Iran uses Khamenei funeral in Iraq to claim regional reach

Iran's foreign ministry said it handed the ambassador a protest note rejecting what it called "groundless and false" British statements that Tehran had sought to carry out security-related activities in the United Kingdom.

Britain summoned Iran's chargé d'affaires on Tuesday after George Stana and Nandito Badea were sentenced to 12 years and eight years in prison, respectively, for their role in the 2024 attack on Pouria Zeraati, an Iranian-British journalist who works for Iran International.

Zeraati was stabbed three times in the leg near his home in southwest London in March 2024.

British prosecutors said the two Romanian nationals were acting as proxies for the Iranian government. They had pleaded not guilty to wounding with intent but were convicted at London's Woolwich Crown Court.

Judge links attack to Iranian state

The British Foreign Office said the judge had concluded that the attack was carried out "in the interests of, and on behalf of, the Iranian state."

According to a police statement, the judge ruled that the "foreign power condition" under Britain's National Security Act was met in Stana's case because of "extensive planning and his lengthy involvement in the plot", indicating that he knew, or at least should have known, of the connection to the Iranian state.

• 

  Romanian men get combined 20 years over Iran International journalist attack

The police statement said the condition was not met in Badea's case because he was not aware of the Iran connection as the reason for the attack.

Tehran rejects British move

Iran's foreign ministry rejected Britain's statements as "groundless and false" and said they amounted to an attempt to divert attention from Britain's own conduct.

Britain's Foreign Office said the case followed "a longstanding pattern of hostile activity by the Iranian intelligence services on UK soil" and said Iran must stop such activity immediately. Iran's embassy in London has rejected what it called "unfounded, politically motivated and hostile allegations."

Iran's foreign ministry also called on Britain to stop hosting media outlets that Tehran said were "funded and directed by the Israeli regime." It said Britain should end such activity "as soon as possible."

The escalation began Monday night with attacks on commercial navigation near Hormuz, continued Tuesday, and was followed Wednesday morning by strikes on US positions after CENTCOM forces hit more than 80 targets in southern Iran.

Tehran claimed it had struck 85 targets, all of them US interests.

Inside Iran, hardline media quickly framed the confrontation as proof that the June MoU with Washington had failed—or that it had only served to expose US intentions.

The Tehran municipal daily Hamshahri argued that the MoU was not a concession but proof Washington had recognized Iran’s missile capabilities and regional leverage.

It said the latest maritime confrontation showed any attempt by the US or its allies to impose terms during the 60-day implementation period would risk disruption of global energy routes.

Other hardline outlets, including Kayhan, went further.

Writing with vindicated fury, editor Hossein Shariatmadari declared that the “60-day diplomatic mirage” had vanished exactly as he predicted, calling the US strikes proof of “Washington’s innate treachery and structural inability to honor any MoU.”

More than a military confrontation, the attacks appear to reflect a growing divide among Iranian decision-makers: those seeking to advance an agreement with Washington and those who argue that only direct revenge against US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be sufficient.

Over the past month, radical hardliners in Tehran—who portrayed their own survival and the system’s survival as victory over the United States—have sharply criticized President Massoud Pezeshkian for signing the MoU with Washington.

They argued that before the agreement, Trump was under pressure from politicians and markets, and that Iran could have extracted better terms.

While the anger surrounding Khamenei’s funeral cannot be dismissed, the divide between Tehran’s hardliners and pragmatists appears to be a major factor behind the renewed confrontation that followed Trump’s conciliatory comments about allowing a peaceful funeral for the man he had ordered killed.

Whatever the precise trigger, the escalation has strengthened the hand of hardliners.

Social-media videos from the funeral in Tehran showed radicals throwing stones at Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and chanting slogans against Pezeshkian.

On Wednesday, ultraconservative MP Hamid Rasai called for a missile strike on Trump’s residence during his visit to Ankara for a NATO meeting, while fellow hardliner Mahmoud Nabavian said Muslims worldwide were expected to attack Trump the way Salman Rushdie was attacked.

Trump said he had always known he was a target for “nasty Iranians,” adding that if they had nuclear weapons, they would certainly use them.

On Wednesday, Hamshahri went further, arguing that strikes on US assets in Kuwait and Bahrain demonstrated that the cost of confrontation would not remain limited to Iranian territory.

The paper said Washington’s move to revoke Iran’s oil-export waivers amounted to total economic warfare and justified an equivalent response: closing the Strait of Hormuz.

“If Iran cannot openly sell its crude, no state in the region will be permitted to export energy,” it warned.

Kayhan urged the Pezeshkian administration to abandon the June framework, restrict maritime access and shift to what it called an unrestricted defensive doctrine under the guidance of the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Meanwhile, figures including parliamentary National Security Committee spokesman Ebrahim Rezai and Mojtaba Khamenei’s military adviser Mohsen Rezai declared Iran’s readiness for combat.

Chief of staff of the armed forces Habibollah Sayyari also warned against any ground operation.

“If the enemy deploys forces to the Iranian shores, their troops will enter a hell that has no exit,” Sayyari said—a remark widely circulated online, with critics joking that it unintentionally described conditions inside the Islamic Republic itself.

The group’s announcement that it is dissolving the governing body that administered Gaza for nearly two decades has been presented as a significant political concession under a US-backed roadmap for the enclave’s future.

But analysts who spoke to Iran International say the move is largely cosmetic, leaving Hamas’s military structure intact and doing little to alter its long-standing relationship with Iran.

Rather than abandoning Hamas, Iran has simply shifted its priorities, they argue, placing Hezbollah and Lebanon ahead of Gaza while quietly maintaining ties with the group.

"It's not even symbolic, it's a lie," said Beni Sabti, an Iran researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). "The real thing is not even the disarmament. The ideology is still there."

The announcement dissolves Hamas’s civilian governing body, but leaves unanswered whether the group is willing to surrender its weapons and relinquish control over Gaza’s security apparatus.

For Sabti, that omission is the entire story.

"Iran is acting behind the curtains, also for Hamas," he said.

Recent developments suggest the relationship remains active despite Tehran’s muted public rhetoric.

Before the Iran-US memorandum was signed, a Hamas military spokesman said Iranian officials had pledged to help secure a ceasefire in Gaza.

Hamas representatives also traveled to Tehran for Ali Khamenei’s funeral, where they met senior Iranian officials, including Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

To Sabti, those contacts suggest Tehran has not changed its long-term strategy. Instead, it has temporarily reordered its priorities.

"Hezbollah is the most important," he said, arguing Iran has historically never abandoned its proxy groups.

The timing of Hamas’s announcement also reflects mounting pressure on the group.

It comes amid a US-backed political process for Gaza’s future, sustained pressure from Egypt and Qatar, renewed political competition from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and growing anti-Hamas protests inside Gaza itself.

Dalia Ziada, a Middle East analyst with ISGAP, argues Hamas’s announcement was designed to respond to those pressures without making the one concession demanded by Israel and much of the international community.

"They were forced to say something, not to do something," she said.

According to Ziada, Hamas has not agreed to disarm, dismantle its military wing or remove the network of loyalists embedded throughout Gaza’s civilian institutions.

"The international community is dealing with Hamas as a political entity," she said. "But no. This is a terrorist militia."

Ziada believes Tehran’s current restraint reflects pragmatism rather than a strategic break.

"Hamas is not profitable anymore," she said, arguing the group has become more of a liability than an asset following Israel’s campaign against its leadership. "If Hamas survives this situation... of course Iran will snap back."

Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed agrees Hamas’s announcement should not be mistaken for a genuine transfer of power.

"I don't think that anyone really takes it seriously," he said.

Melamed argues Iran views Hamas primarily as a strategic instrument rather than an ideological partner.

"The relationship has been always clear. Hamas is a useful servant for the Iranian regime."

For Tehran, he says, Hezbollah remains the crown jewel of its regional network, while Hamas occupies a lower place in what he describes as the "food chain."

"Hamas and Islamic Jihad know their place in the food chain," Melamed said.

That hierarchy helps explain why Lebanon featured prominently in the Iran-US memorandum while Gaza did not.

The announcement may ease diplomatic pressure and create space for negotiations over Gaza’s future. But without disarmament, analysts argue, it changes little about the balance of power on the ground.

Hamas may be stepping away from civilian administration. Its military structure remains intact. And despite Tehran’s public silence, few expect Iran’s relationship with Hamas to disappear.

A businessman, philanthropist and Democratic fundraiser, Nemazee told Iran International that the revolution, the confiscation of his family’s assets and his years in prison reshaped how he thinks about Iran, freedom and justice.

In Shiraz, the name Nemazee Hospital remains more than the name of a medical center. It is a reminder of a philanthropic legacy built decades before the Islamic Republic, when Nemazee’s father used his fortune to create institutions that served the public.

“My father made his fortune outside of Iran and he repatriated that fortune to Iran,” Nemazee said. “He built the first modern hospital, the first modern nursing school, the first modern orphanage, and the first modern medical school.”

He said his father also built the country’s first piped water system, both to provide clean water for the hospital and to help finance free medical care for local residents.

“What he did was unique,” Nemazee said. “Most Iranians of that time and afterwards made their money in Iran and took it out. Philanthropy was an unknown process at that time.”

A legacy in Shiraz

Born in Washington, DC, and educated in the United States, Nemazee returned to Iran at 22 after his father’s death. He said he saw no other choice.

“There was no choice for me to do anything other than return to Iran when my father passed away,” he said.

Continuing his father’s work in Shiraz, he added, gave him “the greatest satisfaction” of his life.

Nemazee became chairman of the board of Nemazee Hospital, the nursing school and the Shiraz Waterworks, and also oversaw the family’s broader charitable institutions through Bonyad Iran.

At the same time, he entered business during what he described as Iran’s “golden years” of rapid economic growth before the revolution. He invested in insurance, banking and real estate, including joint ventures with major American institutions.

That life ended abruptly when he left Iran in December 1978 for what he expected to be a short business trip to the United States.

“I left Iran on what I thought would be a two-week business trip,” Nemazee said. “The Shah left in January of 1979. Khomeini returned in February of 1979. And in March, the Iranian government nationalized 51 families. We were one of the 51 families.”

He said the confiscation covered nearly everything he owned in Iran.

“Everything that I owned in Iran, my house, my possessions, horses, dogs, bank accounts, land, factories, everything was confiscated,” he said.

Nemazee said many people initially believed the revolution would target only the Shah and those closest to him, but its reach quickly widened.

“The revolutionaries had an agenda, and the agenda was to completely eradicate a certain level of people within the Iranian society,” he said.

100%

Politics after exile

After returning to the United States, Nemazee rebuilt his life in business, philanthropy and politics.

He became a prominent Democratic fundraiser and developed close ties with Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as other senior Democrats including John Kerry, Al Gore, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

He said his entry into American politics was partly shaped by the lesson he drew from Iran.

“I decided that I didn’t want to make the same mistake that I believe I had made in Iran, and that was abdicating any political responsibility for the country in which I lived,” he said.

President Bill Clinton later nominated Nemazee to serve as US ambassador to Argentina, but the nomination was blocked in the Senate. Nemazee summed up the reason in one word: “Politics.”

Years later, his life took another dramatic turn.

Nemazee pleaded guilty in the United States to inflating assets in loan documents, but said the banks did not lose money and that his punishment was excessive.

“The truth of the matter is that those assets were inflated,” he said. “The truth of the matter is as well that the banks never lost any money.”

He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and entered prison on August 27, 2010. He served nine years before being released in 2019 under the First Step Act, a criminal justice reform law signed by President Donald Trump.

A longtime Democrat, Nemazee said he remains grateful to Trump for signing the law that allowed his early release.

“You have to give credit where credit is due,” he said. “It is ironic but true that Donald Trump was responsible for my coming home early.”

A prison sentence becomes a cause

Nemazee said prison changed the course of his life. While incarcerated, he read 2,651 books, wrote two books, taught GED classes and mentored hundreds of fellow inmates.

He said a friend had advised him before prison not to see the sentence only as lost time, but as “a gift of time” to write, teach, exercise, read and mentor others.

After his release, Nemazee turned much of his attention to criminal justice reform and helping former prisoners rebuild their lives.

He now serves on the board of the Fortune Society, a New York-based organization that supports former inmates with housing, education, employment and reintegration.

Nemazee said the United States has failed by imprisoning too many people for too long.

“The United States has 5% of the world’s population, yet it has 25% of the world’s prisoners,” he said. “That’s a statistic that is not only morally wrong, it’s economically unfeasible.”

He said many former prisoners face basic barriers after release, including difficulty opening bank accounts, finding housing and securing jobs.

“How can you begin to put your life back together if you don’t have the fundamental rights that every other human being has?” he said.

Despite the upheavals in his own life, Nemazee said he still hopes to return one day to Shiraz.

“I would love to be able to return to Shiraz. I would like to return to Iran,” he said. “It’s been 46 long years. It’s time for Iran to be able to turn the page and for all Iranians to have the freedoms that they so richly deserve.”

Asked what he would have done if the revolution had not happened, Nemazee said he would probably have continued the life he was building in December 1978: running businesses while expanding the hospital, nursing school, vocational schools and orphanages linked to his family’s legacy.

“Iran is a country of magnificent talent and opportunities,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that it’s taken this moment in history during our lifetimes to not allow the people of Iran to progress in the ways that they deserve to progress.”

His is a story of loss and reinvention, but also of Iran itself: what was built, what was lost, and what future the country may still choose.

The funeral processions in Tehran and Qom were overshadowed by hardline supporters chanting slogans against President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a sign of growing tensions over the government's diplomatic course.

Videos circulating on social media showed Pezeshkian being escorted through crowds by his security detail as mourners shouted "Death to the compromiser." Another video captured an even more hostile reception for Araghchi, with chants including "Death to the traitor," and "Shameless."

Yousef Pezeshkian, the president’s son and adviser, condemned the incident, writing: "If anger is directed against our own forces, targets Muslim unity and undermines domestic cohesion, it means we have become a tool in the enemy's hands and opened a window of hope for it to inflict further blows."

The attacks prompted strong criticism from reformists as well as some conservatives who support parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf's cooperation with the government and negotiations with the United States.

Conservative journalist Mohammad Mohajeri criticized senior officials, particularly Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohammad-Bagher Zolghadr and some members of the Supreme National Security Council, for remaining silent. "Their silence is itself creating an even greater sedition."

Reformist journalist Ali Asghar Shafieian argued that the slogans damaged Iran's national interests. "On the day of the funeral, when even critics wore black out of respect for Iran and its leader, slogans against the state's decision to end the war and against negotiators seeking sanctions relief dealt a blow to national dignity and security."

Notable absences

The funeral also drew attention for the absence of former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, despite official expectations that the ceremonies would showcase unprecedented national solidarity. Former foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif was also absent, while images showed former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attending the public procession.

Authorities have not explained whether the former officials chose not to attend or were prevented from doing so.

Unlike Pezeshkian, Ghalibaf, and Hassan Khomeini – the grandson of Islamic Republic founder Ruhollah Khomeini – attended only the tightly controlled farewell ceremony at Tehran's Mosalla rather than the public street procession.

Political analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi argued that the hostile atmosphere explained the absences. "[The behaviour of] those who ignored the sanctity of the funeral by insulting the president and foreign minister clearly explains why figures such as Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani did not attend."

He added: "If they showed no mercy even to Pezeshkian, who enjoyed Khamenei's full trust and respect, it is obvious what they would have done had Khatami or Rouhani appeared."

The reformist-leaning website Rouydad24 described the absence of former presidents as "not merely a ceremonial issue, but the loss of an opportunity to demonstrate political consensus at one of the country's most sensitive moments."

Calls for revenge dominate messaging

During the mourning ceremonies, some participants repeatedly called for retaliation against the United States, Israel, and particularly US President Donald Trump, whom they blamed for Khamenei's death. Many mourners carried red flags symbolizing vengeance.

One supporter wrote: "Officials, do you see these flags of revenge? People will be calmed by revenge against the enemy – not by negotiations."

Hardline journalist Parisa Nasrabadi argued: "Avenging the martyred leader is a decisive step toward restoring lost deterrence, a duty to prevent future assassinations of leaders, and an absolute necessity to protect the position of Iran's young leader."

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, called on the government to officially declare Trump and even the pilots allegedly involved in Khamenei's killing worthy of death wherever they are found, and proposed offering a bounty for anyone who kills Trump.

Another commentary published by Tabnak argued that the massive turnout and chants demonstrated that Iranian authorities had "no option but to exact retribution against the killers of the martyred leader."

Was the funeral a referendum?

Several pro-government figures portrayed the turnout as a public referendum endorsing the Islamic Republic.

Lawmaker Jafar Ghaderi described it as "the revolution's largest popular referendum," arguing that the government should now respond by addressing economic concerns and rewarding public loyalty.

Zeidabadi challenged the analogy, writing: "It would be good to explain exactly what this referendum is about and in which law a 'street referendum' is defined."

A social media user similarly argued that authorities have long portrayed public gatherings as proof of popular endorsement without specifying either the subject of the alleged referendum or its legal basis.

Foreign influencers welcomed

The funeral also featured several foreign journalists and pro-Iran commentators, including American media personality Jackson Hinkle, The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, and British journalist and blogger Bushra Sheikh, all of whom are known for criticizing Western policy toward Iran. Their presence was widely celebrated by government supporters online.

A widely shared video showed Hinkle standing on a stage in Tehran’s Enghelab Square, leading mourners in chants of “Death to Zionists,” “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” with the crowd repeating the slogans after him.