🇮🇷: 🎙️ | 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

+

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

There is no doubt that the Americans themselves have explicitly stated, at the highest levels, that they act in a manner similar to pirates. The United States’ actions in interfering with Iranian commercial shipping are a clear example of maritime piracy and are not consistent with any standards or principles of international law. This constitutes a blatant violation of international law and has no justification whatsoever. It also amounts to a breach of the ceasefire.

In principle, the Islamic Republic of Iran has also taken reciprocal and necessary measures in defense of its national rights and interests, and it will continue to respond to this situation accordingly.

I have explained on multiple occasions that the action taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran following the start of the military aggression by the United States and the Zionist regime, using the territory of certain regional countries on the southern margin of the Persian Gulf, was fully in accordance with international law. We adopted these measures to defend Iran’s national sovereignty and national interests.

In the future, we certainly cannot ignore the experience of the past, especially what we have witnessed over the past three months in terms of the misuse of this waterway for actions targeting Iran’s national security. Therefore, a mechanism will be developed with the participation of other littoral states of the Strait of Hormuz to both ensure the safe passage of shipping and to guarantee that the Strait is not exploited by other parties to harm Iran’s national security.

Navigation services and environmental protection are also highly important. We are currently facing a very serious situation in terms of environmental damage resulting from the war in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Sea of Oman. Accordingly, measures will be taken to ensure that appropriate costs are collected for navigation services, environmental restoration, and related matters.

However, the key issue remains that we must ensure the Strait of Hormuz, as an important waterway, is neither exploited to undermine Iran’s security and national interests nor deprived of its function for the benefit of the international community.

🔹@enemywatch

+

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

Regarding what the content of the talks will be, it would be appropriate to keep in mind that after this visit takes place, you may ask again so that I can explain it to you once the negotiations have been held.

However, on the main issue, we have a very solid and clear memorandum of understanding between the two countries regarding border security cooperation and counterterrorism. Interactions between the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq have been good and effective, and we expect that these exchanges will help strengthen cooperation to safeguard the national security of both countries.

Question Twenty-Two:

Regarding the necessity of stopping the crimes of the Zionist regime in Lebanon, I think there is a consensus within the international community on this matter. What is important is that all parties who consider themselves influential act in practice. France, alongside the United States, was one of the guarantors of the ceasefire in Lebanon two years ago; however, unfortunately, it has not taken any serious action to hold the Zionist regime accountable or to prevent its crimes.

As for the second part, namely the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, I repeat the same point: European parties should address the United States and the Zionist regime, because the situation created in our region is the result of the actions of the United States and the Zionist regime.

Finally, regarding Iran’s missile program, I think our European friends should update their perspective, because for quite some time we have stated that even at the media level, we are not willing to discuss matters related to the defense of Iran’s sovereignty.

Question Twenty-Three:

The proposal recently made by the US President regarding the accession of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan to the Abraham Accords should be understood in its proper context.

Essentially, the framework known as the Abraham Accords, which was launched a few years ago, was designed to normalize occupation and accept genocide and colonialism in occupied Palestine. Unfortunately, we are witnessing part of the consequences of this process in our region.

Regional countries, having learned from the experience of recent years, have certainly concluded that such a plan is merely aimed at expanding domination and promoting racist and criminal policies of the Zionist regime, and it can never bring peace or security to our region.

Question Twenty-Four:

We strongly condemn this crime. The attack on women and children, the attack on a girls’ dormitory by the Ukrainian regime, is not compatible with any legal or moral standard.

This action is undoubtedly a war crime, and it is expected that European countries, which usually take very strong positions in similar cases, also adopt consistent and non-hypocritical positions when it comes to genuine international humanitarian law violations.

Unfortunately, we are far from such consistency and are instead faced with selective approaches to blatant violations of human rights and humanitarian law.

Question Twenty-Five:

The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the nuclear issue is very clear. Repeating the claim that Iran should not pursue nuclear weapons cannot change the fact that Iran’s nuclear program is fundamentally peaceful, and all necessary safeguards and verification mechanisms were already included in the JCPOA framework.

US officials have repeatedly shown that they make statements based on misinformation, merely to please the Zionist regime, without any factual basis. These claims should be placed alongside the long-standing false narrative about an Iranian nuclear bomb threat.

🔹@enemywatch

+

+

The problem here lies in many things which people must understand.

1. There is a lack of information regarding the stance of the martyred leadership and the current leadership about their permission for negotiations. The negotiation officials usually use this as a tool to claim they have permission. However, there is a big difference between permission and the direct order of the leader. Those who follow the leadership’s commands on religious grounds often feel confused about how to interpret this, and the fear of falling into disobedience against the leadership’s stance is inevitable.

2. There is a group in Iran which is religious and pro-revolutionary and is sometimes mocked as extremist because they strictly follow the leadership’s path. At the same time, another section of the pro-revolutionary camp also follows news closely and often claims that because the leader allowed something, whatever the previous stance was, it no longer matters. This also creates problems.

3. There is a group which does not fully respect the sanctity of the leadership, yet still respects it in some form while also tending to criticize it. This further widens confusion among the masses.

So currently, the only solution is silence and not falling completely on either side, but maintaining the understanding that the martyred leader ended his life on a clear stance, and his successors would likely follow the same path, as it is not a personal position but based on Islamic teachings. That is why we must wait for the statement of the leadership of Imam Mujtaba Khamenei to clarify the stance, possibly when he appears publicly.

Another point is that what Arya wrote here is true: the current government is moderate, a mix of officials who are not ideal to be celebrated as purely divine martyrs, but must still be respected. There are flaws which nobody wants to discuss, whether in the case of ceasefires, war strategies, or the issue of Lebanon. So every time it requires Syed Ali Khamenei and Nasrallah to die for things to be proven, otherwise the overzealous supporters of everything will never learn it well.

🔹@enemywatch

+

+

To all the barking trees: Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei was killed in broad daylight—he whose position was higher than any fallible high that the Shias know. The officials rushed to enter negotiations. Okay, do it. Is it needed? Yes, and the Leader allowed it per se, yes.

But what does revolution mean here? Does Islam ask us to do this? Many questions arise here. We paid allegiance to Imam al-Mujtaba, and it will remain so. But will space be provided by the fools playing as "pro-revolution," who never allow "the beast extremist" to deal with it? If the extremists had been allowed to act during the Imam's time, perhaps many things he wanted would have been implemented. Instead, the fools entered to say, "No, the Leader allowed it; don't you see what the President Rouhani says?"

Remember, Rouhani did all these mischiefs. He was the player of this game. Today, each and everything and all of his crimes are crystal clear to all... and all are freely dancing as if nothing happened. We have records of how, during that time, the fools said, "Yes, see, Rouhani confirmed it; it is permitted by the Leader." Parallel to that, the Leader was indicating a hundred times that he was doing wrong.

🔹@enemywatch

+

📢 | Hourly Updates

1) The Iranian Judiciary announced the execution of two individuals convicted of vandalizing public property and clashing with security forces during protests held in January.

2) The IRGC reported that 15 vessels, including four oil tankers, crossed the Strait of Hormuz during the past 24 hours under coordination with Iranian forces. The IRGC further warned that "..any cooperation with hostile forces in the region will be considered a security threat and will be confronted."

3) Brigadier General Mr. Abolfazl Shekarchi, senior spokesperson for the Iranian Armed Forces, stated that "..the continuation of crimes against Lebanon will not be tolerated by the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran." He added that the Israeli government has exploited the ceasefire to continue military operations in Lebanon and warned of consequences if such actions continue.

4) Iranian Air Force fighter aircraft conducted military exercises in southwestern Iran near the Iran-Iraq border, according to local reports.

5) Foreign Minister Mr. Abbas Araghchi stated that "..the ceasefire between Iran and the United States is a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon." He added that "..a violation on one front constitutes a violation on all fronts," and asserted that the United States and Israel would bear responsibility for any consequences resulting from breaches of the arrangement.

6) Sources close to Ansar Allah stated that political, military, and operational coordination between the movement, Hezbollah, and other factions aligned with the Axis of Resistance remains active. The sources claimed that any major Israeli escalation would receive a coordinated response from allied groups and stated that Yemen would not accept the isolation of Hezbollah or continued attacks on Lebanon. They further cited large public demonstrations in Yemen as evidence of support for Lebanon and the broader resistance camp.

🔹@enemywatch

🇮🇷 | The IRGC has released footage confirming to show the interception of a US Army MQ-1C “Grey Eagle” reconnaissance drone over southern Iran near the Strait of Hormuz, reportedly using its newly introduced “Arash-e Kamangir” air defense system. Iranian media described the system as a domestically developed air defense platform with stealth-detection capabilities and presented the interception as one of its first operational uses.

🔹@enemywatch

🇱🇧 | Hezbollah's statement | Regarding the Enemy’s Presence at the Historic Chaqif/Beaufort Castle:

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

“Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought because they have been wronged, and indeed Allah is capable of granting them victory.”

Allah the Most High, the Almighty, has spoken the truth.

Given the significant negative impact that the videos released by the Islamic Resistance showing its operations against Israeli enemy forces have had on the morale and perception of settlers within the occupation entity, the enemy army sought desperately to obtain an image that it could promote as a decisive victory, hoping thereby to calm the fears of the settlers in the north. Its target was the historic Chaqif Castle in southern Lebanon, located approximately 4 kilometers from the Lebanese-Palestinian border.

For more than five days, the Israeli enemy launched a series of intense air attacks and heavy artillery bombardments against the town of Yahmar al-Shaqif and surrounding villages with the aim of taking control of them and occupying Chaqif Castle. However, as soon as it advanced toward the southern outskirts of the town, it encountered heroic and fierce resistance and heavy fire from the fighters of the Islamic Resistance, preventing it from achieving its objective. As a result, it resorted to approaching from the eastern outskirts of the town, an area characterized by difficult terrain.

At sunset on Saturday, 30 May 2026, an Israeli infantry unit infiltrated under heavy smoke cover from the eastern side of Chaqif Castle, where there are concealed routes. The unit reached the castle and took a number of photographs, which the enemy quickly distributed on Sunday morning, promoting them as evidence that it had occupied the castle, despite the fact that the castle contained no military presence of the Resistance.

Since dawn yesterday and up to the time of issuing this statement, the enemy has been facing great difficulty in establishing and maintaining its forces around the castle. These forces are currently positioned near the rest area below the castle. The Islamic Resistance is engaged in a war of attrition against the Israeli enemy forces present in the area, and the forthcoming video footage will demonstrate this.

“Victory comes only from Allah, the Almighty, the Wise.”

Monday, 01-06-2026
15 Dhu al-Hijjah 1447 AH

🇱🇧@enemywatch

🇮🇷 | Breaking — Tasnim News Agency:

Given the continued crimes of the Zionist entity in Lebanon, and considering that Lebanon was part of the preconditions for the ceasefire, and since that ceasefire has now been violated on all fronts, including Lebanon, the Iranian negotiating team will suspend the “talks and exchange of texts through the mediator.”

The Resistance Front and Iran have placed on their agenda a determination to pursue the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the activation of other fronts, including the Bab al-Mandab Strait, with the aim of punishing the Zionists and their supporters.

🔹@enemywatch