Iran's ambassador to the United Nations underlines that the Islamic Republic reserves all rights to duly confront the United States' seizure of Iranian vessels as part of Washington's continued illegal blockade against the country.

In a letter dated Wednesday, Amir Saeid Iravani said he was writing "to bring to the urgent attention" of the UN Security Council the "continuing internationally wrongful acts of the United States through yet another piracy-style seizure and deliberate targeting of commercial vessels, namely the M/T Majestic and M/T Tifani."

Iravani pointed to a public statement released earlier by a US attorney, describing it as "an explicit and deliberate admission of internationally wrongful conduct." He noted how the attorney had "boasted of the pirate-style seizure" of the two vessels and the subsequent stealing of 3.8 million barrels of Iranian oil.

"The US attorney’s statement clearly confirms that the United States armed forces have interdicted, boarded, and forcibly seized Iran’s commercial vessels on the high seas on the basis of their bullying attitude," the letter read.

He added, "Such conduct is nothing but another clear example of US addiction to lawlessness and constitutes a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Article 2(4)."

According to the letter, the actions "fall squarely within the definition of an act of aggression" under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 of 1974, which defines aggression as the use of armed force by one state against another.

Such actions against vessels engaged in legitimate commercial activity also pose a direct threat to maritime safety and security, and escalate the volatile situation in the region, the ambassador underscored.

"In substance and effect, such actions are identical to state-sponsored piracy and terrorism, carried out under the guise of domestic processes that have no standing under international law," the letter added.

The United States bears full and undeniable international responsibility for the consequences of such atrocities, Iravani noted, stressing, "The Islamic Republic of Iran has every right, in accordance with international law, to counter these insolent actions."

He concluded by calling on the Security Council to condemn the seizures, demand the immediate and unconditional release of all seized vessels, cargo, and property, and take measures to prevent their recurrence.

The United States began taking such measures against Iranian vessels, despite President Donald Trump's announcement on April 7 of a two-week lull in unprovoked American aggression against the Islamic Republic.

Tehran has condemned the blockade as a violation of the terms of the ceasefire and reciprocated by closing down the strategic Strait of Hormuz to all traffic with the exception of the vessels that manage to obtain permission from relevant Iranian authorities for transit through the chokepoint.

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy's deputy for political affairs says the naval force's "surprise tactics" await the United States in the event of any fresh miscalculation.

Mohammad Akbarzadeh made the remarks on Tuesday in the southern Iranian city of Minab, where more than 170 schoolchildren and staff were martyred on the first day of the latest bout of the US's and the Israeli regime's unprovoked aggression targeting the Islamic Republic on February 28.

"In the event of any [fresh] military action by the United States against Iran, the IRGC Navy will deploy its new capabilities," he said.

Dealing with such act of aggression, he added, the Navy would "employ its new cards, including in the field of smart targeting, and will set the massive vessels of the criminal regime ablaze with its fury and take them out of operation."

The Islamic Republic would also "utilize its other instruments of power across other resistance fronts,” the official concluded.

Iran's Armed Forces faced the aggression with at least 100 waves of decisive and retaliatory counterstrikes against sensitive and strategic American and Israeli targets across a vast expanse of the West Asia region.

The reprisal, which was partly conducted in cooperation with regional resistance groups, prompted the US to announce a two-weak lull in its attacks on April 7 before extending the ceasefire upon its expiry.

American officials, themselves, have admitted that the Islamic Republic continues to maintain substantial military capabilities, despite the aggression.

The political deputy chief of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy has warned that any fresh act of military aggression by the United States against Iran will unleash the country’s unforeseen capabilities.

Speaking on Tuesday night to a gathering in Minab at the city’s Martyrs’ Cemetery, Mohammad Akbarzadeh stated that if the US makes another miscalculation and launches an attack on Iran, the IRGC Navy will deploy its new assets, including advanced smart targeting systems.

“If America wishes to repeat its miscalculation and attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, the IRGC Navy will use its new cards — including in the field of smart targeting — and will burn the giant warships of the criminal regime in its fiery wrath, taking them out of operation,” he said.

The IRGC Navy official further emphasized that in the event of renewed US aggression, the Islamic Republic of Iran would also utilize other instruments of power across various resistance fronts.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared Tuesday before the District Court in Tel Aviv for the 81st time since his trial began in 2020, responding to corruption charges against him.

Tuesday’s session marked Netanyahu’s first court appearance in nearly two months, his last having taken place on February 24, shortly before US-Israeli aggression against Iran began on February 28.

‎The aggression started with airstrikes, assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian officials and commanders.

‎Netanyahu had been scheduled to appear on Monday but requested the session be canceled, citing “security reasons.”

‎He is now in the final stage of his testimony, having already completed more than 80 days of hearings.

‎According to the prosecutor’s office, he still has approximately 11 full days of testimony remaining, along with a brief re-examination by his defense team.

‎“In the past two weeks, his hearings were canceled at his request, and since the start of the war with Iran, he has not testified, despite the resumption of all court sessions in Israel,” Israeli daily Maariv reported on Tuesday.

‎Netanyahu faces charges of corruption, bribery, and breach of trust in three cases, Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000, for which indictments were filed in November 2019.

‎Case 1000 involves allegations that Netanyahu and members of his family received expensive gifts from wealthy businessmen in exchange for favors.

‎In Case 2000, he is accused of negotiating with Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, for favorable media coverage.

‎Netanyahu is also scheduled to testify in Case 4000, in which he stands accused of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

‎According to the indictment, he maintained a bribery relationship with businessman Shaul Elovitch, the former owner of the Walla news website.

‎On November 30, 2025, Netanyahu requested a pardon from Israeli President Isaac Herzog without admitting guilt or stepping down from political life.

‎However, the so-called Israeli law does not permit a presidential pardon without an admission of guilt from the defendant.

‎Since the start of his trial in 2020, Netanyahu has denied all charges, describing them as a “politically motivated campaign” aimed at removing him from office.

‎In addition to the corruption charges, Netanyahu has been wanted since 2024 by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, where more than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed and 172,000 wounded in the genocidal war since October 2023.

Press TV’s website

Iran has categorically stated that any disruption or obstruction in maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters is the direct responsibility of the United States and its allies, whose reckless and illegal actions have turned a vital international waterway into a zone of heightened tension and danger.

Speaking at a United Nations Security Council high-level open debate on the safety and protection of waterways in the maritime domain on Monday, Iran’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN, Amir Saeed Iravani, blamed Washington and its allies for escalating threats to maritime security.

“Responsibility for any disruption, obstruction or other interference in maritime transport in the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz lies directly with the aggressors, namely the United States and its supporters, whose illegal and destabilizing actions have escalated tensions and endangered maritime safety and freedom of navigation,” Iravani stated.

The Iranian envoy emphasized that the Islamic Republic has always upheld freedom of navigation and maritime security in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman.

For decades, Iran has responsibly fulfilled its duties as a coastal state, guaranteeing the safety of sea lanes and the smooth flow of international shipping, he said.

Iravani pointed out that the current crisis stems from the widespread and unjustified war of aggression launched by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran since February 28.

“Since February 28, the United States and the Israeli regime have waged an unwarranted large-scale war of aggression against Iran,” Iravani said.

These acts constitute a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), directly undermining maritime security and threatening regional and global peace, Iravani said.

He warned that the Strait of Hormuz has been increasingly militarized by the US and its allies to facilitate hostile operations against Iran, including the movement of military equipment aimed at aggression.

This dangerous militarization has exposed international shipping to unprecedented risks in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

“Meanwhile, the United States has continued its international wrongdoing by imposing a so-called naval blockade, illegally seizing Iranian merchant ships, and detaining their crews,” Iravani declared.

“These dangerous and escalating actions violate international law, violate the Charter of the United Nations, constitute the crime of piracy, and are defined as acts of aggression under Article 3(c) of General Assembly Resolution 3314 of December 14, 1974,” he said.

Iran strongly condemns these illegal measures and has called on the Security Council to take a decisive stand and condemn the aggressors, ensure full accountability, and demand the immediate and unconditional release of all seized Iranian ships and crews.

As the primary coastal state whose territorial sea includes the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has implemented necessary and lawful practical measures in full accordance with international law to counter emerging threats, safeguard safe navigation, and prevent the vital waterway from being misused for hostile military purposes.

These steps strike a proper balance between the security needs of the coastal state and the continued safe passage of ships in an extremely tense environment, the ambassador explained.

Iravani noted that Iran is not a party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and is therefore not bound by its treaty provisions, except where they reflect generally recognized customary international law.

“Enduring stability and security in the Persian Gulf and the wider region can only be achieved through a lasting and permanent cessation of aggression against Iran, accompanied by credible guarantees of non-repetition and full respect for Iran’s legitimate sovereign rights and interests,” he stressed.

The Iranian ambassador categorically rejected all accusations leveled against Iran during the meeting, describing them as baseless claims lacking any legal foundation and designed solely to divert attention from the criminal actions of the United States and its allies.

“These claims once again reveal their double standards,” Iravani said.

“Their so-called concern for maritime safety is neither genuine nor consistent with their own actions. They speak of protecting navigation rights while deliberately ignoring the United States’ illegal naval blockade and its recent terrorist attacks on Iranian merchant ships — acts that bear all the hallmarks of piracy and hostage-taking,” he said.

Iravani made it crystal clear that any attempt to shift blame onto Iran is invalid and without merit. The responsibility for any disruption in the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman, or Strait of Hormuz rests entirely with the real aggressors — the United States and its supporters — whose destabilizing policies continue to jeopardize international maritime security.

An Iranian deputy defense minister says the country would allow passage through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf after the conclusion of the US-Israeli aggression under protocols that protect Iran’s security.

Brigadier General Reza Talaei Nik told a meeting of defense ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, on Tuesday that Iran recognizes international concerns about the current restrictions it has imposed on passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Talayi Nik said, however, that the restrictions are a response to the US-Israeli attacks on the country, which began in late February and halted with a ceasefire on April 8.

The general said that Iran would allow commercial shipping through the Strait, a vital conduit for global oil and gas shipments, if the war of aggression stops permanently.

“Allowing the smooth transit of commercial ships will be on the agenda after the end of the war, provided that protocols that do not jeopardize Iran's security are observed,” he said.

The comments come amid efforts in the Iranian government and parliament to introduce a new legal regime for transit in the Strait of Hormuz.

Authorities say under the new system, a total ban will be imposed on ships owned by or linked to the Israeli regime, while ships related to hostile countries and their affiliates will face restrictions.

Iran is also planning to introduce a toll payment system for passage through the Strait with the aim of compensating for the losses suffered because of years of economic sanctions imposed on the country by Western governments.

Current restrictions on passage through Hormuz have caused a major surge in international oil prices, increasing pressure on the United States and Europe.

Experts believe the West should reach a compromise with Iran to allow transit via the Strait to return to normal levels.

Press TV’s website 

He inherited the knowledge of his grandfather, the Messenger of God (PBUH), and thus became its pioneering source that quenched the thirst for knowledge. History narrates many of his scientific positions and intellectual discourses in which he triumphed over the opponents of the divine message and excelled in various branches of knowledge that provided knowledge seekers and thinkers of the time.

Imam Musa al-Kazim (a.s.) is reported to have said to his children many times: "Your brother Ali ibn Musa is the learned scholar of the family of Muhammad (s.a.w.s.), so you can ask him about your religion. Memorize what he tells you, because I have heard my father Ja'far ibn Muhammad say more than once: The scholar of the family of Muhammad is in your loins, I wish I could meet him."

Ibrahim ibn Abbas Sawli is quoted as saying: "I never saw Imam Reza (a.s.) not have an answer to a question that was asked of him, and I did not see his contemporary more knowledgeable than him. Al-Ma'mun tested him by asking him almost everything and always gave him an answer, and his answer and model were always taken from the Holy Quran."

The date of birth of Imam Reza (AS) was 11th Dhul-Qa'dah, 148 AH, in Medina. Every year, on the day of Imam Reza's (AS) birth, celebrations and joyous events are held in Iranian cities, especially in the holy city of Mashhad (AS), the place of his beloved shrine. People from different cities travel to Mashhad to visit Imam Reza (AS) and seek blessings on this blessed day.

A reporter for Al-Mayadeen Network in Tehran wrote in a report that Iran has communicated a three-stage negotiation formula to the American side through intermediaries.

The first stage of the negotiations focuses on a complete end to the war and receiving guarantees to prevent its resumption against Iran and Lebanon.

If an agreement is reached in the first stage, the parties will enter the second stage, which will be dedicated to examining how to manage and govern the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the Al-Mayadeen reporter, the third stage is related to the discussion on the nuclear issue, but before an agreement is reached on the previous two stages, Iran will never enter the nuclear discussion.

By Mina Mosallanejad 

As Washington’s costly war against Iran sinks deeper into strategic failure, the Trump administration has turned inward – purging senior military and security figures in a frantic attempt to contain mounting dissent, operational chaos, and the visible collapse of confidence inside the US war machine.

The widening personnel bloodbath inside the Trump administration is exposing a reality the White House has tried to conceal: the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran is not only faltering abroad, but also splintering the command structure tasked with sustaining it.

Within the span of just a few weeks, the administration has fired Navy Secretary John Phelan, Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, Army Transformation and Training Command chief General David Hodne, and Army Chaplain Corps head Major General William Green Jr., while National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent resigned in protest. 

The unprecedented wartime shake-up – one of the most severe in recent American history – has unfolded with virtually no coherent public explanation, a silence that has only amplified speculation that the dismissals are tied to growing internal opposition over Trump’s illegal, reckless and increasingly unpopular war against Iran.

The war against Iran has failed, by nearly every measurable strategic yardstick, to produce the political or military outcomes Washington and Tel Aviv promised at its outset, according to various political and military assessments.

Despite weeks of indiscriminate bombardment, coercive diplomacy, and maritime pressure, Iran neither collapsed internally nor submitted at the negotiating table. 

Tehran refused to negotiate under duress, rejected demands for unilateral concessions over its peaceful nuclear program, and signaled after the ceasefire that it remained unwilling to accept the US-Israeli formula of surrender through pressure.

At the same time, the war generated blowback that extended far beyond Iran itself. 

Iranian countermeasures in the Persian Gulf and the tightening of control over the Strait of Hormuz disrupted one of the world’s most sensitive oil corridors, rattling tanker traffic, pushing up shipping insurance costs, and sending ripples through global energy markets. 

Persian Gulf Arab partners aligned with Washington found themselves economically exposed, while the ripple effects of rising crude prices quickly fed into wider inflationary pressures across transportation, manufacturing, and food supply chains.

Equally embarrassing for Washington was the inability of its much-publicized naval blockade to fully isolate Iran. 

Though presented by the Trump administration as a decisive mechanism for economically suffocating the Islamic Republic, maritime tracking data showed that Iranian-linked tankers continued to bypass or outmaneuver US interdiction efforts through alternate routing, foreign flags, and the exploitation of patrol gaps. 

Instead of demonstrating uncontested American dominance, the so-called blockade increasingly came to symbolize the limits of US coercive power: capable of disrupting world trade, but unable to force “Iranian capitulation” without inflicting major costs on allies and international markets alike.

And now the unceremonious sacking of US military and security officials suggests panic at the top: a White House and Pentagon scrambling to eliminate dissenting voices as battlefield objectives remain unmet, the naval blockade of Iran produces international backlash, and sections of the US military establishment grow uneasy over the administration’s willingness to push the region toward a wider conflagration.

A closer review of the names involved and the details surrounding each departure helps illuminate the deeper institutional tensions emerging from Washington’s failed war on Iran.

John Phelan

Phelan was Secretary of the Navy, overseeing the naval branch directly involved in enforcing Washington’s blockade and maritime aggression against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz.

He was abruptly fired on April 22 and ordered to leave “effective immediately,” with Pentagon officials refusing to provide any formal explanation.

His removal came while the US Navy was actively implementing one of the most dangerous components of Trump’s war against Iran: the interdiction of Iranian-linked shipping and the enforcement of a so-called blockade on Iranian ports and vessels.

American outlets have framed the dismissal as a bureaucratic feud over shipbuilding and clashes with War Secretary Pete Hegseth. 

But the timing is politically revealing. Phelan was one of the few service secretaries with a direct communication line to Trump, and reports indicate Hegseth was angered by his independent channel into the White House. 

At a time when naval operations against Iran were becoming central to the US war, consolidating control over the Navy under more obedient loyalists appears to have become urgent for the incumbent government.

This was not a random management dispute, according to US media reports. 

The administration removed the official overseeing naval warfare precisely while the Navy was prosecuting an internationally condemned blockade of Iran. 

That points less to procurement frustration than to an attempt by Hegseth and Trump to tighten political control over the service branch most directly responsible for the war’s maritime escalation.

General Randy George

Randy George was the Chief of Staff of the Army, the highest-ranking officer responsible for force readiness, troop deployments, and ground-force planning.

On April 2, Hegseth forced Randy George into immediate retirement, roughly a year and a half before the normal end of his term.

No official reason was offered, an extraordinary omission considering the United States was in the middle of an active war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Removing the Army’s top uniformed commander during wartime is almost unheard of unless there is either catastrophic operational disagreement or a breakdown in trust between military leadership and civilian officials, according to military experts.

George had been deeply involved in moving additional personnel and air defense assets to West Asia even before the war was launched on February 28.

His abrupt ouster suggests a conflict over force posture, strategic planning, or the administration’s insistence on politically convenient narratives that contradicted military realities. 

Analysts in the US media openly noted that such leadership continuity is considered vital during combat, meaning Trump knowingly chose disruption over stability.

The message was unmistakable: officers who provide inconvenient battlefield assessments or resist reckless escalation are expendable.

General David Hodne

He was Head of Army Transformation and Training Command, responsible for doctrine modernization, force adaptation, and preparing US troops for future combat demands.

Hodne was fired the same day as Randy George, again with no substantive Pentagon explanation.

His command is not ceremonial; it shapes how the Army adjusts to battlefield lessons, casualty expectations, and doctrinal shortcomings. 

During an expanding war of aggression with Iran, Hodne would have been central to assessing whether US force design was adequate for a prolonged regional confrontation.

His dismissal suggested dissatisfaction not merely with personalities but with institutional assessments emerging from within the Army amid the failed war, according to analysts.

If Hodne’s command was producing analyses that contradicted the administration’s rosy claims about readiness or sustainability, his removal would fit the broader purge pattern: suppress professional military judgment in favor of political obedience.

Major General William Green Jr.

Green Jr. was Chief of Chaplains of the US Army, overseeing religious support, troop welfare, ethical counseling, and morale structures.

The removal of the Army’s senior chaplain in wartime was deeply symbolic, according to observers who expressed serious concern over the decision.

Chaplain leadership is closely tied to soldier morale, psychological resilience, casualty management, and ethical concerns among deployed personnel.

As casualties mount, deployments drag on, and troop unease grows over the purpose of the war, morale management becomes politically sensitive.

Analysts say Green’s firing indicates deepening internal friction over how severe the strain inside the ranks had become—or over the ethical discomfort generated by a war increasingly viewed as elective, destabilizing, and strategically incoherent.

In simpler terms: when even the institution tasked with tending to soldiers’ conscience and morale is swept aside, it suggests the Pentagon no longer wants honest readings from within its own ranks.

Joe Kent

Kent was Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, one of the highest-ranking intelligence officials in the Trump administration and a principal adviser on so-called "terrorism threats" and foreign retaliation scenarios.

Kent resigned on March 17 in what became the first major senior-level defection from inside Trump’s national security establishment over the disastrous war against Iran. 

In his resignation letter, he flatly rejected the White House’s central justification for launching the unprovoked military aggression, writing that he could not “in good conscience” support the war because “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

But Kent did not stop at resignation. He vocally opposed the Trump administration's foreign policy centered on unprovoked wars, from Iran to Lebanon and beyond. 

In a series of media appearances after leaving office—including his extended interview with Tucker Carlson in which he spoke openly about the internal decision-making process—Kent effectively slammed the administration for manufacturing consent for war while silencing officials who questioned the rush to confrontation.

Kent said dissenting voices inside intelligence and security circles were largely frozen out before Trump ordered strikes on Iran, describing an atmosphere in which the administration had already committed itself politically to war and was no longer interested in sober threat assessment. 

He noted that the claim of an urgent Iranian danger had been deliberately inflated, while officials who warned that Tehran did not pose an immediate attack threat were ignored.

More explosively, Kent said the administration had been swept into war by what he described as a sustained Israeli and pro-war media pressure campaign that “short-circuited” diplomacy and replaced intelligence analysis with ideological demands for confrontation. 

In his interview after resigning, he said that the same "regime-change" fantasies that destroyed Iraq, Libya, and Syria were now being recycled against Iran despite the catastrophic record of US interventionism.

Kent’s remarks amounted to an extraordinary insider indictment: according to one of Trump’s own top intelligence chiefs, the war was not the result of unavoidable national defense, but of political manipulation, exclusion of contrary assessments, and a deliberate march toward escalation.

This transforms Kent’s resignation from a symbolic protest into documentary evidence of fracture inside the intelligence bureaucracy itself. 

He was not merely uncomfortable with the war’s optics; he was warning that the intelligence process had been subordinated to propaganda.

When the official tasked with evaluating terrorism threats says Iran was not an imminent danger, says dissent was frozen out, and says Washington was pushed into war by outside pressure, it severely undercuts every public claim that the administration was acting from strategic necessity, according to experts.

In effect, Kent confirmed that the White House’s Iran narrative was being held together less by facts than by coercion, messaging discipline, and the suppression of unwelcome intelligence.

The atmosphere of instability inside Trump’s national security apparatus appears to be widening still further.

'Drunk and erratic' FBI chief Kash Patel likely next cabinet-level official to be fired: Reporthttps://t.co/DVbMrGHdFt

On Saturday, Dasha Burns, White House Bureau Chief for the American website Politico, reported that a senior White House official had indicated FBI Director Kash Patel could be the next high-ranking figure to leave the administration, with the source saying Patel’s removal is now seen as “only a matter of time.” 

Though publicly framed by administration insiders as a response to the growing stream of scandals and negative headlines surrounding Patel’s erratic tenure at the FBI, the timing of the leak is politically telling.

If Patel is indeed pushed out, his departure would reinforce the impression of an administration spiraling through successive layers of wartime disruption: first military commanders, then intelligence officials, and now potentially the head of the FBI.

Taken together, these removals do not resemble normal personnel management; they resemble a wartime purge by an administration that senses its Iran war is generating too much friction inside the very institutions required to execute it, as analysts put it.

Trump and Hegseth are not projecting strength—they are clearing the room of officers, planners, morale officials, and security chiefs who may have questioned the wisdom, legality, sustainability, or honesty of Washington’s war narrative.

The louder the White House insists the situation is under control, the faster its own command structure appears to be cracking.

Press TV’s website