Iran continues exchanging messages through Qatar and other mediators

Mizan, the judiciary-linked news agency, alleged that the protesters had been armed and that the Supreme Court had upheld their death sentences.

The men are among 12 defendants sentenced to death in the Alikhani Square case. The case stems from protests in Isfahan on January 8, during which Iranian authorities accused defendants of involvement in the deaths of four security personnel, weapons offenses, destruction of property and arson.

Seven other defendants in the case, including two Afghan nationals, have been executed since July 19, Iran Human Rights said. Among them were Alireza Raisi and Alireza Sepahi, who were put to death on October 5.

UN Special Rapporteur Mai Sato highlighted the case during an October 28 address to the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee as an example of Iran’s mass trials of protesters.

• 

  Three Iran protesters face imminent execution after final family visits

Shahrzad Shahbazi, a lawyer representing defendants in the case, has previously disputed the official account, saying none had formally been charged with murder and the alleged killings had not been tried.

Iranian authorities have long used broadly worded charges such as espionage, acting against national security, armed rebellion, enmity against God and corruption on earth to crush dissent and remove political opponents.

Human rights organizations say these labels are routinely applied to protesters, dissidents and political prisoners to portray them as security threats and provide a legal pretext for execution.

• 

  UN’s Mai Sato details executions, mass trials in Iran crackdown

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UN experts have documented repeated cases in which such convictions were issued by revolutionary courts after grossly unfair or highly expedited proceedings, with defendants denied meaningful access to lawyers and verdicts based on torture-tainted forced confessions.

Rights groups therefore describe many executions carried out under these charges as arbitrary and politically motivated, warning that the authorities’ allegations should not be treated as independently established facts.

Ghalibaf, who also serves as parliament speaker, has in recent months been identified as the head of Iran’s negotiating delegation. However, following the delivery of Vance’s letter to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, ultra-hardline media outlets said that Rezaei had replaced him in negotiations with Washington.

The speculation intensified after Ghalibaf was absent from an unprecedented meeting last week involving the Pakistani army chief, Saudi Arabia’s defense minister and the head of Turkey’s intelligence service (MIT), representing three members of the Mecca Pact. Rezaei and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attended.

Ghalibaf’s supporters have argued that the so-called Tehran Summit was unrelated to negotiations with the United States and instead concerned Iran’s possible accession to the Mecca Pact.

Similar rumors that Ghalibaf was being removed from Iran’s negotiating team emerged in May before being officially dismissed.

Officials insist Ghalibaf remains in charge

Iranian officials have maintained that Ghalibaf continues to lead the country’s negotiating team.

Araghchi told Al Jazeera on Saturday, October 31, that Tehran still regarded Ghalibaf as its chief negotiator and that Rezaei fully supported this arrangement.

Describing the American initiative to establish contact, the foreign minister said: “The American side’s attempt to open the door to dialogue and understanding more broadly is a positive step.”

However, he warned: “If Washington’s goal in sending this letter is to stir up discord, it would be yet another mistake to add to its previous ones.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Monday that Ghalibaf remained Iran’s chief negotiator and that the country's diplomatic process was managed through the Supreme National Security Council.

Manouchehr Mottaki, a member of parliament’s National Security Commission who is aligned with conservative hardliners, also dismissed reports that Ghalibaf had been excluded from decision-making.

Speaking to the reformist Ensaf News website on Monday, he said: “Ghalibaf’s significant role in decision-making after Rezaei’s appointment demonstrates that he continues to play an effective part in this process.”

Hardliners welcome Rezaei’s growing role

Despite official assurances, Vance’s letter has prompted some hardline outlets and supporters of the Paydari Front to welcome Rezaei’s growing role and the prospect of diminished influence for Ghalibaf.

Raja News, a website close to the Paydari Party, wrote on October 29 that recent developments demonstrated that “the center of gravity of foreign policy during wartime has shifted from the negotiating team to the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council”.

The website also drew a distinction between two recent meetings with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. It said that during his meeting with Ghalibaf, Khamenei had emphasized resolving people’s livelihood problems through parliament and the government, as well as advancing relations with strategic partners. By contrast, it said, discussions with Rezaei had focused on “fulfilling Iran’s seven new conditions” in negotiations with Washington.

Nobonyad, another news website associated with radical conservatives, reported on October 30 that the media committee for the Islamabad negotiations, which consisted of associates and advisers of the parliament speaker, had been dissolved on the orders of a “senior security official”.

Raja News subsequently published an article titled “Why Does Support for Rezaei Anger Ghalibaf’s Supporters?”, accusing Ghalibaf’s supporters of portraying backing for Rezaei as a political maneuver motivated by satisfaction among his rivals over Ghalibaf’s diminishing role in wartime diplomacy.

The website also leveled a series of accusations against the parliament speaker. It alleged that he had accepted a ceasefire without the Supreme Leader’s authorization, falsely claimed in a Supreme National Security Council statement that the United States had fully accepted Iran’s conditions, entered nuclear negotiations in Islamabad contrary to the Supreme Leader’s instructions, and used the issue of Lebanon’s rescue as a pretext for traveling to Switzerland and continuing direct negotiations with representatives of US President Donald Trump.

Raja News wrote that Ghalibaf and his political allies could have enjoyed the same support from revolutionary forces as Rezaei, particularly under wartime conditions. However, it said they had chosen to place their personal views above the Supreme Leader’s principles and consequently became the target of what it described as “one of the harshest reprimands in the history of the Islamic Republic,” referring to Mojtaba Khamenei’s June 18 message in which he said he had held a different view on the agreement with the United States but authorized it after the president, on behalf of himself and other members of the Supreme National Security Council, gave assurances and accepted responsibility for it.

The website also criticized Araghchi’s recent statement that Tehran was still giving diplomacy an opportunity to succeed.

It described the foreign minister’s remarks as a “special gift to Trump on the eve of his electoral defeat” and a “direct signal of military weakness to the Pentagon and Tel Aviv operations rooms”.

“It is regrettable that Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s behavior at this critical juncture is exactly like that of someone who enters the scene whenever the enemy is on the verge of collapse and facing danger, in order to protect its interests,” it wrote.

Moderates reject claims of a power struggle

Ghalibaf and his close associates have not directly commented on the issue. However, the moderate conservative website Khabar Online described Raja News’s support for Rezaei as “superficial”, arguing that the website was using its support for Rezaei’s positions as a means of undermining and weakening Ghalibaf.

In a commentary published on Monday under the headline “The Duality That Never Materialized: Ghalibaf and Rezaei on the Same Side”, the moderate Asr-e Iran website argued that if the American letter had been intended to create divisions within Iran’s decision-making structure, that objective had effectively failed.

It added that even if Washington had no such intention, some domestic political factions had attempted to exploit the development to manufacture a rivalry between the two officials, despite their public rejection of such a division.

According to Asr-e Iran, Rezaei’s message in a television interview on Saturday was clear: an expanded role for the Supreme National Security Council, or the decision to address its secretary directly, did not mean that he was competing with the head of the negotiating team.

The website argued that although foreign governments could choose whom to address in their correspondence, they could not dictate Iran’s internal decision-making structure.

“The Vance letter could have become an issue for polarization. Some domestic factions also tried to create this duality. But the coordinated positions of Rezaei, Araghchi and Baghaei demonstrated that attempts to manufacture divisions among officials, at least in this case, face a serious obstacle: a division of responsibilities is possible, and differences in language are natural, but Iran’s final decision is one,” Asr-e Iran wrote.

Bank Pasargad CEO Majid Ghasemi dismissed six employees during an unannounced visit to one of the bank's subsidiaries on October 27 over their clothing, sources told Iran International.

During another visit the following day, several female employees were dismissed for wearing jackets and skirts, casual clothing or trainers, while a male employee was fired for wearing jeans, according to one of the sources.

Another person working at a company under Fanap Holding, a technology group linked to Bank Pasargad, said a company executive was forced to resign after refusing instructions to impose stricter dress code restrictions.

Employees at several companies, including Fanap, Fanap Infrastructure, Fanap Telecom, Dotin and Pasargad Electronic Payment, received notices warning that entry to workplaces from October 31 would be conditional on compliance with new clothing requirements.

The notices banned women from wearing headscarves, short or open-front manteaus, women's trouser suits and T-shirts. Some employees were subsequently denied entry over their clothing, the sources said.

One source said two or three colleagues were among those dismissed but were reluctant to speak publicly for fear of losing their severance payments and final employment settlements.

The reported dismissals come amid renewed pressure on Iranian businesses to enforce compulsory hijab rules, which require women to cover their hair and observe Islamic dress standards in public.

On October 30, Tehran Prosecutor Ali Salehi warned that managers of government agencies could face legal action for failing to enforce hijab regulations, according to the judiciary-affiliated Mizan news agency. He also called for increased monitoring of businesses, clothing retailers and public venues.

Iranian authorities have increasingly targeted businesses over alleged dress code violations. In August, Iran International documented at least 42 closures of cafes, restaurants, shops, sports clubs and other establishments across 17 cities in just three weeks.

More recently, Tehran prosecutors opened a case against organizers of the Tehran Art Fair over alleged violations of the country’s hijab laws, while the event's ticketing website and social media account were blocked.

Iran's compulsory hijab requirements have remained a point of contention since the 2022 protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody, with growing numbers of women appearing in public without headscarves despite the threat of penalties.

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have been conducting security drills, including at airports, while some attendees at a major energy conference in Abu Dhabi were cutting short their stays on government advice. Schools in Riyadh were also set to remain online this week as Saudi Arabia faces attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis. UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said his country hoped diplomatic efforts would succeed but was “braced for the worst.”

The warnings come against a backdrop of continuing attacks around the Strait of Hormuz. A tanker was struck by two unidentified projectiles near a Saudi port late Sunday, while another vessel was hit by an unidentified projectile off Oman early Monday. Iranian state media also reported Monday that an oil tanker caught fire after striking a mine in the eastern part of the strait.

The heightened preparations coincide with diplomatic efforts to prevent renewed fighting. Iranian negotiators left Doha on Sunday, with a draft proposal still circulating for feedback and a follow-up meeting possible. An Iranian source cited by the IRGC-affiliated Fars news agency said Monday that indirect communications with Washington had produced no diplomatic breakthrough and that Tehran continued to insist on its seven conditions. A third Qatari delegation in a week was heading to Tehran on Monday as Doha sought to bring Tehran and Washington closer to an agreement to end the war, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed reported, citing an informed Iranian source.

Axios reported that Qatari mediators had drafted an agreement outlining a three-day sequence of confidence-building measures aimed at resuming direct US-Iran negotiations. Trump told Axios he was “in no rush” to decide whether to resume fighting with Iran, saying: “One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush.”
The diplomatic push has also exposed differing views within the Trump administration over how to proceed. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio favor maintaining economic pressure without either a new war or a deal, while Vice President JD Vance and White House envoy Steve Witkoff are urging Trump to move toward an agreement, Axios reported.

Vance said Monday that Washington had made “some progress” toward a negotiated settlement. “The President and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement,” Vance said, adding: “We've certainly made some progress. We'll see if we can make some more.”

Despite those signs of progress, the possibility of renewed US military action remains. The Journal reported that Trump has been leaning toward a large attack on Iran after the US midterm election but has not decided whether to proceed. Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a call Saturday that he wanted to first give continuing diplomatic efforts a chance to succeed, according to people familiar with the call.

Bill Emlyn Jones told jurors at Woolwich Crown Court that the defendants had visited addresses, taken photographs and recorded videos as requested by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Their actions assisted the group even though no attack followed, he argued.

Mostafa Sepahvand, 41, Farhad Javadi Manesh, 46, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 57, deny charges under Britain’s National Security Act. The alleged targets included Iran International journalists Kambiz Hosseini and Mojtaba Pourmohsen, as well as barrister Jonathan Turner.

Prosecutors say Sepahvand was expected to carry out an attack and recruited Javadi Manesh and Noori to help locate and monitor targets.

Sepahvand says he acted under threats against himself and his family while deliberately frustrating the operation. Javadi Manesh and Noori deny knowing that their activities were assisting Iranian intelligence.

Demands for better information

Jones challenged Sepahvand’s account by pointing to his repeated demands for more accurate information about the targets.

The IRGC had supplied overhead photographs and a description of a car without its registration number, the prosecutor said. Javadi Manesh consequently went to the correct street but filmed the wrong people.

Jones argued that Sepahvand’s frustration with incomplete or inaccurate information showed that he was genuinely trying to locate the targets. He asked why Sepahvand had worked so hard to obtain better information if, as he claimed, he had no intention of completing the task.

The prosecutor also challenged Sepahvand’s defense that threats had compelled him to cooperate.

Jones acknowledged Sepahvand’s repeated accounts of family members suffering at the hands of Iranian authorities. But he argued that the issue was whether the IRGC had placed Sepahvand under duress in this case, rather than whether it was capable of doing so.

He said there was no evidence supporting Sepahvand’s account of acting under such pressure.

A deal to return to Iran

Jones argued that Sepahvand wanted his Iranian criminal case, involving 32 burglary offenses, resolved so he could return to Iran.

The messages showed bargaining over which side would act first, he said: Sepahvand wanted the case fixed before carrying out the task, while the IRGC wanted him to complete the work before resolving it.

Jones cited messages from Vahid Malmir expressing hope that the case could be resolved and Sepahvand could return to Iran, followed by Sepahvand’s affirmative response.

He also referred to messages from Mostafa Ghorbani relaying assurances that Sepahvand’s case was settled, that he would be provided with a house and that people would meet him at the airport.

In another exchange cited by Jones, Sepahvand indicated that even if he got into trouble in Britain, he would be free in Iran.

The prosecutor argued that Sepahvand’s desire to return contradicted his account of being terrified of the Iranian authorities. That wish explained why the criminal case mattered so much to him and why the IRGC could use it as a “bargaining chip,” Jones said.

Co-defendants’ explanations challenged

Jones said the prosecution had to establish that the defendants’ conduct materially assisted the IRGC. He argued that they had done precisely what the group wanted in Britain: visiting supplied addresses, locating targets and conducting surveillance.

Javadi Manesh and Noori accepted visiting locations and taking photographs and videos, Jones said. The disputed issue was whether they knew why they were doing so.

He questioned whether they could spend hours with Sepahvand, repeatedly visit locations and photograph buildings and vehicles without asking about the purpose.

The suggestion that they simply followed his instructions without asking why “defies common sense,” Jones argued.

He challenged Javadi Manesh’s explanations in police interviews, including his account that Sepahvand was helping him find somewhere to live when they visited Malthouse Court.

The prosecutor said Sepahvand went there because the IRGC had supplied it as a possible address for Pourmohsen.

Jones also cited Javadi Manesh’s explanation that he photographed Iran International’s building because it was “pretty,” and that he had been nearby to obtain painkillers.

He rejected Javadi Manesh’s account that a visit to St Dunstan’s Avenue concerned selling car insurance, pointing to messages from Sepahvand about the street, a blue car and Hosseini’s dog, Niko.

Jones also questioned Javadi Manesh’s explanation for receiving and forwarding information about Turner, including his office locations. Javadi Manesh had told police that a relative of his partner needed a solicitor.

Javadi Manesh did not give evidence during the trial. Jones argued that he had avoided cross-examination because he could not defend the explanations he had given police.

Turning to Noori, the prosecutor accused him of concealing the nature of his relationship with Sepahvand despite accompanying him on repeated surveillance trips, including one shortly before midnight.

Jones pointed to calls Sepahvand made to Amin and Ghorbani in Iran while Noori was in the car. The conversations concerned what they could see at a location and complaints about missing information, he said.

Noori, who speaks Persian and Lori, would have heard enough to understand what was happening, Jones argued. He also suggested that the calls could be heard through the car’s speakers.

The defense’s closing arguments are scheduled to begin on Tuesday with Tyrone Smith speaking for Sepahvand.