In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the latest U.S. attacks on coastal surveillance installations breached the memorandum of understanding reached by both sides to halt hostilities.

“These brutal attacks, which targeted Iranian coastal surveillance facilities, are a blatant violation” of the peace agreement, the ministry said.

The U.S. military said its forces launched strikes on Friday against Iranian missile and drone storage facilities, as well as coastal radar sites, describing the operation as a response to an Iranian attack on a cargo vessel transiting the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The exchange marks the latest escalation despite ongoing diplomatic efforts to preserve the ceasefire framework established after weeks of conflict. The competing accounts underscore the continuing tensions between Washington and Tehran over the implementation of the agreement.

Neither side indicated that formal negotiations had been suspended, but the latest military actions have raised fresh uncertainty over the durability of the peace arrangement.

Katz’s remarks came a day after Esmail Qaani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, said Israel would ultimately be forced to withdraw from southern Lebanon if it did not leave voluntarily.

Speaking on Thursday, Qaani said Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon could not be sustained indefinitely and predicted it would eventually end in withdrawal following continued regional pressure.

Katz did not elaborate on the nature of Israel’s potential response but issued the warning amid heightened tensions involving Iran, Israel and Lebanon, where cross-border security concerns remain closely tied to broader regional negotiations.

The exchange of statements reflects the fragile security environment as diplomatic efforts continue to address unresolved disputes stemming from the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, alongside parallel negotiations concerning Lebanon’s security situation.

This year’s observance carries particular significance as it comes after months of conflict in Iran and Lebanon. In Iran, mourning ceremonies were held amid national grief following the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in an Israeli airstrike earlier this year. Thousands of mourners gathered in Tehran, participating in traditional rituals including chest-beating processions, elegies, and religious gatherings.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian used the occasion to emphasize the values of standing against oppression and remaining committed to justice, themes closely associated with Imam Hussein’s legacy.

In Lebanon, Ashoura was marked against the backdrop of destruction caused by recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Many displaced families have begun returning to their hometowns in southern Lebanon, where religious ceremonies were held among damaged buildings and war-torn neighborhoods. Supporters also visited the grave of former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut’s southern suburbs.

Meanwhile, Pakistan deployed thousands of security personnel nationwide to protect Ashoura processions following intelligence warnings about possible militant attacks targeting the country’s Shiite minority. Authorities temporarily suspended mobile phone services in some areas as a precautionary measure.

Ashoura remains the holiest day in the Shiite calendar and continues to inspire millions through Imam Hussein’s message of courage, sacrifice, and resistance against tyranny.

The aftermath of Iran’s recent conflict and subsequent diplomatic breakthrough with the United States is reshaping political calculations across the country, prompting a reassessment of long-held assumptions about reform, protest movements, foreign intervention and national identity.

The framework peace agreement signed this week between Tehran and Washington has provided Iran with the prospect of economic relief after months of heightened tensions, military confrontation and domestic uncertainty. While the deal has generated cautious optimism among parts of the political establishment, it has also triggered broader discussions within Iranian society about the direction of the country and the lessons drawn from recent events.

For many Iranians, the violence and instability associated with the January unrest marked a turning point. The conflict not only exposed the costs of prolonged confrontation but also challenged narratives that had shaped political discourse both inside and outside the country for years.

Elham, an Iranian artist who identifies politically with the left, said recent events had led many people to reconsider assumptions about Western involvement in domestic political change. According to her, the experience reinforced concerns that external intervention often produces outcomes that differ significantly from the expectations of those seeking political reform.

“The plan was to do to Iran what they did to Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan: a collapse and occupation,” she said. “There’s now an understanding that the idea that the United States can save us is a lie.”

Her comments reflect a broader debate emerging within segments of Iranian society regarding the effectiveness of mass protest movements and the risks associated with attempts at rapid political transformation. While criticism of domestic restrictions remains widespread among many reform-minded citizens, recent events have also increased concerns about instability and the possibility of prolonged conflict.

Elham argued that authorities should permit peaceful demonstrations and greater civic participation. However, she said movements centered on regime change risk becoming influenced by outside interests and could ultimately trigger harsh security responses, as occurred during the unrest earlier this year. In her view, durable political change is more likely to emerge through grassroots activism and gradual institutional reforms than through sudden upheaval.

“The state may not collapse, but society will collapse if we see a repeat of January every year,” she said. “We have to build new coalitions. Whether you are a reformer or hardliner, everyone has to take a step forward towards each other. We have to imagine our future differently.”

The war has also altered traditional political alignments within Iran’s governing system. Long-standing distinctions between conservatives, hardliners and reformers have become less predictable as different factions reassess their priorities in response to changing domestic and international realities.

One of the most notable developments has been the emergence of divisions within conservative circles over engagement with the United States. While ultra-hardline factions remained skeptical of negotiations, pragmatic conservatives increasingly supported diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing tensions and stabilizing the economy.

Historically, the pursuit of improved relations with Western governments was more commonly associated with reformist politicians who argued that international engagement could help ease economic pressures and expand opportunities for growth. The latest negotiations, however, were led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliamentary speaker and a prominent figure within the conservative camp.

Ghalibaf’s role in advancing discussions with Washington has highlighted the extent to which economic realities have begun to influence political decision-making across ideological lines. The willingness of conservative leaders to support diplomacy reflects concerns about inflation, investment shortages and broader economic challenges facing the country after years of sanctions and regional tensions.

The agreement also received public backing from the Revolutionary Guards, an influential military and security institution frequently associated with hardline political positions. Their support for the framework accord signaled a degree of consensus among key power centers regarding the need to pursue economic stabilization and reduce external pressures.

Speaking after the agreement, Ghalibaf said Iran must now concentrate on economic recovery, underscoring a shift in emphasis from confrontation toward rebuilding and development. His remarks were interpreted by observers as an indication that economic considerations may increasingly shape policy debates in the months ahead.

The peace framework arrives at a moment when many Iranians are focused on everyday economic concerns. Rising living costs, employment challenges and uncertainty created by years of geopolitical tensions have left substantial sections of society seeking stability rather than further confrontation. Analysts note that public attitudes toward both domestic governance and foreign policy are increasingly influenced by economic conditions and quality-of-life considerations.

At the same time, recent events have intensified discussion about the future of political participation in Iran. Some citizens continue to advocate substantial reforms and expanded civil liberties, while others argue that preserving national stability should take precedence over ambitious political transformations. The debate has become more complex as the experience of war and unrest has highlighted both the demand for change and the potential consequences of instability.

Within this evolving environment, traditional political labels appear less capable of capturing the nuances of public opinion. The divisions emerging after the conflict are not simply between reformers and conservatives but increasingly between those who prioritize gradual change and those who believe more fundamental transformation remains necessary.

For many Iranians, the central question is no longer whether change will occur but how it can be achieved without triggering further violence, economic disruption or foreign interference. Recent events have encouraged a growing focus on dialogue, coalition-building and institutional adaptation as alternatives to confrontation.

As Tehran begins implementing the framework agreement with Washington, the political consequences of the conflict are likely to continue unfolding. The war has altered perceptions of foreign involvement, reshaped alliances within the political establishment and opened new debates about the balance between reform, stability and national sovereignty.

Across Iran, those discussions are increasingly centered not only on relations with the outside world but also on the challenge of defining a sustainable future after a period marked by conflict, uncertainty and profound political reassessment.

Pezeshkian’s visit comes a day after senior U.S. and Iranian officials held negotiations in Switzerland, where Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf launched a 60-day diplomatic process intended to produce a permanent settlement following the recent war involving Iran, the United States and Israel.

The talks have exposed differences over key implementation details. Vance said discussions in Switzerland included an understanding that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be allowed to visit Iranian nuclear facilities. However, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Tuesday that no inspections had been scheduled for sites previously damaged in U.S. strikes.

The IAEA has maintained a presence in Iran since the 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran, but inspectors have not been granted access to several enrichment facilities targeted during the hostilities.

Security was heightened across parts of Islamabad as Pezeshkian met Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The visit marks the Iranian leader’s first trip to Pakistan since the conflict that began with U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran on Feb. 28.

Ahead of the meetings, Pezeshkian stressed that progress in the negotiations would depend on all parties fulfilling their commitments.

“The effectiveness of the talks depends on full commitment to the agreed obligations and their precise implementation,” Pezeshkian wrote on the social media platform X. “Progress on this path will be measured by practical adherence to accepted responsibilities.”

Iranian officials said the ongoing technical discussions in Switzerland have established several working groups focused on sanctions relief, nuclear issues, postwar reconstruction and verification mechanisms.

According to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said negotiators had also created coordination mechanisms related to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and efforts to reduce tensions along the Israel-Lebanon frontier.

One of the key outcomes of the initial negotiations was an agreement to establish a “de-confliction cell” intended to address hostilities between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. Mediators from Pakistan and Qatar said the mechanism would involve the Lebanese government and seek to uphold the cessation of military operations.

Questions remain, however, about the effectiveness of the arrangement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israeli forces would retain full operational freedom to respond to perceived threats, while Hezbollah has maintained that it will not halt attacks permanently unless Israel withdraws from contested areas in southern Lebanon.

Neither Israel nor Hezbollah is a formal participant in the U.S.-Iran negotiating framework, complicating efforts to translate diplomatic understandings into durable security arrangements on the ground.

U.S. President Donald Trump, when asked about Netanyahu’s remarks, said Washington would monitor developments closely and expressed confidence that outstanding issues could be resolved.

A ceasefire in Lebanon brokered over the weekend appeared to be holding on Tuesday, with no immediate reports of renewed strikes by either side.

Lebanese and Israeli officials were expected to hold another round of direct talks in Washington later on Tuesday, with discussions focused on potential arrangements for an Israeli military withdrawal and broader security guarantees along the border.

The negotiations represent one of the most significant diplomatic efforts in the region since the end of the Iran conflict and are being closely watched by governments concerned about nuclear oversight, maritime security and the risk of renewed hostilities across the Middle East.

Speaking at the JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem, Bennett said the initiative was launched during his premiership between 2021 and 2022 and involved efforts to acquire and secretly transfer tens of thousands of Starlink terminals into Iran.

Bennett said the objective was to provide protesters with an alternative communications network capable of functioning during government-imposed internet blackouts and to strengthen opposition movements challenging Iran’s ruling establishment.

“I initiated a process of acquiring and smuggling into Iran tens of thousands of Starlink receptors that would allow continuity of the Internet and social networks,” Bennett said.

Starlink, a satellite internet service operated by the U.S. aerospace company SpaceX, provides broadband connectivity through a constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites. The service is not officially licensed in Iran, although SpaceX founder Elon Musk has previously stated that Starlink services are active within the country.

Iranian authorities have repeatedly accused Israel and the United States of facilitating unauthorized satellite internet access to undermine national security and support dissent.

Bennett said the operation was intended to create a communications infrastructure that could be used during periods of civil unrest. He criticized the current Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for failing to continue the initiative after he left office.

“Unfortunately, the current incompetent Israeli government stopped doing that,” Bennett said. “And when the protest happened, that infrastructure was not there.”

Netanyahu’s office did not immediately comment on Bennett’s remarks. SpaceX was not immediately available for comment outside normal U.S. business hours.

Iran has periodically restricted internet access during episodes of political unrest and security crises. Authorities imposed extensive communications restrictions during nationwide protests earlier this year and throughout the conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States that began in February.

Satellite-based communication systems have become increasingly important for activists and civilians in regions where governments restrict access to digital networks. Previous reports indicated that some Iranians relied on Starlink connectivity during internet shutdowns.

Bennett, who leads a right-wing political party and is considered a potential challenger to Netanyahu in Israel’s next national election, also outlined a broader strategy for confronting Iran if he returns to office.

He said Israel should continue efforts to weaken the Iranian government through measures including economic pressure, industrial disruption and other forms of non-military action aimed at undermining Tehran’s capabilities and influence.

The remarks come amid heightened tensions between Israel and Iran following months of military confrontation, diplomatic negotiations and regional security concerns that have reshaped Middle Eastern geopolitics.

The trip comes as Iran seeks to reinforce diplomatic engagement with regional partners after the Switzerland discussions, which marked a significant phase in contacts between Tehran and the United States.

According to the IRNA state news agency, one of the principal objectives of Pezeshkian’s visit is to convey Iran’s appreciation to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for Islamabad’s role in facilitating communication between Tehran and Washington.

Habibollah Abbasi, director of public relations at the Iranian president’s office, said the visit would include discussions linked to Pakistan’s mediation efforts and broader bilateral relations between the neighboring countries.

Pakistan has maintained diplomatic channels with both Iran and the United States and has periodically sought to support dialogue aimed at reducing regional tensions. The mediation role highlighted by Tehran reflects Islamabad’s efforts to position itself as a facilitator in regional diplomacy.

Neither Iranian nor Pakistani officials disclosed further details regarding the agenda of the visit, including whether new agreements or joint initiatives would be announced during Pezeshkian’s stay.

The visit takes place amid continued diplomatic activity in the region following the Switzerland talks, with governments assessing opportunities for broader engagement and stability through dialogue.

Pezeshkian’s meetings in Pakistan are expected to focus on bilateral cooperation as well as regional and international developments of mutual interest, according to Iranian state media.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the military had standing orders to act against any threats encountered in Lebanon and reiterated that Israeli forces would not withdraw from the security zone extending roughly 10 kilometers into Lebanese territory.

“There has never been, and there is currently no restriction on IDF soldiers in Lebanon from acting to eliminate threats,” Katz said in a statement, adding that both he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made clear that Israel would maintain its presence in the area.

The comments underscored continuing tensions along the Israel-Lebanon frontier despite diplomatic efforts involving Washington and Tehran to halt hostilities across multiple fronts in the region.

Iran, which backs Hezbollah, said later on Sunday that implementation of provisions related to ending the conflict in Lebanon was a prerequisite for advancing negotiations with the United States on a final agreement following a deal reached earlier this week.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran could not move into the next phase of negotiations unless commitments regarding a cessation of hostilities were fulfilled. In a post on X, he said the termination of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, remained essential to further diplomatic progress.

Baghaei also said the situation in Lebanon would dominate discussions with U.S. officials in Switzerland, alongside issues including frozen Iranian assets and Iranian oil exports.

“The Zionist regime continues to violate its commitment in Lebanon, and this issue will be the main topic of discussion in today’s talks,” Baghaei said in remarks carried by the IRNA state news agency.

Tehran announced on Thursday that it had reached an agreement with Washington aimed at ending months of hostilities that began on Feb. 28 following U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran. Under the arrangement, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon was also expected to cease.

Iran’s military said on Saturday it had again closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to what it described as ongoing Israeli attacks in Lebanon, adding another layer of uncertainty to regional security and energy markets.

Despite the sharp rhetoric, there were no reports of new strikes in Lebanon after Saturday evening. Baghaei said a “fragile cessation” of hostilities had been in place since Saturday.

The latest exchanges highlight the central role of the Lebanon conflict in wider regional diplomacy, as efforts continue to stabilize tensions following months of military confrontation involving Israel, Hezbollah, Iran and the United States.

The poll, conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in partnership with the Agam Institute between June 17 and June 20, surveyed 3,644 respondents and found widespread concern about Israel’s strategic position following the conflict and diplomatic settlement.

According to the survey, 92.1 percent of respondents said Iran had either won the conflict or gained more from its outcome than Israel, while 82.9 percent believed Israel’s long-term security position had deteriorated as a result of the war and the subsequent U.S.-Iran agreement.

The findings suggest dissatisfaction extended across Israel’s political spectrum. Among supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing governing bloc, 93.1 percent said Iran had emerged as the victor or principal beneficiary of the conflict.

Opposition to the agreement between Washington and Tehran was also pronounced. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63.2 percent, opposed the deal, while only 12.1 percent expressed support. The remainder were either undecided or did not state a preference.

The survey also highlighted declining confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership during the conflict. Some 72.5 percent of respondents said they did not believe the prime minister’s assessment of the military campaign’s achievements, while 56.4 percent rated his management of the conflict as either poor or unsuccessful.

Support for Netanyahu’s continued premiership also appeared to weaken. The poll showed backing for the Israeli leader falling to 29.4 percent in June from 40.5 percent recorded in early March, indicating a significant erosion in public support over the course of the conflict.

Despite concerns about the outcome of the war, the survey found continued public backing for a hardline security approach toward Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon. Nearly half of respondents, 48.2 percent, supported renewed large-scale military action against the Iran-backed group, even if such a move risked friction with the United States. By comparison, 21 percent opposed further escalation.

The release of the survey coincided with efforts to advance diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Representatives from both countries were scheduled to meet in Switzerland on Sunday to discuss transforming the temporary agreement into a more durable framework.

The diplomatic process faces additional uncertainty amid tensions on Israel’s northern border. A renewed ceasefire announced by Washington on Friday followed clashes between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon, with both sides accusing each other of violating the truce.

The poll’s findings underscore the political and strategic challenges facing Israel’s leadership as it seeks to reassure the public about the country’s security posture while navigating a rapidly evolving regional landscape shaped by diplomacy, military confrontation and shifting alliances.

The disciplinary action follows a wave of nationwide unrest that began in December as demonstrations over rising living costs and later evolved into broader anti-establishment protests. The movement reached its peak in January before continuing in smaller forms on university campuses across the country.

According to the Fars news agency, the university’s Disciplinary Committee issued separate preliminary rulings ordering the expulsion of six students for their alleged participation in unrest that took place in February.

Fars reported that the students were accused of organizing and leading unauthorized gatherings, using language deemed insulting by authorities, engaging in activities considered hostile to the Islamic Republic, and committing other disciplinary violations.

The report did not indicate whether the students face separate criminal proceedings in Iran’s judicial system, including before revolutionary courts, which frequently handle cases involving national security and political offenses.

Among the allegations cited by Fars was the display and promotion of the Lion and Sun emblem, a historic national symbol that appeared on Iran’s flag before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The emblem is often associated with opponents of the current political system and supporters of exiled opposition figure Reza Pahlavi.

Sharif University of Technology, widely regarded as Iran’s most prestigious engineering and scientific institution, has historically been a focal point for student activism and political debate.

The protests that spread across Iran earlier this year drew international attention and prompted criticism from foreign human rights organizations, which accused authorities of carrying out a harsh crackdown. Iranian officials have rejected those accusations, maintaining that violence during the unrest was driven by individuals they describe as terrorists backed by the United States and Israel.

Neither the university nor Iranian authorities immediately released additional details regarding the disciplinary rulings or the appeals process available to the affected students.