Iran and the United States stepped up attacks on Sunday despite an interim peace accord, with Tehran targeting US military sites in Kuwait and Bahrain and Washington striking Iranian military facilities near the Strait of Hormuz.
The renewed violence added pressure to a fragile truce and efforts under the interim accord to reach a final agreement within 60 days.
Attacks in Kuwait, Bahrain
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said its navy and air forces launched missile and drone operations against US military sites in Kuwait and Bahrain, after accusing Washington of violating the ceasefire.
The IRGC said the US strikes “will result in the complete halt of all diplomatic processes.” The IRGC navy command also warned that US bases in the region “will experience hell in the coming days.”
A US official told Reuters there were no reported US casualties or major damage to US sites in the Middle East, though the situation was still unfolding. CBS News separately reported, citing a US official, that no Iranian drones or missiles launched at US assets in Bahrain and Kuwait on Saturday night reached their targets.
Kuwait said its air defenses intercepted two ballistic missiles with no damage or casualties, while Bahrain said it intercepted several Iranian attacks and that a residential building in Muharraq province was damaged, also with no casualties reported.
Qatar separately said one of its nationals died after sustaining shrapnel injuries aboard a vessel that had gone missing on Saturday.
A second person was injured in the incident, which Qatar’s interior ministry attributed to “military operations in the area” without giving a location or apportioning blame.
US strikes, Hormuz tensions
US Central Command said its latest strikes followed an Iranian drone attack on the Panama-flagged tanker M/T Kiku near the Strait of Hormuz and targeted Iranian surveillance, communications, air defense, drone storage and mine-laying facilities.
President Donald Trump threatened further military action if Iran failed to comply with the interim accord.
“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started,” Trump said on Truth Social. “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said Washington would keep targeting Iranian military infrastructure if Tehran threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
“If the Iranian regime thinks for a second that President Trump is going to sit by, stand by, while Iran continues to attack international shipping without a response, or our bases without a response, they’re sadly mistaken,” Waltz told Fox News Sunday.
Waltz said the United States would “continue to, militarily, if needed, take down their infrastructure” used to “illegally control an international waterway,” while adding that Trump would “always give diplomacy a chance.”
Iranian officials insisted Tehran would retain control over maritime arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in Baghdad that Iran alone was responsible for managing and fully reopening maritime traffic in the strait under recent understandings, warning that outside intervention would complicate conditions, delay a return to normal traffic and increase tensions.
Iranian lawmakers also warned that the strait would not return to its pre-war state. Ebrahim Azizi, head of parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, said foreign vessels must use routes designated by Iran’s armed forces and would not be allowed to use any other path.
Attacks draw widening condemnation
Saudi Arabia said the Iranian attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain also targeted maritime security and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, calling them a violation of international law and the UN Charter.
Qatar called the attacks a breach of Kuwaiti and Bahraini sovereignty, Jordan said they threatened regional security, and Oman urged restraint and diplomacy.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper condemned the attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and in the Strait of Hormuz, saying they were putting civilian lives at risk and curtailing freedom of navigation.
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani also condemned the Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait, warning that further escalation could jeopardize diplomatic understandings and reaffirming Italy’s commitment to freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
US-Iran talks stall
The latest attacks followed a 14-point memorandum of understanding meant to halt fighting that began on February 28, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and allow talks to proceed on issues including Iran’s nuclear program.
The renewed attacks appeared to complicate efforts under the interim accord to reach a final agreement within 60 days.
US-Iran nuclear talks expected to resume this weekend in Switzerland have been stalled amid recent hostilities, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter.
Separately, Al Arabiya reported, citing a US official, that technical talks with Iran were proceeding according to the set schedule. Al Jazeera also reported, citing a senior US official, that technical talks on implementing the memorandum of understanding with Iran remained scheduled for the coming days.
Mehdi Fazaeili, member of the Office of Preservation and Publication of the Works of Iran’s Supreme Leader told state TV on Sunday that Tehran had not taken part in technical talks slated for Sunday due to recent attacks on the country and unfulfilled conditions of the memorandum of understanding with the United States.
"For example one of the reasons is checking if we have access to the unfrozen funds, if there is no access then this condition has not been fulfilled," Fazaeili said.
The site, known as Ravagh Keshvardoust, had been turned into a shrine-like space in central Tehran for prayer, mourning and ritual gatherings after Khamenei’s killing. In Iranian religious architecture, a ravagh usually refers to a covered hall or portico attached to a shrine. In this case, the term was being used for a temporary devotional space around the site of Khamenei’s death.
According to Jamaran, a news outlet close to the family of the Islamic Republic’s founder Ruhollah Khomeini, organizers closed the site after a group of kafan-poushan, or shroud-wearers, arrived from Mashhad on Ashura (June 25) and occupied the space under the banner of “avenging the blood of the slain leader.”
The term kafan-poushan refers to activists who wear white burial shrouds in political or religious demonstrations, presenting themselves as ready for death or martyrdom. The symbolism has long been used by hardline factions in the Islamic Republic, especially when they want to frame a political demand as a sacred duty.
Organizers said the group’s three-day sit-in changed the function of the site. What had been a place for prayer, mourning, daily ceremonies and congregational prayers became, in their words, a place for overnight stays, food distribution and protest equipment. They said repeated requests and mediation failed to persuade the protesters to leave.
The decision to close the site was presented as an effort to protect the sanctity of a site named after the slain leader. But politically, it showed something more sensitive: even parts of the pro-Khamenei establishment now appear to see some of the most radical mourners as disruptive, not useful.
The conflict is not between supporters and opponents of the Islamic Republic. It is between two loyalist currents.
One side wants Khamenei’s death to be used as a managed symbol of unity, grief and continuity under the new leadership. The other wants to turn that grief into a permanent pressure campaign against officials accused of compromise, especially over talks with the United States and the interim memorandum meant to end the war.
That split has been visible for weeks.
Ultra-hardline figures linked to the Paydari Front have attacked the negotiating team led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, accusing them of crossing the late leader’s red lines. Some protesters at hardline rallies have chanted against Ghalibaf and Araghchi, asking what happened to “the blood” of their leader. Some went further, calling for their death or execution.
Iran International previously reported that supporters of the Paydari Front were removed from nightly state-organized rallies in Tehran after requests by President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf, in an apparent attempt to contain pressure from the ultra-hardline street while talks with Washington continued.
The same divide has appeared in parliament and in the media. Lawmakers close to the ultra-hardline camp have accused Ghalibaf of keeping parliament closed to shield negotiations from criticism. Conservative activist Mohammad Mohajeri accused hardline lawmakers of trying to use parliament’s podium for factional purposes after the US-Iran memorandum.
Earlier, Iran International reported that the dispute had spilled into a public clash between Raja News, close to Saeed Jalili’s ultraconservative camp, and the IRGC-linked Tasnim News Agency. The argument centered on how far Iran should go in negotiations and whether maximalist demands, including sweeping sanctions relief and regional ceasefires, were realistic.
The closure of the site brings that fight into the religious arena.
State-linked outlets had spent weeks giving the site a sacred vocabulary. Some described it as a place where mourners could approach the “killing site” of the slain leader. Others compared it to Tel Zaynabiyya, a deeply emotional reference in Shiite memory. In Karbala, Tel Zaynabiyya is associated with the place from which Zaynab, the sister of Imam Hussein, is believed to have witnessed the battlefield after Hussein’s killing in 680. Using that phrase for Khamenei’s death places the site inside the language of Ashura, martyrdom and sacred grief.
Ashura is not just a mourning ritual in the Islamic Republic’s political culture. It is also a vocabulary of legitimacy, sacrifice and confrontation. Since 1979, the state has repeatedly used the story of Imam Hussein’s stand at Karbala to frame political loyalty as moral resistance and compromise as betrayal.
But the Keshvardoust dispute shows the risk of that language for the state itself. Once Khamenei’s death is framed as a sacred wound demanding revenge, the most radical loyalists can use the same symbolism against the government, parliament speaker, foreign minister or any official seen as too “pragmatic.”
That is why the incident is politically revealing. The establishment wants mourning that strengthens the system. The ultra-hardliners want mourning that disciplines the system.
In a ruling published on Friday, Solna District Court said the employee had, over several years, maintained extensive contacts with "an Iranian intelligence officer, an agent linked to refugee espionage and individuals connected to a motorcycle gang environment," according to Swedish media.
The court said the contacts posed "a concrete risk" that sensitive information held by the Migration Agency could be passed on and amounted to a serious breach of the employee's duty of loyalty.
National security concerns
The Migration Agency argued it was particularly vulnerable to foreign intelligence activity because it holds information on asylum seekers, Iranian government critics and others who could be of interest to foreign states.
The court agreed that the employee's contacts were incompatible with his position, saying they undermined confidence in both the individual and the agency.
Court rejects appeal
The former official, who had worked at the agency since 2016 and was dismissed in February 2025, sought reinstatement and damages, arguing the agency lacked sufficient grounds to dismiss him.
The court rejected the claims, found testimony from Sweden's Security Service (Säpo) to be credible and detailed, and ruled the agency had acted within the legal time limit for the dismissal.
The former employee was also ordered to pay the state 168,000 Swedish kronor ($17,600) in legal costs.
The newspaper wrote that banking outages have become almost routine for many Iranians over the past two years. Cards stop working, ATMs and mobile banking services fail, customers line up outside branches, and officials ask people to be patient and follow news from official sources.
Then, after hours, days or sometimes weeks, services return without a full explanation of the cause, the damage, the vulnerable points in the system or the responsibility of the banks and regulators involved.
The latest wave of disruption hit several major banks in June, including Melli, Saderat, Tejarat and the Export Development Bank of Iran. Mobile banking, internet banking, ATMs, point-of-sale terminals and card-based services were disrupted. The Coordination Council of Banks and the Informatics Services Corporation confirmed cyberattacks but said customer data remained safe.
Days later, another wider disruption affected card-based services across the banking network, with Melli, Saderat and Tejarat again among the banks most affected. The Informatics Services Corporation said some services had been deliberately restricted to prevent unauthorized access and protect customers’ data and assets.
But Shargh said many users were still reporting problems even after officials said services had been restored. The paper said ordinary transactions had become difficult for some people, including buying bread, paying taxi fares and transferring or receiving money.
The pattern is not new. During the 12-day Iran-Israel war last year, Bank Sepah suffered a major cyberattack that disrupted non-branch services.
The hacker group Predatory Sparrow claimed responsibility and said it had destroyed part of the bank’s infrastructure. Bank Pasargad was also hit shortly afterward. The government confirmed attacks on both banks and said public data had not been harmed, but full restoration of some services took days or weeks.
Shargh said the repeated failures have left one central question unanswered: why does Iran’s banking network collapse every few months, while no transparent report is published on the cause of the attacks, the scale of the damage or the responsibility of the institutions in charge?
Nima Amirshakari, an electronic banking specialist, told Shargh that the root of the problem is Iran’s weak connection to the outside world. He said parts of the country’s banking infrastructure are nearly three decades old and were built around systems bought long ago from foreign companies.
According to Amirshakari, many of those systems have been expanded through hardware upgrades, with more processors, storage and equipment, but their core software has not been properly modernized. A system that is not updated, patched or redesigned, he said, becomes easier for attackers to predict.
He argued that banks connected to the global financial system are forced to keep pace with changing standards in security, credit, lending and technology. Iranian banks, by contrast, operate in a closed environment where modernization is often treated as a choice rather than a necessity.
Shargh also quoted cybersecurity expert Saeed Souzangar as saying that the problem is not just technology. Sanctions, internet restrictions, weak administrative structures and limited investment in skilled personnel have left many institutions with expensive equipment but not enough expertise to use it securely.
Souzangar said banks and regulators in Iran do not appear to face a serious obligation to inform the public during cyber incidents. In many countries, organizations hit by cyberattacks must explain the scope of the incident, the number of users affected and the corrective steps taken. In Iran, he said, such reporting is often replaced by short and general statements.
That absence of accountability may be the most damaging part of the crisis. If banks face no clear legal, financial or reputational cost for service failures or security weaknesses, there is little pressure to invest seriously in prevention, training and public reporting.
The latest attacks have also triggered a political dispute over whether access to the international internet made the banking system more vulnerable.
Some officials blamed the reopening of internet access, but Behdad Akbari, deputy communications minister and head of Iran’s Infrastructure Communications Company, rejected the claim, saying the affected core banking systems were not connected to the public internet.
Shargh’s experts said blaming internet access alone is not a serious explanation. Internet restrictions can weaken security by limiting updates and access to global tools, but the causes of repeated banking failures cannot be reduced to a single technical claim without a proper investigation.
Iran finished third in Group G with three points from three draws after Belgium beat New Zealand 5-1 in the simultaneous match to top the group. Egypt also advanced, finishing second on five points but behind Belgium on goal difference.
The draw leaves Iran in the ranking of third-placed teams, with the expanded 48-team World Cup sending the top two teams from each group and the eight best third-placed teams into the Round of 32.
Iran can still qualify with three points if one of several remaining results goes its way: Ghana beats Croatia, DR Congo fail to beat Uzbekistan, or the Austria-Algeria match produces a winner.
Any one of those outcomes would be enough to keep Iran inside the qualifying places among third-placed teams.
The match began badly for Iran. Mahmoud Saber scored for Egypt in the fifth minute, the fastest World Cup goal in Egypt’s history, after Iran failed to clear inside the area.
Iran had a quick chance to respond when Mehdi Taremi stepped up for a penalty six minutes later, but Egypt goalkeeper Ahmed Shobeir saved his shot.
Ramin Rezaeian equalized in the 14th minute, finishing from a tight angle after Milad Mohammadi’s shot had been pushed away.
Rezaeian has now scored in two of Iran’s three matches at this World Cup, after also scoring in the opening 2-2 draw with New Zealand.
The game then settled after a frantic start. Egypt lost Mohamed Salah in the second half when he was substituted in the 57th minute, apparently because of discomfort in his hamstring.
Iran’s biggest moment came deep into stoppage time. Shoja Khalilzadeh appeared to have scored a late winner that would have sent Iran through automatically, but the goal was ruled out for offside after a VAR review.
Moments later, Saeid Ezatolahi struck the post from close range, leaving Iran with another draw and no control over its own qualification.
Iran had entered the final group match after two draws: 2-2 against New Zealand in its opener and 0-0 against Belgium in its second game.
The three-match unbeaten run is the first time Iran has completed a World Cup group stage without defeat, though it has still not won a match at the tournament.
The result is therefore both Iran’s strongest unbeaten group-stage return and another missed opportunity.
The match also took place in a politically charged atmosphere for Iranians.
The national team remains a divisive symbol for many inside Iran and across the diaspora, with some viewing it as a football team to be separated from politics and others seeing it as inseparable from the Islamic Republic it officially represents.
Those tensions had already followed Iran through the tournament. Before the Egypt match, FIFA said rainbow flags would be allowed inside the stadium, while Iran’s pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag remained barred from World Cup venues under rules against political symbols.
