Internet users in Tehran and several other provinces reported outages and unstable connections Tuesday amid uncertainty over renewed US military action, after the New York Times reported that Washington could launch strikes on Iran as early as Wednesday.
Iranian media reported disruptions affecting Hamrah-e Aval (MCI) and the Telecommunications Company of Iran in parts of the capital, alongside severe slowdowns on other networks. The disruptions mainly affected Tehran and surrounding provinces, although problems were also reported elsewhere in the country.
Iranian technology news outlet CITNA separately reported complaints from mobile internet users about repeated disconnections, intermittent access and significant drops in connection speeds.
CITNA said the full geographic extent of the disruptions, the operators affected and their causes had not been officially established. International internet-monitoring systems continued to show relatively stable nationwide connectivity, it said, although such indicators might not capture localized outages.
Other Iranian media reports described an interruption to global internet access lasting approximately 10 minutes before service was restored, without establishing how widespread it was.
The outages follow warnings by US President Donald Trump of possible strikes on Iran after Tuesday’s US midterm elections.
US Central Command has prepared a plan to begin strikes as early as Wednesday, when three American aircraft carriers are expected to be in the region, the New York Times reported, citing US officials.
During the war that began on February 28, Iranian authorities imposed a nationwide internet blackout that lasted 88 days. Access to the global internet began returning on May 26, although connectivity remained limited and uneven.
Iranians responding to an Iran International appeal said they could not afford emergency supplies or had nowhere safe to go if wider war resumes with the United States and Israel, with others describing exhaustion after repeated rounds of fighting.
Iran International asked its Instagram followers whether they would prepare emergency kits in the event of another war, drawing around 4,000 replies, many of which cited poverty, rising prices and a lack of public shelters.
Others described growing exhaustion after the 12-day war in June 2025 and the 40-day conflict from February to April 2026, both involving the United States and Israel, as well as decades of political and economic uncertainty.
The responses come after The Atlantic reported last month that the Trump administration was considering renewed strikes on Iran following the US midterm elections, with energy infrastructure among the potential targets.
Some respondents said they would not prepare emergency supplies, although their reasons varied.
‘We buy yogurt in four installments’
Financial hardship was a recurring reason cited by respondents, many of whom said meeting everyday needs had become difficult, let alone stockpiling food, medicines and emergency equipment.
"We buy yogurt in four installments, and then they expect us to stockpile three months' worth of food!" one respondent wrote.
Several Iranians pointed to the considerable cost of putting together even a basic emergency kit containing a flashlight, radio, canned food and other essential supplies.
"Putting together this bag costs 200 million rials [about $73]. Where are we supposed to get that money?" another respondent said.
One person questioned how anyone earning 250 million rials ($91) a month could afford an emergency kit costing at least 150 million rials ($55).
Another estimated the cost of a kit at nearly 300 million rials ($109), saying it was difficult for people who could not afford food for the following day.
The concerns reflect a broader cost-of-living crisis in Iran.
Iran's Statistical Center reported that point-to-point inflation, which compares prices with the same month a year earlier, reached 88.7% in the Iranian month of Mehr, which ended in October.
"We have no money, we're unemployed, and even covering the cost of daily food has become difficult," one respondent said.
Some said they could afford only a few basic items.
"Only things like sanitary pads, pills, tissues and biscuits. I can't afford the rest," one person wrote.
Others said they intended to prepare emergency kits despite the costs, particularly because of concerns about prolonged disruptions to water, electricity and gas supplies.
Several respondents with cardiovascular conditions, diabetes or epilepsy said they had stockpiled several months' worth of essential medication.
‘Where are we supposed to go?’
A lack of safe shelter was another major concern among respondents, with some questioning the purpose of preparing emergency supplies when they had nowhere to escape to.
"Even if we pack a bag, where are we supposed to go? The main question is, where do we go?" one person wrote.
Another said sarcastically: "During a war, all I can do is move from one room to another."
The shortage of public shelters has been acknowledged by Iranian officials.
On September 15, Tehran City Council Chairman Mehdi Chamran said metro stations should be equipped to serve as emergency shelters. He had previously acknowledged that the capital lacked fully equipped and ready-to-use shelters for residents.
Some respondents questioned whether emergency supplies would make any meaningful difference if strikes damaged essential infrastructure, leaving households without electricity, running water or gas for extended periods.
"If they strike the infrastructure, what can you possibly do with a backpack that, at most, can get you through one week?" one wrote.
Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said on September 27 that damage to gas infrastructure during the two recent wars had reduced supplies, adding to the country’s energy shortages.
‘Our entire lives have been a state of emergency’
Beyond financial hardship and the lack of shelter, many responses reflected psychological exhaustion and a growing sense of resignation after repeated conflicts.
Some joked that preparing emergency kits was something only people experiencing war for the first time would do.
"It was only during the 12-day war that the anxiety felt new," one respondent wrote.
Another recalled preparing supplies during the first conflict but gradually abandoning the effort.
"We only packed one the first time. Then we needed our belongings and kept taking them out of the bag. The second time, we just entrusted ourselves to God," the respondent said.
Iran International documented similar sentiments in a June 8 report, when respondents described exhaustion with war, economic pressures and uncertainty about the future.
Despite concerns about the consequences of further fighting, some expressed hope that another conflict could bring political change.
That contradiction was also evident in the latest responses, with some saying they no longer feared renewed war and were instead waiting for it to begin.
"Now I'm more stressed about the possibility that war might not happen," one person wrote.
Others spoke of growing fatigue with the uncertainty surrounding the country's future.
Several respondents blamed the Islamic Republic for keeping Iran in what they described as a state of "suspension and crisis," "constant anxiety" and "living on red alert" throughout its 47 years in power.
One respondent summed up the sentiment shared by many: "Our entire lives have been in a state of emergency."
Tehran’s newspapers agree across factions that negotiating with the United States is legitimate, but are deeply divided over whether diplomacy can still prevent war, as Qatar said on Tuesday that both sides were reviewing its proposals.
While reformist and moderate newspapers, including Etemad, Shargh and Arman Melli, explore ways to reach an agreement, hardline outlets such as Hamshahri and Kayhan appear to be preparing the public for conflict.
Iranian negotiators left Doha on Sunday after three days of talks with Qatari mediators, and a Qatari team traveled to Tehran on Monday night before returning to Doha.
“Both parties are reviewing suggestions we as mediators proposed,” Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Tuesday, adding that differences remained but talks were continuing. A senior Iranian official told Reuters the same day that Tehran and Washington were still far from a deal, and that Iran would not accept what he called Washington’s “excessive demands.”
Tehran says negotiations should be based on its seven-step September plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the US naval blockade, on a faster timetable proposed by Qatar. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has suggested reopening the strait within two days of an agreement, leaving nuclear issues for a second phase.
President Donald Trump has said there will be no further strikes before Tuesday’s midterm elections, but has not ruled out military action afterward. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says no decision has been made. US allies in the Persian Gulf have reportedly been told to prepare for possible strikes after November 4. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has ordered Iran’s armed forces to prepare for war across an extended front.
The immediate focus in Tehran is a letter from US Vice President JD Vance to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. After a week of confusion over who was leading negotiations, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Monday that Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf remained in charge, but that Rezaei would answer Vance because the letter had been sent to him. Ghalibaf has not spoken publicly about a nuclear agreement for weeks.
In a report headlined “We Must Negotiate,” the reformist daily Etemad set out three positions. Hossein Nourani-Nejad, deputy head of the reformist Ettehad-e Mellat party, described Iran’s choices as surrender, warmongering or de-escalation. He backed President Masoud Pezeshkian’s “smart management of hostility” and criticized hardliners and the state broadcaster for raising the idea of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Asadollah Badamchian, a conservative politician of the Motalefeh party, argued that negotiation was a tool, not a principle, and was acceptable if it served national interests. He read Vance’s letter as evidence that Washington’s pressure strategy had failed, but warned against “naive optimism.” The final decision, he said, rested with the Supreme National Security Council and the Supreme Leader.
Ali Sufi, a reformist politician, was more hopeful. He identified five elements in Vance’s letter, including direct talks, lifting the blockade and reopening Hormuz, and argued that Iran was approaching a turning point, with both the Supreme Leader and Rezaei calling for an end to “neither war nor peace.” Including the nuclear issue could complicate negotiations, he cautioned, but would probably be unavoidable.
Hardline newspapers largely ignored the letter. Kayhan read his latest orders to military commanders as ending America’s ability to launch limited strikes and then withdraw. It dismissed US threats as psychological warfare, insisting Iran did not seek war but did not fear it.
Javan, a daily close to the Revolutionary Guards, called the threats a “psychological bombardment of the negotiating table” and said Tehran had rejected Qatar’s five-day confidence-building proposal.
The reformist outlet Eslahat News quoted lawmaker Fada-Hossein Maleki, who called the decision to send the letter to Rezaei a US conspiracy to divide Iranian officials.
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a former chairman of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, offered a darker assessment in Shargh. Intensive Qatari mediation, he argued, reflected alarm rather than progress: the mediators had, he said, glimpsed both sides’ plans for a new war.
He described Vance’s approach as Trump’s attempt to secure a diplomatic success before the election, but said Washington’s proposed concessions were too limited to overcome mistrust. Pointing to military deployments, he declared war “certain.”
The only way out, Falahatpisheh said, was a regional agreement involving the United States and guaranteed by China. Russia, he argued, sees the region through the prism of the Ukraine war and is a spoiler rather than a credible guarantor.
China has around $480 billion in economic ties with the region, imports six to eight million barrels of Persian Gulf oil a day and has major investments in Qatar’s side of the gas field it shares with Iran. Falahatpisheh argued that rivalry with Washington gave Beijing both the interest and the influence to guarantee an agreement, despite suggestions that China might prefer to keep America occupied in the Middle East rather than focused on Taiwan.
Iranian observers have often argued that China puts its own interests ahead of Iran’s. Javan reported that a Chinese special envoy would visit Iran and the region soon, and cited a joint call by China and Oman for a return to the Islamabad memorandum.
In Arman Melli, the economist Mahmoud Jamsaz warned that Tehran was misreading Washington. Officials who assume America’s economic problems leave Trump no choice but to accept Iran’s conditions, he said, risk wasting the mediators’ last opportunity. Trump might instead decide that war is preferable to the status quo.
During the closure of Hormuz, Jamsaz noted, China drew on its strategic reserves and cut imports, countering forecasts of oil at $200 to $300 a barrel and weakening Iran’s leverage.
A prolonged confrontation, he warned, would bring foreign-currency shortages, a falling rial, runaway inflation and the destruction of the middle class, weakening society’s ability to withstand the crisis. Iran’s distorted state capitalism, he argued, fails the test of a “resistance economy”; budget deficits and the misery index show little economic resilience.
Neither war, a prolonged frozen conflict nor a Korean-style armistice serves Iran’s national interests, Jamsaz concluded. Only negotiations aimed at ending the confrontation offer a way forward.
Iranian military officials and hardline lawmakers have warned that a new confrontation with the United States could extend beyond the Middle East, while conservative media have begun identifying American military facilities in Europe as potential targets.
The warnings follow a statement attributed to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on Saturday, ordering Iran's armed forces to prepare for retaliation without geographic restrictions and expand their list of potential US and Israeli targets.
The hardline daily Kayhan went further, arguing that American and NATO facilities "in the heart of Europe" could be targeted if US and Israeli attacks on Iran resume.
The newspaper named military facilities in Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Albania, Italy and Britain, as well as the joint US-British base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Military commanders signal broader reach
Iran's Army spokesman, Mohammad Akraminia, said renewed fighting could spread beyond the countries and territories involved in previous rounds of the war.
"In the recent war, the conflict extended from the occupied territories to US bases in regional countries, but if another attack takes place, the geography of the war could expand beyond West Asia," he said.
He added that Iran was updating its list of potential US and Israeli targets.
A senior Basij commander, Ghassem Ghorayshi, also said Iran's armed forces would no longer be bound by previous limits on missile range, target selection or the scale of operations.
"In the past, target selection and missile ranges were restricted," he said, attributing those limits to decisions made under former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
"From now on, the armed forces will have no restrictions on striking targets, determining missile range or the scale of missile operations," he added.
The remarks do not by themselves establish that Iran has developed new long-range missiles or formally changed its military doctrine.
Iranian newspapers identify European bases
A separate report in the newspaper Hamshahri also raised the possibility of targeting American military infrastructure in Europe, including air bases, logistics centers and support facilities.
The newspaper cited speculation that Iranian missiles could reach targets 4,000 to 5,000 kilometers away, significantly beyond the roughly 2,000-kilometer range Iran previously described as a self-imposed limit.
However, those longer-range estimates remain disputed, and the ability to extend a missile's theoretical range does not necessarily establish its accuracy, payload or operational effectiveness.
The reports reflect a broader shift in Iranian rhetoric toward threatening American military infrastructure outside the Middle East.
Western defense experts have offered more cautious assessments of Iran's long-range strike capabilities. The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies lists Iran's principal ballistic missiles with ranges generally around 2,000 kilometers, with some variants potentially reaching 3,000 kilometers.
Britain’s Royal United Services Institute has said strikes as far as the UK may be theoretically possible, but would involve smaller, less accurate warheads traveling through defended airspace.
Lawmakers warn of wider conflict
Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesperson for parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, warned that renewed fighting could spread far beyond the countries already affected by the war.
"I don't want to use the term World War III, but the geography of the war would be almost on the scale of World War III," he told Iranian media.
He said another conflict would be considerably wider than the previous 12-day and 40-day rounds of fighting.
Ghashghavi also suggested that Iranian retaliation could affect civilian infrastructure and everyday life in countries involved in attacks on Iran.
"If they leave your people in darkness, you should leave their people in darkness too," he said.
In another warning, Tehran lawmaker Kamran Ghazanfari said Iran could retaliate against US assets in Europe and potentially on American territory if Washington used military bases in Arab states to attack Iran.
Ghazanfari also speculated that Iran might already possess nuclear weapons, without providing evidence. Tehran has not officially announced that it possesses a nuclear weapon.
Tehran links warnings to negotiating demands
The military warnings have come alongside renewed Iranian demands in negotiations aimed at ending the war.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tehran had delivered a "firm and rational response" to Washington and that "the ball is now in America's court" to prevent renewed fighting.
Iran's armed forces chief, Ali Abdollahi, separately outlined five conditions for lasting regional security: an end to fighting on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon and Gaza; the lifting of sanctions and release of frozen assets; war reparations; recognition of Iranian authority over the Strait of Hormuz; and guarantees against renewed attacks under a new regional security framework.
The demands come amid diplomatic efforts involving Qatar and other mediators, although a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Tuesday that Tehran and Washington remained far from an agreement.
Some Arab states have warned Iran that they could retaliate individually or collectively if Tehran targets their infrastructure, as Persian Gulf countries prepare for the possibility of renewed US strikes and Iranian retaliation, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.
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.
Israel’s UN envoy denied that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressing Donald Trump to resume strikes on Iran and dismissed claims that a nuclear attack was under consideration, while mediators pursued a deal ahead of Tuesday’s US midterm elections.
“Prime Minister Netanyahu is not pressing President Trump. President Trump knows exactly what he wants to achieve and how he wants to achieve it,” Danny Danon told Al Arabiya English.
“Israel will collaborate with the United States. We will support the decision of the United States, but it is not us pressing anyone,” he added.
Danon’s remarks followed an Axios report Sunday, citing an Israeli and a US source, that Netanyahu was urging Trump to strike Iran immediately after the November 3 elections, while the US president preferred to allow negotiations to continue.
The Israeli source described the leaders’ Saturday phone call as “tough,” while the US source called it “direct.”
Trump confirmed Sunday that he had spoken with Netanyahu about Iran, describing their conversation as “a very good talk,” without providing further details.
Danon also rejected a claim by US commentator Tucker Carlson on X that a nuclear strike against Iran was being considered, calling the idea “delusional.”
“No one is even discussing it in the US, nor in Israel,” he said.
Washington weighs military options and diplomacy
Trump said Saturday that negotiations with Iran were “going fine” and that he was in no hurry to resume military action, although he said Washington still needed to target one or two sites, including the suspected underground nuclear complex at Pickaxe Mountain.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday that Trump had not decided whether to launch further strikes.
“He hasn’t made a decision,” Rubio told reporters in Atlanta, adding that Washington preferred to resolve the conflict peacefully.
Rubio said diplomatic contacts had remained active, often through intermediaries, and declined to set a deadline for negotiations.
Iran says diplomatic contacts remain active
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Monday that consultations through mediators, including Qatar and Pakistan, remained intensive, after several days of talks with Qatari officials ended without a breakthrough.
“Everything depends on the political rationality of Washington,” Araghchi said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.
Araghchi said a revised proposal developed through mediation could allow the Strait of Hormuz to reopen within two days if Washington accepts Iran’s conditions.
Tehran’s earlier seven-day plan called for Washington to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, release frozen Iranian assets and waive sanctions on Iranian oil sales before negotiations resumed.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also said Monday that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had granted the government “certain authorities” regarding peace talks with the United States, according to IRNA.
Pezeshkian said Iran would seek to resolve the conflict through dialogue, without specifying the scope of those powers.
An Iranian source cited by the Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Fars news agency said Monday that indirect communications with Washington had produced no breakthrough and that Tehran still insisted on its seven conditions for progress. Exchanging messages through intermediaries was routine, the source said.
Despite the diplomatic contacts, Danon said in his Monday interview that Israel remained prepared for military action regardless of uncertainty surrounding the formation of a new government following last week’s Israeli elections.
“The military is prepared, we are ready and if we will need to protect our people, we will do it,” he said.
