🇱🇧 | Summary of Israeli aggression on Lebanese territories on 31 May 2026: Enemy warplanes carried out airstrikes across numerous locations in southern Lebanon, including Dibin, Kafar Tibnit, Bilat, Mifdoun, Ansar, Al-Abbasieh, Deir Qanoun Al-Nahr, Yohmor Al-Shaqif, Al-Zarariyah, Tulin, Kouthariyah Al-Raz, Burj Qalaouiyah, Al-Ghandourieh, Al-Haniyeh, Haddatha, Shoukin, Tyre, the Ma’raka-Tyre junction, Al-Nabatieh Al-Fawqa, Al-Reihan, Baraashit, Sair Al-Gharbiyah, Kouthariyah Al-Siyad, Al-Ghassanieh, Kharbet Al-Duwair-Al-Babliyah, Qaaqaiyat Al-Sanawbar, Faron, Kafar Rouman, Sadiqin, Al-Housh, Al-Marwaniyah, Al-Mansouri, Kafar Siir, Deir Al-Zahrani, Majdal Zoun, areas between Habboush and Deir Al-Zahrani, Deir Antar, areas between Zibdin and Shoukin, Jibchit, Arab Salim, and Al-Nabatieh, as well as Mashghara in the Beqaa. Enemy drones also conducted raids on Al-Qusaybeh, Al-Shariyah, Zibdin, Al-Sarfand, Al-Adousieh, Tyre, Al-Barak-Al-Zahrani, Al-Nabatieh, Deir Kifa, Sharniyah, Arab Salim, Jal Al-Bahr in Tyre, and Habboush. Enemy artillery shelled Dibin, Kafar Joz, Kafar Rouman, Jibchit, Qalaouiyah, Al-Nabatieh Al-Fawqa, Qaaqaiyat Al-Jisr, Kharbet Selm, Burj Qalaouiyah, Al-Sama’iyah, Tulin, Al-Sultaniyah, Baraashit, Al-Ghandourieh, Al-Ma’liyah, Shhour, Al-Mansouri, and Kafar Tibnit. In addition, enemy forces carried out explosions in the southern towns of Bint Jbeil, Dibin, and Kounin.

🔹@enemywatch

🇮🇷/ 🏴| The story of the heroes of Shajareh Tayyebeh School in Minab: The teacher who burned to save her student:

Martyr teacher Fatemeh Shahdadi, the physical education teacher at Shajareh Tayyebeh School in Minab, did not leave the school after the first explosion and instead helped evacuate students.

During the second explosion, she became trapped beneath a column while trying to rescue a student and was killed in the ensuing fire. Her sister later said, “Our consolation is that the child was saved.”

The selflessness of the teachers helped save nearly two-thirds of the students. She could have fled after the first explosion, but she chose to stay. In her final moments, she spared one Minab family the grief of losing a child.

🔹@enemywatch

🇮🇷 | There have been multiple reports over the past weeks of Iranian missile and drone strikes targeting bases of Iranian Kurdish opposition groups in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, particularly facilities linked to the Komala and other Kurdish factions. Several Kurdish and regional media outlets reported that a Komala headquarters was struck again late on 31 May in the Alana Valley area of Erbil province. According to Komala officials, the site was hit by missiles, while other recent attacks have reportedly involved drones as well.

🔹@enemywatch

🇮🇷: 🎙️ | Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s press briefing, Monday, 1 June 2026, First Question:

One of Iran’s conditions for a ceasefire and the start of negotiations with what it describes as the aggressor and terrorist American regime was a ceasefire on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon and following the Beirut incident. You have already provided explanations on this matter, but I would like to ask:

What is your view regarding the intensification of the war in southern Lebanon and Beirut, which constitutes a clear violation of the ceasefire?

What practical response will Iran take?

And does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have any plans on its agenda to support the people of Lebanon?

As I mentioned, our region continues to face ongoing warmongering by the Zionist regime. This is not an issue limited to today or yesterday. Over the past 80 years, the Zionist regime, with American support, has waged a continuous and unending war against the countries of the region.

The developments of recent months constitute a clear and blatant violation of the ceasefire of 8 April. We have emphasized, and continue to emphasize, that the ceasefire in Lebanon is an inseparable part of any ceasefire and any final agreement aimed at ending the war.

It is not only the Zionist regime that is committing ceasefire violations on such a large scale. The United States is also violating the ceasefire in our region. As I mentioned today, in addition to these violations, there is the continued maritime piracy and interference with Iranian commercial shipping, which itself constitutes both a breach of the ceasefire and an act of aggression against Iran.

Without a doubt, the Islamic Republic of Iran considers itself committed to taking any necessary measures to preserve the ceasefire to which the other side, under the terms I have described, had declared its commitment but has repeatedly violated in practice.

Both the diplomatic apparatus and other branches of the government are closely monitoring developments, and we will not refrain from taking any action that we deem necessary to defend Iran’s national security and to preserve a situation that we believe ensures and guarantees the security of Iran and the security of the region.

🔹@enemywatch

+

🇮🇷: 🎙️ | Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s press briefing, Monday, 1 June 2026:

In recent weeks, on several occasions, we have witnessed Iran and the United States appearing close to signing an initial understanding to end the war and enter a new phase of negotiations aimed at reaching a broader agreement. However, each time, for reasons that remain largely unclear and are mostly the subject of media speculation, the two sides failed to reach that stage and were unable to move beyond the current situation.

Given the importance of this issue for public opinion, could you explain the latest status of negotiations between Iran and the United States?

We have, of course, heard the phrase “American excessive demands” many times in relation to the negotiations, but could you explain more concretely where the deadlock actually lies?

Is Iran reluctant because of a lack of trust in the process ahead and therefore considers an initial understanding insufficient, or are there other reasons behind its position?

Look, the reasons are not unclear; they are quite evident. From the beginning, we knew and we know that we are negotiating under conditions of mistrust. This is a given. Let me go further: negotiations began in an atmosphere of deep suspicion and mutual distrust, and the exchange of messages is also taking place within this same framework and environment.

Therefore, from this perspective, we must remember that diplomacy is not a substitute for power. That is one point. The second point is that negotiation or diplomacy is not itself a sign or product of trust between negotiating parties. These must be distinguished from one another.

In such a situation, and under conditions where the other side continuously changes its positions, raises new or contradictory demands, and sends inconsistent, conflicting, and contradictory media messages, it is natural that this leads to a prolonged negotiation process.

To this, you must also add a destructive factor that has always obstructed any process of de-escalation in our region, namely the Zionist regime.

One of the very clear reasons for the recent escalation of crimes by the Zionist regime in Lebanon can be nothing other than the effort to sabotage any possibility or any glimmer of hope that diplomatic processes might lead to some improvement in the situation.

This is also a responsibility that lies with the United States. We cannot consider the United States and the Zionist regime as two separate actors from one another. Everything happening in Lebanon, everything occurring in our region and across West Asia as a result of the actions of the Zionist regime, undoubtedly has the United States as a constant factor behind it, and the United States is responsible for the consequences and ramifications of its unconditional support for the Zionist regime.

🔹@enemywatch

+

🇮🇷: 🎙️ | Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s press briefing, Monday, 1 June 2026:

Regarding the Iranian citizens who were detained a while ago due to what was described as a navigational mistake from Kuwait, the relevant consular and diplomatic channels have been actively engaged in following up on their situation from the very beginning.

Their legal and humanitarian status is being pursued through official mechanisms, and necessary contacts have been established with the relevant authorities. We are hopeful that, through continued diplomatic efforts, their situation will be clarified and the conditions for their release will be provided as soon as possible.

As for Iran’s approach toward countries that, during the war and the post-war period, have adopted positions or taken actions that were at times hostile or unconstructive, our policy is based on a clear distinction between the behavior of governments and the rights of nations.

The Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to defend the rights and dignity of its citizens under all circumstances. At the same time, our foreign policy remains grounded in engagement, safeguarding national interests, and avoiding emotional or reactive decision-making. However, it is also clear that the nature of bilateral relations is influenced by the conduct and choices of the other side, and this is taken into account in our overall diplomatic approach.

The four Iranian citizens who we have previously also addressed and issued statements about were unjustifiably arrested by Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government is obliged under international law and relevant international conventions to provide consular access for the Islamic Republic of Iran. The rights of our citizens, under international regulations, are completely clear, and our expectation from the Kuwaiti authorities is that they clarify the situation as soon as possible, enable consular access for our embassy to the detained Iranian citizens, and do not allow this issue to further become one of several matters that have caused serious strain in bilateral relations.

You referred to an issue that is not directly related to the first question, but it is a reality that, unfortunately, the territory and facilities of some regional countries have been misused or used by the United States and the Zionist regime to carry out actions against Iran. This is completely illegal, contrary to the principle of good neighborliness, and has highly negative consequences for bilateral relations and the future of the region.

In the very recent developments over the past hours, we have repeatedly called on regional countries to fulfill their international obligations. Preventing aggressor states or parties from using the territory of one country to carry out hostile actions against another is a recognized and established principle of international law. Therefore, failure to comply with this obligation places those governments alongside the aggressor parties.

You referred to the negotiation process. President Trump has stated that, in the most recent case, he has in fact ordered that the terms of the agreement be made stricter. He has also claimed that there is an agreed arrangement that Iran’s enriched uranium, which is allegedly buried or stored, must be removed and destroyed with the participation of the United States and a third country, which he identified as China. I would like your view on these claims, and specifically whether Iran, in order to access the Fordow site and remove its uranium, even requires foreign technology or assistance from any external country.

🔹@enemywatch

+

🇮🇷: 🎙️ | Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s press briefing, Monday, 1 June 2026:

Whenever it becomes necessary for us to take action regarding nuclear-related matters, we know very well how to do so ourselves.

Secondly, regarding the details of discussions related to the nuclear issue, no negotiations have taken place at this stage. I repeat again: at this stage, our focus is on ending the war.

In response to another question from colleagues, one of the fundamental problems in negotiating with the current US administration is precisely these frequent changes in positions and contradictory statements. You may describe these shifts in various ways.

Naturally, when any position changes, the other side also adjusts its own views and considerations accordingly. It is not possible for one side to impose new demands or positions unilaterally while expecting the other side to simply accept them. Such a situation inevitably disrupts the process and prolongs the path forward. This is the minimum that can be said about the outcome of such an approach in negotiations.

Regarding reports about a $300 billion investment fund for Iran aimed at post-war reconstruction, have you confirmed this report? If so, could you provide some clarification?

Response:

Regarding one of the elements of the understanding, the creation of conditions necessary for the reconstruction of damages resulting from the war has been discussed, and in relation to this issue, various options have been raised. One of the matters discussed in the course of negotiations is the allocation of a certain amount for reconstruction of damages.

This is the extent to which I can comment at this stage, because these are complex issues with their own specific details. Naturally, if we reach an agreement on the general framework of these 14 points, then within a 30- or 60-day period, the components and details will need to be discussed.

🔹@enemywatch

+

🇮🇷: 🎙️ | Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s press briefing, Monday, 1 June 2026:

The European Union has condemned what it calls recent Iranian attacks on Kuwait and, while expressing solidarity with the government and people of Kuwait, has described these attacks as a violation of peace and security in the region. What is the response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to these claims?

Response:

We reject such claims in their entirety. These allegations are not based on any verified facts and are politically motivated.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently acted within the framework of international law and respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all regional states. At the same time, we have repeatedly warned that the security of the region is indivisible, and no party should allow its territory or facilities to be used by third parties to undermine the security of another country.

Unfortunately, some reactions we are witnessing are selective and ignore the broader context of ongoing violations and aggression in the region. If there is genuine concern for peace and stability, it must be applied consistently and without double standards.

We also emphasize that attribution of incidents without transparent investigation only contributes to further tension and does not help regional stability.

I also posted a tweet this morning regarding this matter.

We express solidarity with the people of Kuwait, as well as with other peoples of the region whose land, sovereignty, territory, and facilities are being misused by the Zionist regime and the United States for attacks against a Muslim country. However, the statements issued by European countries in these cases are, as I have said before, a clear example of hypocrisy.

It is not possible to ignore the open and unlawful aggression of the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran, attempt to justify it in various ways, or adopt very lenient positions toward it, and then when Iran takes defensive measures to protect its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, criticize Iran.

This approach is not only contrary to the European Union’s declared principles regarding the rule of law, respect for state sovereignty, and adherence to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, but also shows that the European Union apparently does not intend to position itself as a responsible and law-abiding international actor.

🔹@enemywatch

+

🇮🇷: 🎙️ | Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s press briefing, Monday, 1 June 2026:

Some Western media outlets have claimed in recent days that the level of cooperation between the UAE and the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran has been very high, and that the UAE played a direct role in assisting military aggression by the US and Israel against Iran. It has even been suggested that regional countries, including Saudi Arabia, were opposed to this. What is your position on this issue?

Response:

We do not rely on media speculations or unverified reports in forming our assessments of regional developments. Our approach is based on documented facts, official conduct, and the observable actions of states in the region.

As we have repeatedly stated, the security of West Asia is indivisible, and any action that contributes to escalation or enables aggression against another country will inevitably have consequences for regional stability and for bilateral relations.

We also believe that regional countries must be fully aware of the long-term implications of allowing their territory, facilities, or capabilities to be used in ways that undermine the security of other states. Such actions, if they occur, are inconsistent with good-neighborly relations and the principles of international law.

At the same time, we distinguish between speculation and verified policy. Therefore, we prefer to base our judgments on official positions and clear evidence rather than media narratives.

We have our own assessment regarding the performance of regional countries. We certainly view reports published by Western sources at specific times with caution, because we are highly suspicious of their approach, we know they do not seek the good of regional countries, and we are aware that one of their tools is the use of media to create or deepen differences and problems among regional states. We have made our position on this clear.

However, we maintain an independent assessment. As we have stated before, there is no doubt that some regional countries, unfortunately, despite Iran’s warnings, did not comply with their legal, moral, and neighborly obligations and made their facilities available to the United States and the Zionist regime for attacks against Iran.

We have a continuous demand from these countries to correct their previous conduct, learn from the events of recent months, and ensure that the military presence of the United States and the Zionist regime in the region does not lead to permanent insecurity for the peoples of the region.

In the context of the understanding with the United States, one issue under discussion is the lifting of the maritime blockade. In recent days, we have seen contradictory statements from American officials on this matter. One night President Trump said that this issue was resolved and would in fact be lifted. After that, the US Treasury Secretary said it would proceed slowly. Then the US Secretary of War stated that the blockade remains in place.

What is your view on these contradictions?

Response:

These contradictions are not new. They reflect the same structural problem we have been referring to in previous sessions: the absence of a stable, coherent, and unified decision-making process on the American side regarding key issues.

When you are dealing with a process that involves constant shifts in positions, competing statements from different officials, and sometimes even openly contradictory messages within a short time span, it becomes extremely difficult to build a reliable framework for any serious understanding.

From our perspective, what matters is not media statements or individual declarations, but what is reflected in practice on the ground. We assess the situation based on implementation, not rhetoric.

If there is any real commitment to change a policy such as restrictions on maritime movement, it must be reflected clearly, consistently, and verifiably across all relevant institutions, not presented as fragmented or contradictory messaging.

🔹@enemywatch

+

+

You have already said everything that needed to be said. I would ask the media to reflect more carefully on how seriously to take statements made by American officials. As you can see, their positions change repeatedly, they easily make incorrect and inconsistent statements, and for this reason we have repeatedly emphasized that these statements should not be given too much weight.

In the early days when this issue was raised, or even in the first hours, we stated that message exchanges were continuing, but no final conclusion had yet been reached.

These contradictions, you might say, could be part of their negotiation pattern. If that is the case, it certainly does not work with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We remain focused on our interests and rights and will not allow such inconsistencies to distract us.

If, on the other hand, they stem from disorder within the US governance system, which is quite likely, then this is a problem and a structural issue that the US leadership must resolve. They need to arrive at a clear decision sooner. A form of indecision within the American decision-making system is clearly visible.

🔹@enemywatch

+