Alleged IRGC plot sought woman to burn kosher shop, German court hears

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) later listed three tanker attacks near the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, including an LNG tanker hit by an unknown projectile eight nautical miles east of Limah, Oman, causing a fire in its port-side engine room.

The advisory also listed a VLCC hit east of Khor Fakkan, UAE, with no crew injuries reported, and a third tanker struck east of Oman’s Musandam Peninsula, sustaining minor structural damage with no casualties or environmental impact reported.

Maritime security sources said a Saudi-flagged crude oil tanker was among the vessels damaged close to the coast of Oman on Tuesday and was believed to be the Wedyan supertanker.

US officials told Axios and The Wall Street Journal that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps fired missiles at two commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Both vessels, the officials said, sustained significant damage but there were no reported casualties.

Iranian state television offered a different account, reporting that one tanker had ignored repeated warnings while using a maritime route near the Omani coast backed by the United States. The tanker, it said, was struck after failing to heed those warnings.

100%

One of the targeted vessels appeared to be Al Rekayyat, a liquefied natural gas tanker linked to Qatar's LNG industry, according to The Wall Street Journal. Marine radio recordings cited by the newspaper indicated the ship suffered a fire near its engine room but that all crew members were safe.

Talks lose momentum

The attacks came less than three weeks after Tehran and Washington signed a memorandum of understanding under which Iran agreed to halt attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz during negotiations over a broader agreement. A separate one-week arrangement aimed at preventing attacks in the waterway has since expired.

Indirect talks in Doha last week ended without significant progress on maritime security, according to US officials.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tuesday that negotiations on a final agreement would not begin while threats against Iran continued, urging Washington to "honor your signature" under the memorandum of understanding.

Separately, senior Iranian lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said legislation to formalize Iran's management of the Strait of Hormuz would be introduced in parliament, adding that any arrangement concerning the waterway without coordination with Tehran was "doomed to fail."

• 

  Ship attack in Hormuz tests fragile US-Iran understanding

The reported attacks unfolded during the fifth day of funeral ceremonies for former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, showing the fragility of efforts to stabilize one of the world's busiest energy shipping corridors.

For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic has rested on one central principle: the Supreme Leader has the final word.

Presidents, parliament, the judiciary and the military could disagree. Institutions could compete. Factions could fight. But ultimately, Iran’s Supreme Leader settled the argument.

That assumption now appears shaken—and is being openly questioned from inside the system itself.

The debate began with what appeared to be a dispute over the government’s memorandum with the United States.

Vice President for Executive Affairs Mohammad-Jafar Ghaempanah argued that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s views were subject to institutional review rather than automatic implementation.

“If every opinion expressed by the Leader were implemented without question, there would be no need for institutions such as Parliament or the Supreme National Security Council,” Ghaempanah said.

Ultra-hardliners accused Ghaempanah of attacking the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, or Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, arguing that he had reduced the Supreme Leader’s judgment to the level of other officials.

“It’s a very new thought,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “the idea that the Supreme Leader is not the one who makes the final decision.”

Clawson cautioned against overstating Ghaempanah’s personal influence. Although he holds the title of vice president, the position functions largely as a presidential adviser rather than one of Iran’s principal decision-makers.

The significance, he said, lies not with the messenger but with the idea itself.

“There has always been some collective element,” Clawson said. “But the Supreme Leader has been the final decision-maker.”

The suggestion that institutional decisions might themselves become definitive, without requiring the Leader’s final approval, would represent “a very new and different way of doing things,” he added.

Historian Arash Azizi said the controversy reflects a deeper problem.

“The Islamic Republic's constitutional design has had a tension or a contradiction built into it from the beginning,” Azizi said, arguing that the office of Supreme Leader was built around a “philosopher-king” model: an unelected cleric standing above politics and resolving disputes between competing institutions.

Under Ali Khamenei, that contradiction largely disappeared.

“He effectively turned Iran into an autocracy ... a personalistic system really, where his final word just carried the ultimate weight,” Azizi said.

But no successor, he argues, was likely to inherit that degree of authority.

“It had long been clear that there would be no smooth succession,” Azizi said. “It had also long been clear that it is much more likely that the future of leadership in the Islamic Republic would be less clerical and more collective.”

According to Azizi, that transition had already begun before Ali Khamenei’s death.

Following the 12-day war, he argued, day-to-day authority increasingly shifted toward the Supreme National Security Council, where Iran’s major institutions, including the presidency, judiciary, IRGC and intelligence services, are represented.

In that context, Ghaempanah’s remarks become more than a defense of negotiations with Washington.

They suggest the office of Supreme Leader itself may be evolving from the unquestioned source of authority into one power center among several.

If that trend continues, Azizi believes the constitutional framework itself may eventually need to change.

“I believe that in the next few years, they'll change the constitution and perhaps get rid of the position of Supreme Leader, merge it with the president, or fundamentally change the constitution of the Islamic Republic.”

Janatan Sayeh, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, sees another force behind the shift.

“No one had undermined the Supreme Leader's role like this,” he said.

“The military establishment does not feel the need to appease the clergy as much as they used to,” Sayeh added.

Rather than replacing the office of Supreme Leader, Sayeh argues, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps benefits from preserving it as a source of religious and constitutional legitimacy while real power increasingly flows through security institutions.

“Ideally they want a Velayat-e Faqih that's IRGC-dominated and not influenced by the clergy,” he said.

The government insists Ghaempanah’s comments have been distorted and that he never challenged the Supreme Leader’s authority.

Yet the debate his remarks unleashed reveals something almost unimaginable under Ali Khamenei.

For decades, Iran’s institutions competed beneath a single unquestioned authority. Today, the competition increasingly appears to be over that authority itself.

Whether power ultimately settles with the Supreme National Security Council, the IRGC or another coalition of political elites remains uncertain.

The deeper question is whether the office of Supreme Leader, as it functioned under Ali Khamenei, can survive the man who defined it.

The report said Lindsay Foreman had not received a medical checkup for about 10 days and was suffering from dizziness, body tremors, severe weakness and more than 14 kg of weight loss. Craig Foreman had lost about 16 kilograms, it added.

HRANA cited an informed source as saying the couple had recently been allowed phone contact with their lawyer but remained barred from speaking to their family, children and each other.

The source said pressure on the couple intensified after interviews with BBC World in which they discussed executions in Iran.

Craig and Lindsay Foreman were sentenced to 10 years in prison in February on espionage charges, which they deny.

The couple were first detained in the southeastern city of Kerman, where they spent 30 days in solitary confinement before being transferred to Tehran, the family has said, adding that, they had entered Iran with valid visas, a licensed guide and a cleared itinerary.

Images and videos from Tehran's prayer ground complex prompted widespread discussion among Iranians, with many saying attendance fell short despite an extensive state mobilization effort.

Messages sent to Iran International argued authorities relied on government employees, security forces, organized transportation, free meals and public holidays to maximize turnout, yet still failed to fill the designated venue.

For many, the relatively sparse gathering represented more than a logistical disappointment. They viewed it as evidence of a widening gap between the establishment and society, arguing the Islamic Republic could no longer convincingly stage large public displays of popular support.

• 

  Funeral expenses deepen anger over Ali Khamenei's week-long burial

Several citizens contrasted the official portrayal of the funeral as a demonstration of national unity with what they described as a subdued public response after nearly five decades of clerical rule.

Symbolism meets economic hardship

Many reactions focused on the economic contrast between the scale of the ceremony and the financial pressures facing ordinary Iranians.

Iranians questioned the use of public resources for an elaborate state funeral at a time when inflation, declining purchasing power and rising living costs continue to dominate daily life.

Several described households that have reduced or eliminated meat and other protein from their diets, arguing that spending on ceremonial events appeared disconnected from the country's economic realities.

Others said successive crises – including war, sanctions, regional isolation and economic decline – had not altered what they viewed as the system's priority of funding state institutions and political messaging ahead of public welfare.

Contradictory political messaging

Another frequently discussed issue involved videos circulating on social media showing participants symbolically pelting an image of US President Donald Trump with stones during the funeral events.

100%

Some citizens highlighted what they saw as a contradiction between anti-US demonstrations and expectations that Iranian and US officials could resume negotiations in the near future.

They argued that confrontational domestic messaging has repeatedly existed alongside diplomatic engagement, reflecting what they described as two parallel tracks in the Islamic Republic's foreign policy.

Questions over the cost

No official estimate has been released for the total cost of the funeral and burial ceremonies.

Nevertheless, many messages attempted to estimate the overall expenditure by citing security deployments, temporary infrastructure, transportation, accommodation, food distribution, ceremonial preparations and construction work carried out along the procession route.

Some suggested the total bill could approach $800 million, although no official evidence has been presented to support that figure.

• 

  Behind the funeral: Khamenei’s coffin becomes stage for Iran’s wounded power

The estimate prompted comparisons with recent funerals for other world leaders.

Several people pointed to the funeral of Elizabeth II in 2022, which the British government estimated cost around £162 million – roughly $200 million at contemporary exchange rates. The event included days of public lying-in-state, thousands of police and military personnel, extensive international participation and worldwide television coverage.

Others referred to the funerals of Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said and Kuwaiti Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, both of which followed Islamic tradition with relatively swift burial ceremonies. Although no comprehensive official costs were released, participants noted those events appeared considerably more modest despite taking place in wealthy Persian Gulf monarchies.

Debate over public priorities

Many also drew comparisons with the Islamic Republic's longstanding criticism of the lavish celebrations marking the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Emire under the Pahlavi dynasty.

They questioned why authorities that had long condemned those celebrations as wasteful were now directing substantial public funds toward a funeral ceremony during a period of economic hardship.

100%

Several messages further said that the system has never devoted comparable financial and organizational resources to national celebrations such as Nowruz, Yalda Night or Chaharshanbe Suri, despite their broad cultural significance.

For many, the debate surrounding the funeral extended beyond attendance or cost. They said the ceremony reflected broader concerns about state priorities, economic management and political legitimacy.

Rather than reinforcing the image of a confident political system, citizens argued the funeral underscored the difficulties facing a regime confronting deep economic challenges and declining public trust, even as it sought to present the burial of its longtime leader as a demonstration of continuity and authority.

The video from the landfill in Talesh shows cattle roaming through piles of refuse, including hospital waste, highlighting the apparent lack of effective segregation, containment and disposal measures for hazardous materials.

Hazardous waste enters food chain

Hospital waste ranks among the most dangerous categories of refuse because it can contain infectious materials, contaminated equipment, sharp objects and hazardous chemicals. Allowing livestock to graze in direct contact with such waste, according to the report, raises concerns that contaminants could spread through meat, milk and other agricultural products consumed by people.

The footage also points to broader shortcomings in landfill management beyond the presence of medical waste. Open dumping without effective isolation, daily cover or barriers preventing animal access leaves waste exposed to livestock, wildlife and the surrounding environment.

Such conditions, Rokna wrote, can contaminate soil, generate polluted leachate that may seep into groundwater, attract disease-carrying insects and animals, and release foul odors and harmful gases. When cattle graze freely in these areas, the potential for biological and chemical contaminants to enter the food chain increases.

The risks, based on the report, are particularly acute in Talesh, where mountains, forests, farmland, residential areas and the Caspian Sea lie in close proximity, allowing pollution to spread more rapidly through interconnected ecosystems.

Environmental and public health concerns

Environmental degradation extends beyond the immediate health risks. Large volumes of uncovered waste can damage natural habitats, reduce land quality and increase the likelihood of contaminants spreading into surrounding soil and water resources, added the report.

The conditions documented by Rokna also suggest failures in basic waste management practices, including separating hazardous medical waste from ordinary refuse, safely treating infectious materials and preventing livestock from entering disposal sites.

Without urgent measures to improve waste segregation, strengthen landfill controls and restrict animal access, the Talesh landfill risks becoming a continuing source of contamination affecting livestock, the environment and public health, the report added.