UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to introduce legislation to proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the next parliamentary session, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle.
Starmer said legislation would be brought forward “in a few weeks” as parliament reconvenes.
“In relation to malign state actors more generally, proscription, we do need legislation in order to take necessary measures, and that is legislation that we're bringing forward as soon as we can.”
“We go into a new session in a few weeks' time, and we'll bring that legislation forward,” he said.
He also voiced concern over Tehran’s activities in the United Kingdom, saying he was “very worried” about the increasing use of proxies by the Islamic Republic.
Starmer made the remarks during a solidarity trip to Kenton United Synagogue on Thursday.
The visit came on the eve of the court appearance of two men accused of spying on Jewish and Israeli targets in London on behalf of the Iranian intelligence.
Nematollah Shahsavani, 40, and Alireza Farasati, 22, face charges under the UK’s National Security Act of engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service. Prosecutors allege the activity was carried out for Iran.
Growing threats
Starmer's pledge to ban Iran's IRGC comes at a time of growing concern about threats, intimidation, and violence affecting people linked to Iran in Britain.
On April 18, Iran International received reports that an Iranian man was violently assaulted in central London. The Metropolitan Police are understood to be investigating.
On April 17, British police charged three people over an attempted arson attack near the London offices of Iran International.
Police said a burning container was thrown towards the broadcaster’s headquarters in north-west London. No one was injured, but the case has added to concerns about the safety of Persian-language media in Britain.
Before that, in March 2026, an Iran-aligned group was reported to have claimed responsibility for an arson attack on Jewish ambulances in Golders Green, north London.
In May 2025, three Iranian men were charged under the National Security Act after a major counter-terrorism investigation. Prosecutors said one of the men had carried out surveillance, reconnaissance, and online research with the aim of committing serious violence against a person in the UK.
The other two were accused of similar activity intended to help others carry out serious violence. The Home Secretary said the case was part of a broader response to threats linked to the Iranian state.
British authorities have warned for several years that Iran poses a serious threat on UK soil.
Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday that Iran was struggling to determine its leadership, pointing to what he described as infighting between “hardliners” and “moderates.”
“Iran is having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is! They just don’t know!” Trump wrote, adding that internal divisions were “crazy” and tied to battlefield losses and political rivalries.
The remarks came as the continued absence of new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei from public view and reported disputes over engagement with Washington have drawn scrutiny to internal dynamics within the Islamic Republic.
Officials project unity after remarks
An account attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei reposted part of his Nowruz message warning of “enemy psychological operations” aimed at undermining national unity and security.
Senior officials echoed similar messaging in coordinated posts. President Masoud Pezeshkian and parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote that distinctions between political factions were invalid.
“In Iran there are no ‘hardliners’ or ‘moderates’… We are all Iranians and revolutionaries,” they wrote, adding that unity and obedience to the Supreme Leader would ensure victory.
Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei described such labels as “fabricated and baseless,” saying all factions operate cohesively under the leadership.
Other figures, including senior military commanders and advisers, issued similar statements stressing allegiance to “one leader,” in what appeared to be a coordinated response.
Divisions persist over policy and negotiations
Despite the messaging, recent developments suggest internal disagreements remain. In March, Pezeshkian apologized for attacks attributed to Iranian forces on neighboring countries, attributing them to actors operating independently, drawing criticism from military-linked figures.
Conflicting signals also emerged last week over maritime policy, when Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz before the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps indicated renewed restrictions due to ongoing pressures.
Reports have also pointed to disputes over nuclear negotiations with the United States. According to information received by Iran International, disagreements between officials aligned with the government and figures linked to Mojtaba Khamenei disrupted plans for talks in Islamabad.
Sources familiar with the matter said negotiators were instructed not to engage on the nuclear file, prompting Araghchi to describe participation as “essentially futile” and warning that such a stance would end the process.
Earlier reporting also indicated that Ghalibaf criticized opponents of a deal with Washington in internal discussions, describing them as contributing to the country’s decline.
“Prices here have increased tenfold and rice and cooking oil are hard to find,” one resident wrote from Zahedan in southeastern Iran, pointing to worsening access to staple goods.
Other citizens described the rapid erosion of purchasing power. “We go to sleep and wake up to everything being twice as expensive,” one message said, reflecting widespread concern over accelerating inflation.
Food costs climb, access narrows
Messages from multiple cities highlighted steep increases in the cost of everyday items. Citizens said even the most basic foods were becoming unaffordable, with eggs, rice and cooking oil among the hardest hit.
“Eggs have become so expensive they are being removed from our tables,” one citizen wrote, describing the shrinking range of affordable protein options.
Restaurant prices were also cited as an indicator of inflation. Citizens said a single serving of kebab now costs between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 rials (about $3.10 to $3.75), while a plate of chicken with rice ranges from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 rials (about $1.90 to $2.50). Soft drinks were reported to exceed 1,000,000 rials (about $0.60).
Based on an exchange rate of around 1,600,000 rials per dollar, the new minimum monthly wage of 162,550,000 rials is equivalent to roughly $104. This comes as annual inflation had already exceeded 70 percent before the start war on February 28, reaching its highest level since World War II.
As of late 2025/early 2026, average Iranian incomes have contracted to roughly $200 per month.
Shortages compounded the problem. Messages described difficulty finding chicken in distribution centers and limits on purchasing cooking oil in shops. Others pointed to disruptions in supply chains linked to industrial slowdowns and rising production costs.
Economic journalist Arash Azarmi said the surge in food prices was hitting lower-income households hardest. “Eggs priced at 200,000 rials ($0.12) each are shocking. This is a basic food item, especially for lower-income households, and it is effectively being pushed out of their consumption basket,” Azarmi said.
Official data, he added, already showed food inflation exceeding 112 percent, with some categories such as cooking oil rising by more than 200 percent.
Iran’s monthly minimum wage for workers is set at one of the lowest levels compared to many countries in the region. Among Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Qatar, Pakistan and Lebanon, the lowest minimum wage belongs to Pakistan, where workers earn at least the equivalent of $133. This figure is about $201 in Lebanon, around $275 in Qatar, about $345 in Iraq, and $625 and $585 in Turkey and Oman, respectively.
Pressure spreads beyond food
Beyond rising prices, citizens said financial obligations continued to tighten during and after the conflict period, adding to the strain on households and businesses.
“During the war there was no tax relief, insurance was taken in full from the private sector, and all loans faced late penalties despite earlier promises,” one message said, describing continued pressure on businesses.
Another citizen pointed to mounting banking enforcement and legal follow-up tied to unpaid debts. “All checks were bounced, accounts were closed and legal action started. Loan installments were either collected with interest or deducted from guarantors,” the message read.
Business owners described a cycle of rising costs and falling demand. A clothing seller said prices for goods were increasing by around 35 percent each week, while customers’ ability to pay continued to decline.
Jobs scarce, costs rising
Citizens also pointed to a lack of job opportunities and growing difficulty in covering basic living expenses, including rent and utilities.
“There is no work and our savings are gone,” one citizen said, describing limited options for supplementing income.
Others reported rising bills even as businesses slowed or shut down. “We cannot pay rent, we cannot work,” another citizen wrote, pointing to disruptions affecting daily commerce.
Small business owners said they were increasingly operating at a loss. One restaurant operator said higher meat prices and reduced customer demand were pushing the business toward closure. “If this continues, we will shut down and pay rent from our own pockets,” the message read.
Experts warn of accelerating inflation
Economist Mohammad Machinechian said the pace of price increases had reached a point where monthly inflation was more relevant than annual figures.
“I’m no longer talking about annual inflation, but monthly inflation, and that is the reality we’re dealing with,” Machinechian said. “Even in the best-case scenario, inflation could average at least 5 percent a month, meaning prices rise around 80 percent over a year.”
Machinechian added that in a prolonged stalemate scenario, prices could triple over the year, while renewed conflict could push monthly inflation above 20 percent, leading to annual increases approaching 500 percent.
Azarmi described the situation as a “modern famine,” where goods remain available but are increasingly unaffordable for many households.
The accounts from citizens across the country depict an economy where rapid price increases, supply constraints and falling incomes are converging, leaving many struggling to secure even the most basic necessities.
US President Donald Trump said on Friday he expects an agreement with Iran “in the next day or two,” even claiming Iran has “agreed to everything,” including halting uranium enrichment and transferring its highly-enriched uranium stockpiles to the US.
The remarks came hours after Iran announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz following weeks of disruption, an announcement that sparked rare public criticism from within the Islamic Republic targeting the negotiating team.
Despite Tehran's declared reopening of the strait, Trump said the US will continue blockading Iranian ports until a final deal is achieved.
Speaking at Iran International's English podcast Eye for Iran, maritime sanctions expert Charlie Brown framed the strategy behind the current US blockade as one that could either be about pressure to deal or pressure to collapse.
“I think it’s clear that the goal would be, you know, the first case is pressure to come to negotiate, but the other case would be pressure to collapse the regime system and make space for a new system,” said Brown, a senior advisor at United Against Nuclear Iran who tracks Iran’s shadow fleet and illicit tanker networks.
That dual objective, forcing negotiations while simultaneously weakening the system sits at the heart of the current moment. But whether it is working remains far less clear.
Pressure campaign vs. economic reality
At the center of that uncertainty is the Strait of Hormuz, where a US-led pressure campaign has targeted Iran’s oil exports — the Islamic Republic's economic lifeline.
Both Brown and energy expert Dr. Iman Nasseri, Managing Director for the Middle East at FGE, agreed the impact is real, but warned it is too early to measure its effectiveness.
“The effects of a blockade will definitely take time,” Brown said, cautioning against drawing quick conclusions.
Nasseri, one of the leading experts on Iran’s oil flows and regional energy markets, echoed that view, emphasizing that even under ideal conditions, economic pressure unfolds slowly.
“In normal conditions three to four weeks but in Iranian situation and sanctions evasion it could take up to three months for a cargo to land in the destination market,” he said.
That delay means Iran can continue generating revenue in the short term, even as restrictions tighten.
“Iran is still selling oil which is out there at sea today without loading anything,” Nasseri explained, underscoring how existing cargoes can sustain income flows even as new exports are disrupted.
Shipping data reinforces that point. According to TankerTrackers.com, 633 Iran-linked tankers have been tracked globally, with 397 sanctioned by US authorities. Yet dozens continue operating, including at least 72 vessels currently moving freely in the Middle East.
The system — built on ship-to-ship transfers, AIS spoofing and shadow banking remains active, even under pressure.
That raises a broader question: whether global markets can absorb the disruption long enough for pressure on Iran to fully materialize.
Nuclear stakes and competing narratives
While the economic battle unfolds at sea, the nuclear file remains central to any potential deal and to competing claims of success.
Trump’s assertion that Iran has agreed to halt enrichment would represent a major concession. But nuclear experts caution that the reality is more complex.
“I’d say the probability the regime would want to build the bomb has gone up, but the probability that they can succeed has gone down,” said David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Albright also warned that focusing only on Iran’s most enriched uranium stockpiles risks missing the bigger picture. Iran possesses thousands of kilograms of lower-enriched uranium that could be further processed if enrichment continues — meaning any deal that does not fully end enrichment could leave a pathway intact.
Taken together, his assessment points to a paradox: Iran may be more motivated than ever to pursue nuclear capability, even as its ability to do so has been degraded by military strikes.
That tension complicates any claim that diplomacy alone has resolved the nuclear threat.
Regional shifts and Iran’s influence
Beyond the nuclear and economic fronts, regional dynamics suggest Iran’s position may be shifting — though not collapsing.
One of the most significant developments has been direct diplomatic engagement between Lebanon and Israel, a move that signals potential decoupling from Tehran’s influence.
“This was the first time that the United States recognizes that the government of Lebanon is sovereign enough and adult enough to sit in face-to-face talks bilaterally without Saudis or Iranians or Syrians or anybody else in the room,” said Hussain Abdul Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and author of the Arab Case for Israel.
A newly agreed ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is set to last 10 days, with the possibility of being “extended by mutual agreement” if negotiations show progress
That shift challenges one of Iran’s long-standing pillars of regional power: its network of proxy forces.
For years, Lebanon has effectively been treated as an extension of Iran’s regional strategy through Hezbollah. But the current talks — taking place independently of Tehran — suggest a possible shift toward decoupling.
Abdul Hussain underscored that divide more directly, describing how Lebanon’s leadership is increasingly asserting its independence from Iran’s negotiations.
“You do you, we do Lebanon,” he said, characterizing the government’s stance as separate from Tehran’s diplomatic track.
A moment of uncertainty
Taken together, the developments across Hormuz, the nuclear file and the regional landscape point to a single conclusion: it is too early to declare a winner.
The United States has demonstrated its ability to impose pressure — militarily and economically — while Iran has shown it can still adapt, sustain revenue and shape the narrative.
For now, the outcome is not defined by victory, but by how long each side can sustain the pressure before it breaks.
You can watch Eye for Iran on YouTube or listen on any podcast platform of your choosing
