The Middle East may be entering a period in which ceasefires no longer end wars but manage them, as the warring sides trade limited strikes below the threshold of an all-out war, experts told Iran International’s townhall held in Washington DC.
The discussion, hosted by Iran International’s Negar Mojtahedi, centered on whether the latest ceasefire in Lebanon marks the end of a war or the beginning of a more dangerous phase: a regional conflict in which Iran increasingly treats attacks on its proxies as attacks on itself.
Continue reading
Iran’s Special Clerical Court has sentenced dissident cleric Abdolrahim Soleimani Ardestani to six years in prison, a fine and removal from the clergy, months after his public challenge to state-backed Shiite narratives drew threats and political pressure.
Soleimani Ardestani, a religious scholar, former Mofid University professor and member of a reformist association of Qom seminary teachers and researchers, is being held in Qom’s prison.
According to Mojtaba Lotfi, an official from the office of the late dissident cleric Hossein Ali Montazeri, the court convicted him on all eight charges brought against him.
Lotfi said Soleimani Ardestani does not plan to appeal unless the court agrees to hold a public hearing.
In a letter from prison, Soleimani Ardestani said the charges against him included disturbing public opinion, insulting sacred values, insulting the leadership in relation to Ali Khamenei and his son Mojtaba, taking part in a gathering over the house arrest of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and assembly and collusion against domestic security.
Mousavi, a former prime minister, has been under house arrest since 2011 after rejecting the official result of Iran’s disputed 2009 presidential election and becoming one of the symbols of the Green Movement protests.
Soleimani Ardestani also listed accusations such as propaganda against the system, spreading falsehoods online, insulting senior religious authorities, damaging the dignity of the clergy and “mind control and psychological suggestion” – a striking charge even by the standards of Iran’s broad political indictments.
He has called the indictment weak and baseless, criticized his arrest and solitary confinement, and said he wrote his defense not to seek acquittal but to leave a record for history.
The case began with remarks in a debate with pro-government cleric Hamed Kashani. Soleimani Ardestani questioned long-promoted Shiite accounts about the death of Fatemeh Zahra, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammed and wife of Ali, the first Shiite Imam.
In Iran, the story of Fatemeh’s martyrdom is not only a religious narrative but part of a vast state-backed culture of mourning, ritual and political identity.
Soleimani Ardestani argued that if Ali had merely watched his wife being attacked and had not intervened, then the traditional account would raise questions about his justice. He later said he had not insulted Fatemeh and was challenging what he called the “stories told by religious singers or eulogists (maddahs).”
He also questioned mourning ceremonies for Muhammad Taqi, the ninth Shiite Imam, saying his death was linked to jealousy by his wife after he remarried and that mourning the event 1,300 years later was meaningless.
The backlash was immediate. Pro-government eulogists, who play an influential role in mobilizing religious crowds, attacked him with vulgar and sexist language. Reports also emerged of a group attack on his home.
Hardline figures called for prosecution and defrocking, while some religious voices went further, suggesting that denial of Fatemeh’s martyrdom could amount to leaving Shiite doctrine.
The controversy also split parts of the political middle ground. Reformist figures criticized Soleimani Ardestani’s tone and timing, while others warned that violent threats, home attacks and denunciations violated freedom of belief.
The sentence is significant because it shows how quickly the Islamic Republic can convert a dispute over religious history into a security case.
Soleimani Ardestani was not an outside critic of clerical rule. He was a cleric from inside the seminary world, which makes his challenge more sensitive.
By sentencing him to prison and stripping him of clerical status, the system is not only punishing one man. It is policing the boundaries of who is allowed to interpret religion, how far internal debate can go, and what happens when religious scholarship collides with the political theology of the state.
Reports that Washington is considering using frozen Iranian assets to compensate Persian Gulf allies for damage allegedly caused by Iran have triggered a backlash in Tehran, where access to the funds remains a central demand in negotiations with the United States.
Reuters reported on Saturday, citing a source familiar with the matter, that Washington is considering making frozen Iranian assets available to Persian Gulf partners to help cover future damage allegedly caused by Iran.
The report said the US Treasury is also examining whether the funds could be used to compensate for past losses and has begun assessing costs incurred by Gulf allies. The report has not been confirmed by the Treasury Department.
The sums involved could be substantial. Estimates of frozen Iranian assets vary, but they are widely believed to amount to tens of billions of dollars held abroad, including in countries such as South Korea and Iraq.
Read the full article here.
Reports that Washington is considering using frozen Iranian assets to compensate Persian Gulf allies for damage allegedly caused by Iran have triggered a backlash in Tehran, where access to the funds remains a central demand in negotiations with the United States.
Reuters reported on Saturday, citing a source familiar with the matter, that Washington is considering making frozen Iranian assets available to Persian Gulf partners to help cover future damage allegedly caused by Iran.
The report said the US Treasury is also examining whether the funds could be used to compensate for past losses and has begun assessing costs incurred by Gulf allies. The report has not been confirmed by the Treasury Department.
The sums involved could be substantial. Estimates of frozen Iranian assets vary, but they are widely believed to amount to tens of billions of dollars held abroad, including in countries such as South Korea and Iraq.
President Donald Trump, however, told NBC on Sunday that he would not unfreeze Iranian assets or lift sanctions before a peace agreement is reached.
Al Arabiya reported last week that negotiations over frozen Iranian assets had made progress, though significant differences remained over the mechanism and timing of their release.
'Ridiculous, unacecptable'
Iranian officials reacted sharply to the Reuters report despite the absence of any formal US announcement.
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, described the reported proposal as a "new act of insolence" in a post on X.
"Iran's assets are not Washington's war booty or a fund for paying its allies," he wrote.
He said any seizure, transfer or allocation of Iranian assets without Tehran's consent would constitute an internationally wrongful act and warned that Iran would respond proportionately.
Gharibabadi also argued that regional governments that allowed their territory and facilities to be used against Iran were themselves complicit and should compensate Iran for damages it has suffered.
Esmail Kowsari, a member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, also rejected the reported proposal.
"The idea is fundamentally ridiculous and unacceptable," he told the conservative website Tabnak. "The United States itself is the main cause of insecurity, tensions and damage in the region and cannot decide the fate of other countries by confiscating the assets of the Iranian nation."
"If compensation is to be paid," he added, "it is the United States that must answer for the heavy human and material losses inflicted on the Iranian people."
'Creditor turned debtor'
The Reuters report received extensive coverage in Iranian media, much of it focused on Tehran's insistence that any release of assets must be genuine, verifiable and free from political conditions.
The IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency suggested the proposal could be linked to rebuilding US military facilities damaged in Iranian missile and drone attacks during the conflict.
"Iran has repeatedly stated that in its attacks it targeted only American bases and interests in Arab countries," the outlet wrote. "Therefore, it is not unlikely that the Treasury Department intends to use Iran's frozen assets to rebuild US bases that suffered billions of dollars in damage from Iranian missile and drone attacks."
Hardline website Raja News, which opposes negotiations with Washington, used the report to criticize Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf and supporters of diplomacy with the United States.
"The Iranian people have the right to ask: what kind of 'successful negotiations' were these?" the outlet wrote. "Not only was there no compensation, but the creditor was turned into the debtor, and the country's assets, instead of being released, now stand on the verge of being auctioned off and looted."
The Russian precedent
The debate has prompted comparisons with Western handling of frozen Russian assets following Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
While Western governments have used profits generated by frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine and back international loan packages, they have largely avoided confiscating the underlying assets themselves.
The distinction has become a reference point in legal and political debates over the treatment of other countries' blocked funds, including those belonging to Iran.
Reactions online
Online reactions reflected widespread anger among many Iranian users, underscoring the political sensitivity of frozen assets.
One commenter on the Tabnak website wrote: "The Arabs should compensate Iran for the fighter jets and missiles launched from their territories, not the other way around."
For many Iranians following the negotiations, the prospect that frozen assets could be used to compensate other countries touches a particularly sensitive nerve: money that Tehran sees as its own may ultimately become another battlefield in its dispute with Washington.
The brief exchange of strikes between Iran and Israel revealed a reality that weeks of ceasefire and diplomacy between Tehran and Washington had obscured: neither side appears willing to absorb a blow without responding, even if doing so risks a return to wider war.
In Tehran, the episode triggered a noticeable shift in tone across much of the media landscape. Hardline outlets portrayed Iran's missile strike as proof that its warnings carried weight, while moderates questioned whether diplomacy can survive repeated cycles of escalation.
The shift comes as US President Donald Trump continues to project confidence in negotiations.
After the exchange, Trump publicly urged restraint and sought to keep diplomatic channels alive, while reports emerged that he had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against steps that could further complicate negotiations.
Yet the events of recent days highlighted how narrow the path to a broader agreement remains.
The immediate trigger was Israel's decision to proceed with strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs despite repeated Iranian warnings that attacks on Dahiyeh would be viewed as a violation of the broader post-war understanding that emerged after the US-Iran ceasefire.
Tehran repeatedly linked stability in Lebanon to the durability of any future understanding with Washington and signalled that attacks on Hezbollah strongholds would not go unanswered.
When Iran responded with a missile strike on Israel, state-affiliated outlets portrayed the move less as an escalation than as the enforcement of a red line. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has emerged as one of the central figures in Tehran's diplomacy and wartime decision-making, argued that the episode had created a "new reality" and warned that similar responses could follow future violations.
Israel's retaliation the following day reinforced a different lesson: that it was prepared to respond militarily regardless of diplomatic considerations. The result was a brief but significant exchange that left both sides claiming deterrence while simultaneously exposing the fragility of the ceasefire framework.
The media reaction inside Iran reflected these competing interpretations.
Hardline outlets such as Kayhan, Tasnim and state broadcaster IRIB framed the exchange as evidence that Iran's deterrence strategy remained intact despite military pressure and economic sanctions.
Their coverage emphasised resolve, resistance and the need to resist what they described as attempts to impose new realities on Iran and its allies.
Even more moderate publications supported the response to Israel's actions in Lebanon, although their commentary often focused on the risks of miscalculation and the possibility that another cycle of escalation could rapidly overwhelm diplomatic efforts.
This more anxious mood had already been building in recent weeks. Even before the exchange, moderate outlets increasingly reflected concerns about economic exhaustion, public frustration and the country's ability to absorb further instability.
The latest confrontation appeared to reinforce those fears rather than dispel them.
What was striking was the degree to which most voices in Tehran appeared to share a concern: that the current diplomatic opening is far more fragile than many had assumed.
The exchange lasted less than a day. Yet it altered perceptions in Tehran.
For hardliners, it demonstrated that threats still carry weight and that Iran remains willing to defend what it sees as its core regional interests. For more pragmatic voices, it underscored how quickly months of diplomacy can be placed at risk by events on the ground.
The result is a political atmosphere that is simultaneously more defiant and more anxious than it was a week ago—one in which support for negotiations persists, but confidence in their staying power has visibly weakened.
Iranian officials and media outlets say Tehran's missile strike on Israel in response to attacks on Beirut has established a new red line: future attacks on Hezbollah and Lebanon could trigger direct Iranian retaliation.
The debate emerged after Iran launched missiles at Israel following Israeli strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs, at a time when negotiations between Tehran and Washington were widely described as nearing an agreement.
Although Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters announced on Monday that it was halting further strikes, it warned that attacks would resume if Israel targeted either Iran or Lebanon again.
US President Donald Trump called on both sides to halt retaliatory attacks, while Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Washington bore "direct responsibility" for any action taken by Israel against Iran.
Speaking to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC)-linked Tasnim News Agency, an unnamed military source dismissed Washington's lack of public endorsement for Israeli attacks as a "purely propagandistic and deceptive act."
"If the Israelis and Americans believe they can, through 'controlled escalation,' make Iran and the Resistance Front predictable or limit the nature of Iran's response, they are making a foolish mistake," he said.
Among the most notable reactions came from Sadegh Larijani, chairman of Iran's Expediency Council.
In a post on X, Larijani described the strike carried out in defense of Lebanon as "the official declaration of a strategic doctrine" and the opening of "a new chapter in defense policy," in which Iran would pursue its regional power through initiative and offensive capability.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also heads Iran's negotiating team in talks with Washington, argued that Iran had "overturned the equation of a ceasefire on paper and its repeated violation on the battlefield."
"As long as there is no genuine will for confidence-building, Iran's response will remain the same," he wrote on X.
President Masoud Pezeshkian struck a more measured tone, arguing that diplomacy and deterrence remained complementary rather than contradictory.
"We will firmly defend the rights of the nation and retreat before no threat," he wrote. "Diplomacy and defense are the two wings of national power; we have abandoned neither the battlefield nor the negotiating table."
Media echo the new strategy
Iranian media quickly expanded on that interpretation, arguing that the strike reflected a broader shift in Tehran's deterrence strategy.
Farda News, a website close to Ghalibaf, argued that attacks on Lebanon would no longer be cost-free and that Israeli actions on one front could trigger responses on another. The outlet also interpreted the reported targeting of the Haifa refinery—described by the IRGC as retaliation for attacks on Iran's petrochemical industry—as an example of "strategic symmetry."
"The era of cost-free attacks on the Resistance Front has ended," it wrote.
Other conservative outlets advanced similar arguments. Tabnak, which is considered close to Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader, argued that Tehran had for the first time retaliated militarily for an Israeli attack on a country other than Iran itself.
Khabar Online described the strike as a redefinition of deterrence equations in the Middle East, while Rouydad24 argued that Tehran was signalling a willingness to expand both the geography and scope of future confrontations.
Several commentators framed the issue not simply as support for Hezbollah but as a test of Iran's credibility with its regional allies. Allowing Hezbollah to be weakened or destroyed without a response, they argued, would undermine decades of Iranian regional strategy and raise questions about the reliability of Tehran's support for its partners.
Mixed reactions online
Public reactions on social media were more divided.
Some users criticized Iran's involvement on behalf of Hezbollah. One commenter wrote that Iran had effectively become "the proxy force of a foreign group called Hezbollah," arguing that resources intended to strengthen Iran's own security were instead being spent defending an ally.
Others focused on the domestic costs of escalation.
"If they hit our water, electricity, refineries and power plants tomorrow, remember that your Revolutionary Guard brothers dragged Iran into war because of Lebanon," one user wrote.
Several users expressed concern that prolonged conflict could make Iran resemble Lebanon, a country long marked by instability and recurring wars.
"I fear the Beirutization of Tehran," one commenter wrote. "I am terrified of the Beirutization of Iran."
Together, the reactions highlighted a widening debate over the costs and benefits of Tehran's regional strategy. While officials and conservative media presented the strike as the emergence of a new deterrence doctrine, many ordinary Iranians appeared more concerned about the risks that such a doctrine could bring at home.
Leave a Reply