Iranian regime muzzles media with grim death penalty warning
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) intelligence organisation has issued a grim warning that 'cooperation with the Mossad will result in the maximum legal punishment', effectively issuing a death penalty for communications seen as favouring Israel's attacks on Iran.
In a statement shared on social media Telegram earlier today the Revolutionary Guards cited articles 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the 'Law on Combating Hostile Actions of the Zionist Regime'.
'Any form of intelligence cooperation with the Mossad, interaction or exchange of information with official or unofficial individuals affiliated with the Zionist regime, as well as any cultural, media, or propaganda activity, or assistance that supports, promotes, or legitimizes the Zionist regime, is considered a criminal offence,' under these articles, according to the statement, which adds that any perpetrators will face 'the maximum punishment'.
Babak Kamiar, the head of Euronews' Persian desk, said that the impact of this will be to force local media into silence.
The maximum punishment indicated in the sentence is 'the death penalty for sure', according to Kamiar.
'From this point on, nothing will be published except praise for the regime — which, of course, was to be expected,' Kamiar said.
'This will also include international media outlets that have correspondents in Iran, making our work even more difficult, as most of our information relied on domestic sources,' Kamiar added.
Although state-run, semi-official, and IRGC-affiliated media had already maintained tight control over the flow of information, the situation is now expected to worsen, according to Euronews' Kamiar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
Here's everything you need to know about Iran's naval power
As attention turns to how Iran might respond to the recent U.S. strikes, a key question is the extent to which it can target American interests in Gulf waters. Despite the ongoing confrontation, Iran's navy has so far played no visible role in the conflict with Israel. This raises the question: is the regime in Tehran leveraging its naval fleet, and what capabilities does it actually possess? While Iran is often seen as a primarily continental power, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman represent both its first and last lines of defense. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Tehran has worked to build a layered naval structure divided between the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), combining larger warships and smaller attack boats, conventional submarines, and drones. Though Iran's navy is not capable of competing with the world's major naval powers, it has developed a specialized force based on asymmetric warfare, indigenous technology, and strategic deployment ensuring it remains a constant threat to any hostile move in the Strait of Hormuz or the Gulf of Oman. The Iranian Navy (IRIN) is the official branch responsible for operating the country's regular naval fleet, including submarines and larger warships. It comprises over 18,500 personnel and more than 100 vessels, including ships and submarines. Its operations span both the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, focusing on protecting Iran's territorial waters, securing vital shipping lanes, and deterring any violations of Iranian sovereignty. According to Global Firepower's 2024 report, Iran's navy ranks 37th out of 145 naval forces worldwide. While this position does not place it among the global superpowers, it reflects the growth of Iran's naval capabilities despite international sanctions and technological constraints. The ranking suggests that Iran maintains a capable medium-sized naval force, strong enough to assert its presence within its regional sphere of influence. The most prominent feature of the fleet is its considerable diversity, which includes: Perhaps the most notable component of Iran's fleet is its submarine force, which includes between 19 and 27 submarines. Among them are three Tareq-class (Kilo-class) diesel-electric submarines, which have been used in strategic operations such as mine-laying and cruise missile launches. Iran also has two Fateh-class submarines and a large number of Ghadir-class mini-submarines, which are manoeuvrable in shallow waters. Although Tehran does not currently possess any nuclear-powered submarines, it has been pursuing this goal for years. In 2018, Iranian officials announced plans to build nuclear-powered submarines, but technology and international sanctions remain a barrier to realising this ambition. Iran's diving fleet does possess a collection of units with relatively advanced capability: Iran is seeking to improve the capabilities of these submarines by installing air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems, which will increase their ability to stay underwater for longer periods of time and give them greater operational capability. Iran's naval bases are spread across two geographical regions: North (Caspian Sea) and South (Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman). Each base plays a different role, from manufacturing to logistical support for combat operations. In addition to these bases, there are IRGC-specific bases, such as the Sirik base near the Strait of Hormuz, and the Abu Musa base on Abu Musa - one of the islands disputed with the UAE - along with Tamb al-Sughra and Tamb al-Kubra. Abu Musa houses missile defence systems and underground fortifications. Unlike the regular fleet, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) relies on a different type of operation, known as asymmetric warfare , which includes the use of fast missile boats, mine-laying, and hit-and-run attacks. This force includes: These forces do not have large ships or submarines, but they are characterised by speed and manoeuvrability, making them a constant threat to any hostile naval presence. Modern equipment and advances in capabilities In August 2024, the Iranian Navy received 2,640 missile and drone systems, including cruise missiles that are untraceable by radars. It also conducted successful cruise missile launch tests from a small submarine, an indication of an evolving offensive capability. In 2023, an Iranian naval group completed a journey that lasted more than eight months, during which it travelled 63,000 kilometres, and reached the Strait of Magellan in a first of its kind. The fleet included the Dana destroyer and the Makran support ship, in a clear message that Iran wants to expand its reach into international waters.
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
Only regime change will stop Iran making a nuclear weapon
Only regime change will completely neutralise the threat that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, however successful 'Operation Midnight Hammer' may have been, though it will cement support for Trump domestically, an expert on foreign policy has told Euronews. Euronews interviewed Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Bruegel Institute, on the American air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Kirkegaard said the attacks might eventually bring the world closer to closer to the end, as Iran has very limited tools to escalate the situation. According to the expert, Iran could choose to retaliate against either US bases by killing a number of US troops, or against the crude oil facilities, either by hitting the transportation through the Strait of Hormuz or some of the facilities in the Gulf Arab neighbours of Iran. But Kirkegaard said he thought both options "a low probability" because Iran today is "at a nearly historically weak military position". According to the expert, Iran's proxies, like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis, are weakened and the US could join a broader military campaign if Iran hits American targets. "This is the risk that the Iranians know that Trump has proven he's actually willing to pull the trigger. And they need to take it seriously. I don't think we're headed for more escalation, but on the other hand, does this bring a negotiated peace settlement or a return to an agreed international nuclear surveillance, sort of a JPCOA 2.0, any nearer? The risk is that I think the US and the European countries are now going to want a more intrusive JPCOA that Iran may or may not agree to. So I think the possibility of an accelerated peace move is there, but it is absolutely no certainty," he said. Iran might still be able to produce a nuclear bomb Kirkegaard said that for the moment, nobody knows how much damage the Iranian nuclear sites have suffered. If the Natanz and Isfahan sites are disabled, "this will make weapons-grade uranium enrichment more difficult", he said. "But that may not matter very much. Because the latest data from the International Atomic Energy Agency suggested that Iran had about 400 kilos of enriched uranium, up to 60 percent. That is, if further enriched, more than enough to produce a nuclear weapon, provided you have the technical know-how to do so, weaponize it. We don't know if Iran has that, but what it means is that destroying these facilities, even if they are successfully destroyed, isn't going to destroy the Iranian nuclear program." With a possibly large amount of highly enriched uranium hidden in the country, Iran may still be capable of building a nuclear bomb, he said. "Iran remains a nuclear threshold power, maybe not quite as near as it was 24 hours ago, but a country that could, if the regime decided to go all out to produce a bomb, might very well still be capable of doing so." He added that as a result, there is no military solution for the Iranian programme unless there is a regime change in the country. Trump will be remembered as a president who bombed Iran Kirkegaard said that despite Trump's aspiration to be a peacemaker in Ukraine, he will be remembered as the president who bombed Iran. "He's going to forever be the US President who bombed Iran. So whenever he's criticized by certainly the more hawkish elements of the US political firmament... he will always have, 'look, I bombed Iran'. What did Obama do? What did Biden do? What did even Bush do?" Trump will thereby deter criticism within the MAGA camp, according to the analyst, and he will certainly not cross the red line of sending troops to Iran. "The only thing where I think he will remain inhibited, but he's no more inhibited than any other president, is that you're not gonna have boots on the ground. You're not going to have a US actual invasion of Iran, which obviously would be a disaster for everyone involved. He knows that he's not gonna do that. But he has shown to the people who call him TACO and thought he was gonna chicken out, he showed them." Europe is irrelevant in the conflict Jacob Kirkegaard said Europe will be irrelevant in the conflict, but many leaders on the continent are happy that Israel, together with the US, is destroying Iran's nuclear and missile programme. "I think we have to say that the brief window of European diplomacy that we had on Friday with the meeting in Geneva went nowhere. The Iranians told the E3 foreign ministers that they are not interested in pursuing a deal that will freeze completely all nuclear enrichment. The reality is that Europe is irrelevant in this conflict. " The analyst added that Europe is also deeply split on the issue, and many leaders are quietly celebrating. "Friedrich Merz told German television that Israel is doing Europe's dirty work by striking Iran. There's no doubt that Europe secretly is very happy that Iran's ballistic missile and drone production capacity appears to be significantly degraded by Israel. " Striking Iran is directly weakening Russia, which is Europe's main strategic threat. "While nobody's going to praise Netanyahu publicly in Europe, the reality is that Friedrich Merz was right. But many European governments will obviously feel differently publicly or otherwise. And that alone will prevent Europe from taking a united stance that condemns Europe to irrelevance. It's really that simple."
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
Will Russia stand up for its ally Iran and how can Moscow benefit?
Russia's foreign ministry slammed on Sunday the overnight US air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling it 'an irresponsible decision to subject the territory of a sovereign state to missile and bomb strikes, no matter what arguments it is presented with' — all the while Moscow itself is intensifying its attacks on Ukraine. The Kremlin says the US attack 'blatantly violates international law, the UN Charter, and the resolutions of the UN Security Council, which has previously unambiguously qualified such actions as inadmissible' adding that 'It is particularly alarming that the strikes were carried out by a country that is a permanent member of the UN Security Council'. Russia, the permanent member of the UN Security Council itself, has been waging its unprovoked all-out war against Ukraine since February 2022, bombing Ukrainian cities and attacking Ukraine on the ground. 'We urge to stop the aggression, to step up efforts to create conditions for returning the situation to the political and diplomatic track,' the Moscow statement said, referring to the US strikes. At the St Petersburg forum before Washington's strike, Vladimir Putin said that Iran had not asked for help since the beginning of Israel's air campaign. The Russian president added that the comprehensive partnership treaty between Moscow and Tehran has no articles related to the military sphere, which is ironic, given Russian production of Iranian developed Shahed-136 drones (aka the Geranium-2). Euronews spoke with Nikita Smagin, an orientalist and author of the book "All Iran. The paradoxes of life in an autocracy under sanctions" about what is at stake for the Kremlin. Smagin says the Russian side has previously emphasised that its alliance with Iran is not a 'military one' and Moscow is therefore not obliged to provide it with military assistance. "It is logical to expect that Russia will not interfere in what is happening, because it does not want to risk for the sake of Iran the aggravation of the situation with Israel and the United States," the expert says. Smagin notes that Tehran's decision not to request military intervention from Moscow before the US strikes is not surprising. "The Islamic Republic was built from the very beginning on the ideas of sovereignty," he says, adding that one of the driving ideas behind the restructuring of the Iranian state was to put an end to the interference of foreign players, primarily the US and the UK, in Iran's internal affairs. "In this sense, Iran has never turned to Russia for help and is not turning to Russia now because it is afraid of losing some sovereignty, of giving up some of its sovereignty to Russia, as was the case with Bashar al-Assad," Smagin says. But the situation could change. "If only because Putin drew attention to the fact that he does not even want to think about the assassination, the destruction of Khamenei, it is obvious that these issues are somewhat disturbing to him," the expert explains. 'The fate of authoritarian leaders hurts Russia' According to US President Donald Trump, Washington knows "exactly" where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is "hiding". Trump also said that the Iranian leader is "an easy target, but they will not kill him, at least not yet". If the Islamic Republic's regime falls or if it comes to physically destroying the Ayatollah, how will the Kremlin react to this? What would it mean for the Russian authorities? "In general, we see that the deaths in revolutionary processes, the destruction of heads of authoritarian states in general hurts the Russian side. We remember how Putin reacted to the assassination of Gaddafi," notes Nikita Smagin. The rebels were primarily operating there, but not without the assistance of foreign forces, including British intelligence and the Emirates. But nevertheless, all this looked like a serious "wake-up call" for Putin. And, apparently, this was one of the reasons why he began to change his positioning in the international arena. According to the analyst, if the Islamic Republic collapses, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may well be granted asylum in Russia. "This is already an established practice. I think it is not that it is excluded. But if Khamenei is eliminated, it will not cause any joy in the Kremlin. They believe that killing leaders is a red line, beyond which in fact Israel has already crossed. It has already eliminated Hezbollah leaders, for example," he says. 'It will be easier to draw up the budget' The new crisis in the Middle East may hit Russia's influence in the region, but the sudden escalation has brought the Kremlin some good news. At the G7 summit in Canada, for example, it was decided not to lower the price threshold for Russian oil so as not to further destabilise the market. Since the end of 2022, one of the key aspects of leverage on Moscow has been the establishment of price ceilings for Russian oil at $60 per barrel. Three and a half years into Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU has proposed lowering the price ceiling to $45 per barrel, but it will have to wait for now. "If we take disintegration in Iran as a whole, or rather regime change, because disintegration (of the country) is already a concomitant, then, of course, it threatens Russia's interests in the long term," says Nikita Smagin. "The Kremlin, of course, expects to benefit from this in the short term: oil prices will go up very seriously. The worse the situation gets, the higher the prices will be and the easier it will be for the [Russian] budget to be drawn up - this year, by the looks of it, there could be problems with it," the analyst explains. According to Smagin, Russia will benefit in the current moment, but in the longer term, regime change and "turning Iran into some permanent point of instability threatens, of course, Russia's strategy in the Middle East, because a lot of effort has been invested in Iran." "Iran has been a reliable partner of the Kremlin on many fronts, " he says. "A lot of projects, and strategically important ones at that, were planned to be conducted through Iran, for example, the [transport corridor] North-South project, a possible gas hub. This, of course, is all for the future, but nevertheless, in the event [of the regime's collapse] there will be no possibility of realising it. In the long term, it will be a loss and a setback for the Russian side." 'The peak of Russia's military cooperation with Iran has long passed' In more than three years of full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has succeeded in "localising" the production of Iranian-designed drones. According to Nikita Smagin, Iran's importance as a supplier of Shahed-136 drones is in the past. The peak of military co-operation between the two countries came in 2022. As the expert notes, at the beginning of last year, up to 90% of components were not Iranian. "Only the engines were supplied from Iran. Everything else was made by Russia," he adds. "Even if localisation is not 100 percent now, it is very close to that. I think Russia will find ways to replace that, not to mention that the Shaheds don't play as big a role as they used to." "Still, there is a huge amount of in-house development. Russia has been investing in drones during this time," Smagin explains. "Moreover: even if we're talking about the Shahed specifically, it's not even strongly Iranian anymore. The Geran-1 and Geran-2 drones are very much redesigned, because the Iranian version was not as effective as many expected," he notes. In an interview with Kommersant, Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, describes the Shaheds' flight characteristics as "primitive" and "allowing them to be shot down en masse even with 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine guns." He also writes of the "moped" engine sound, "alerting the entire neighbourhood to the drone's arrival." 'In Israel, Russia's role as a mediator is looked upon with no apparent antipathy' As Hannah Notte, a political scientist and expert at the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, writes, Russia has always had limitations on how far it can go in supporting Iran. "The Kremlin's obsessive anti-Western agenda has raised the Islamic republic's profile as a partner, but Putin has other interests in the region - such as a long-standing, albeit complicated, relationship with Israel and the need to coordinate oil prices with OPEC - so he has been mindful of Israel's and the Gulf states' red lines when it comes to defence cooperation with Tehran," Notte wrote in a column for US outlet The Atlantic. Nikita Smagin believes that in the current conflict between Iran and Israel, Russia is no longer an "indispensable" mediator. "When the nuclear negotiations were going on, when Trump was trying to sign a nuclear deal with Iran, here Russia could act as an indispensable mediator," he says. "It was actually the only party that had the technical capability and was ready to export surplus uranium from Iran, pre-weapons grade or enriched beyond the required minimum per cent. Now, apparently, this issue is off the agenda". At the same time, despite the fact that relations between Israel and Russia, which became the first country in the world to receive a Hamas delegation after the 7 October attacks officially, have deteriorated, according to Smagin, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem look at Russia's role as a mediator "without any obvious antipathy". As Smagin notes, even after Moscow's invasion of 2022 and the subsequent wave of immigration in an attempt to avoid mobilisation, "a large number of agents of anti-Russian influence have appeared in the Jewish state, people who moved from Russia and have a very negative attitude to the Russian authorities and are obviously the backbone of anti-Russian sentiments in Israel."
