
Noori said he did not know the significance of the locations and believed the recordings might have been connected to Sepahvand's business activities.
Jones also questioned him about four videos recorded over more than three hours in Kingston upon Thames on March 4, 2025, near premises associated with a business called Need a Fixer.
The prosecutor cited messages discussing recordings at hourly intervals to demonstrate Sepahvand's presence at a location, suggesting Noori knowingly participated in reconnaissance intended to help identify and ultimately attack targets.
Noori denied the allegation, saying he had never suspected Sepahvand of planning violence.
Prosecutor challenges Noori over police interviews
Jones questioned why Noori had not identified Sepahvand as a friend or explained the recordings during police interviews following his arrest in May 2025.
The prosecutor suggested Noori had remained silent because he had not yet developed an innocent explanation for his activities.
Noori said he had followed his solicitor's advice and was distressed by accusations that he had assisted a government he had fled.
He told the court he had been imprisoned three times in Iran and fled the country in 2019 because he feared for his life. During questioning by his defense lawyer, the court heard that Noori was granted asylum in Britain in 2024.
Earlier hearing examined £150,000 payment for alleged attack
During Monday's hearing, prosecutors challenged Sepahvand's claim that he had been deceiving the Revolutionary Guards, arguing that he was motivated by money and assistance with a criminal case in Iran.
Sepahvand acknowledged that a proposed £150,000 payment was conditional on harming a journalist but maintained that he demanded the sum to deter the IRGC and never intended to carry out an attack.
Noori and Javadi Manesh accept visiting locations and taking photographs or videos but deny knowing they were assisting Iranian intelligence.
The trial is scheduled to resume on November 2.
