📢| Hourly Updates:

1. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi held separate phone calls with Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, and Pakistani Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar. During the call with Tajani, Araghchi welcomed Italy's clarification that no Italian military bases had been used for attacks against Iran and called for an official public denial of claims to the contrary. In his conversation with Cho Hyun, he briefed South Korea on the latest negotiations with the United States, the implementation of the memorandum of understanding, and discussed expanding bilateral cooperation. During the call with Ishaq Dar, Araghchi thanked Pakistan for hosting President Masoud Pezeshkian's visit, discussed implementation of bilateral agreements, ongoing diplomatic developments, and the case of detained Iranian crew members aboard the vessel "Luno-Dawina."

2. Mehdi Rahimi, head of the Iranian Parliament News Agency, told Al Mayadeen that Iran has not agreed, and will not agree, to purchase food supplies from the United States. He accused Washington of overinterpreting the memorandum of understanding for domestic political purposes, warned that establishing a new shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz would violate the agreement, and said the structure of the Quintet Committee on Lebanon would be determined during expert-level talks the following week.

3. The Wall Street Journal reported that Iranian strikes caused significantly greater damage to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain than previously disclosed. According to the report, multiple buildings and satellite communications facilities were damaged, with reconstruction costs estimated at roughly $400 million. The report added that the Pentagon is reassessing its military posture in the Middle East, including possible force reductions and relocation of some assets.

4. Major General Mohsen Rezaei stated that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to the regional states rather than the United States and that Iran will not permit American interference. He argued that the costs of securing, maintaining, and insuring the waterway should be paid by those who benefit from it rather than by Iranian citizens.

5. Iran's Foreign Ministry condemned the joint statement issued by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers, describing it as irresponsible and interventionist. The ministry argued that the U.S. military presence in the region undermines regional security and accused Washington of using regional military bases to conduct operations against Iran.

6. Mohammad Saleh Jokar, head of the Iranian Parliament's Councils and Internal Affairs Committee, stated that Iran now has full control over its released frozen assets and will determine independently how they are used. He emphasized that Iran does not trust the United States, that the negotiating team must proceed cautiously, and that implementation of later stages of the memorandum depends on full implementation of its initial provisions.

7. Burkina Faso announced the severance of diplomatic relations with France. According to an official government statement, the decision followed a review of bilateral relations and was based on the view that the conditions for relations founded on mutual respect, trust, non-interference, and respect for national sovereignty no longer exist.

8. Israeli forces reportedly carried out another incursion into Syrian territory, entering the village of Jumla in Daraa province. According to Syrian media reports, a military convoy consisting of nine vehicles and armored personnel carriers entered the village and conducted house searches.

🔹@enemywatch

🇮🇷 | Statement by Ayatollah Ali Akbar Seifi Mazandarani, a senior Shia cleric and professor of advanced jurisprudence, regarding Iran’s President Pezeshkian acting against the Supreme Leader’s opinion:

Honourable Mr. Pezeshkian, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, if every official is allowed to act according to their own understanding and interpretation of God’s Book, then what is the point of the position of jurisprudence and the authority of the jurist?

From the perspective of Shia jurisprudence, all officials, including the President, are on the same level as the rest of the people. Their personal understanding, opinions, and deductions from God’s Glorious Book and the narrations have no validity or authority. Acting according to such personal understanding and interpretation is contrary to Sharia law.

The meaning and concept of the authority of the jurist is that the responsibility for preserving the Islamic system and protecting the interests of Islam and Muslims belongs exclusively, and not jointly, to the Leader of the Muslims, and is based on his understanding of the sacred Sharia.

I warn you, Honourable Sir, and all other officials: do not continue on this wrong path.

Islam, the Muslims, and the sacred system of the Islamic Republic have a Supreme Leader, and that Supreme Leader is the representative of the Imam of the Age, may God hasten his blessed reappearance. During the period of his occultation, the jurist who fulfills the conditions of fatwa and leadership, and who is accepted by the believers, is the legitimate leader of the people, the guardian of the Sharia and Shia doctrine, and the protector of Islam and the Muslims.

This people obey only the orders of the Leader of the Muslims. Anyone who, God forbid, acts independently of the Leader’s judgment in any position is considered to be acting tyrannically. I seek only what is best for your well-being, dear Sir.

We hope that you will not deviate from the path of the absolute authority of the jurist, nor make your personal understanding of the Glorious Qur’an, the Prophetic path, and the narrations of the Infallible Imams the basis of your actions, because doing so would only lead to deviation and the tyranny of personal opinion against the Leader of the Muslims.

Peace be upon those who follow guidance.

🔹@enemywatch

🇧🇭: 🇸🇦 | Bahrain and the Saudi regime intensify their campaign against Shias:

The Bahraini regime has intensified its campaign against the Shia community during Muharram by arresting Husseini reciter Hussein Al-Majed and preventing Husseini preacher Hassan Al-Backri from continuing his Ashura-related activities. Authorities have also cancelled the mourning procession scheduled for the thirteenth day of Muharram on the island of Sitra, further restricting the public observance of religious rituals.

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, restrictions on Muharram activities continue in Qatif and Al-Ahsa. According to Saudi opposition media, the “Al-Shabal Al-Husseini” program at Imam Al-Sadiq (A) Mosque in Awamiyah was banned on the seventh day of Muharram after years of providing educational, cultural, and moral programs for children and youth that reinforced the community’s religious identity and values.

Opposition sources stressed that “Al-Shabal Al-Husseini” was not a political or inciting activity, but an educational and cultural initiative dedicated to nurturing younger generations. Nevertheless, it was prohibited, a move many regard as part of the broader restrictions imposed on religious and community events during the Muharram season.

Despite these measures, reports indicate that the people of Qatif continued their mourning ceremonies at the historic fortress despite official attempts at intimidation, including helicopter flights over the area.

#BahrainShia
#SaudiShia

◾️@enemywatch

+

🇮🇷 | Security developments reported across Iran:

Several security incidents have been reported across Iran over the past few hours. At approximately 23:15 local time, the sound of an explosion was heard near the Taheroui Pier in Sirik. A military source stated that the explosion was caused by the impact of a projectile in the pier area. The same source added that around five hours earlier, several warning shots had been fired at vessels allegedly violating navigation rules in the Strait of Hormuz. Reports also indicate that two warning missiles were launched from the vicinity of Karpan toward the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, western Iran witnessed a deadly armed attack on a security checkpoint along the Baneh–Saqqez axis in Kurdistan Province. Initial reports state that two Iranian security personnel were martyred and five others were injured. Terrorist movements were also reportedly detected at several locations in the Sarshiv district of Marivan and Saqqez, prompting military and security forces across the region to remain on full alert for several hours.

According to initial reports received by Mehr News Agency, the attack on the Baneh–Saqqez checkpoint involved an armed clash. Some sources have claimed that the assault was carried out by terrorists affiliated with separatist groups, although this has not yet been officially confirmed. Authorities have not released further details regarding the identities of the attackers or additional information about the casualties.

Following the developments in Sirik, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard stated that it had repelled what it described as an attack by American forces on the southern Iranian city. According to the statement, Iran’s naval and air forces thwarted the attack and forced the attacking forces to retreat. The Guard further declared that the incident would not go unanswered, adding that Iran’s response would be “swift and decisive” at a time and place of its choosing. Minutes later, the IRGC announced that it had carried out strikes against American military positions in the region.

🔻@enemywatch

+

🇮🇷 | The IRGC issued a statement after US attacked Sirik, southern Iran:

Following the Zionist regime’s violation of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, a few hours ago the treaty-breaking American regime also, as always, violated its commitments.

Under various pretexts related to the movement of a violating ship through an unauthorized route in the Strait of Hormoz, it launched an air attack on the coasts of Iran.

In response to this aggression, the IRGC-Navy struck the US Army positions in the region.

According to Clause 5 of the Islamabad MoU, the arrangements for controlling passage and traffic in the Strait of Hormuz are under the authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However, America, by provoking various sides, sought to violate this commitment, and the necessary response was given. From now on, it will be the same. If the aggression is repeated, our response will be broader than this.

🔻@enemywatch

🇱🇧 | Lebanon has entered a new phase of political uncertainty following the announcement of the Washington brokered Lebanon-Israel framework agreement. Presented by its supporters as a roadmap to end the conflict and stabilize southern Lebanon, the agreement calls for a phased Israeli withdrawal as security conditions are met, the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces across the country, the complete and verifiable disarmament of Hezbollah and all other non-state armed groups, the establishment of a US backed military coordination and verification mechanism, and the creation of joint working groups to negotiate a comprehensive peace and security agreement. It also places reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, and economic recovery under American coordination while preventing reconstruction funds from reaching Hezbollah or other armed groups. In addition, Lebanon reaffirms that only the state has the authority to maintain armed forces and commits to ending hostile political and legal actions while acknowledging the role of the United States in implementing the agreement.

Hezbollah has categorically rejected the framework, describing it as an agreement that strengthens rather than ends the occupation of southern Lebanon. Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Hezbollah’s Resistance Bloc in Parliament, said the Washington negotiations serve the interests of Israel at the expense of Lebanon’s sovereignty and reiterated Hezbollah’s firm opposition to any direct negotiations with the Israeli government. According to Fadlallah, instead of ending the occupation, the agreement creates conditions for the continued presence of Israeli forces in parts of southern Lebanon while weakening Lebanon’s sovereignty. He warned that direct negotiations would deepen internal divisions and urged Lebanese officials to abandon policies that contradict the interests of the Lebanese people. He further argued that the current political course represents an “unconditional slope” leading to Lebanon’s destruction and maintained that the developments in Washington are intended to dismantle the Resistance, without which no national project in Lebanon can succeed.

Public opposition followed almost immediately after details of the agreement emerged. Large crowds gathered in Beirut’s Riad Al Solh Square, Bishara El Khoury Square, and on the main road leading to Beirut Airport to protest the government’s acceptance of the framework. Lebanese media reported that security forces used tear gas to disperse demonstrators. The protests reflected growing concern among opponents who view the agreement not as a security arrangement but as a political normalization process that fundamentally alters Lebanon’s strategic position and compromises its sovereignty.

Political criticism has increasingly focused on President Joseph Aoun. Critics argue that for the past fifteen months he maintained a policy of inaction while the Resistance and large parts of the Shia community came under sustained military pressure, believing Hezbollah would eventually be forced either to surrender its weapons or defend itself in isolation. During this period, they allege, Aoun repeatedly sidelined Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in key political decisions, while Berri continued to avoid direct confrontation with the presidency. With the government now formally embracing the Washington framework, attention has shifted to whether Berri will continue supporting the current administration or confront what critics describe as a project that weakens Lebanon’s sovereignty and the political position of the country’s Shia community.

Opponents have described the framework as a treacherous agreement, arguing that it compromises Lebanon’s sovereignty, advances Israeli strategic interests, and places key aspects of the country’s security and reconstruction under external influence. They contend that it establishes a security normalization framework under which Lebanon becomes strategically dependent on the United States and Israel.

🔹@enemywatch

+

Particular criticism has focused on the establishment of a joint security committee, American oversight of reconstruction, verification mechanisms overseeing the Lebanese Armed Forces, and provisions that critics interpret as preventing Lebanon from pursuing legal or political action against Israel before international institutions. According to these opponents, the agreement grants unprecedented political and legal concessions that extend far beyond military coordination and fundamentally reshapes Lebanon’s future.

If implemented, the agreement is expected to trigger one of the most significant political confrontations in Lebanon since the end of the civil war. The demand for Hezbollah’s complete disarmament is widely regarded as the most contentious provision and is unlikely to be accepted voluntarily by the movement, which considers its military capabilities central to Lebanon’s defence against Israeli military action. Continued public protests, deepening political divisions, and prolonged disputes over implementation are therefore likely. Whether the agreement succeeds or remains largely symbolic will ultimately depend on the balance of power within Lebanon, the position adopted by Hezbollah and its allies, and the ability of external mediators to sustain the framework amid continuing regional tensions.

🔹@enemywatch

🇮🇷 | The final prediction and recommendation made by the Leader of the Revolution to officials:

Dr. Seyed Mostafa Khoshcheshm
International Affairs Expert said:

A few weeks before his martyrdom, the Leader of the Revolution reportedly said Soon, a great fitna (trial) will arise. It will be the fitna of the officials, not of the people. If you remain steadfast, Allah will grant you victory, and the Revolution will then be secured forever.

🔹@enemywatch

🔄 | Repost | Statement by Sunni scholars in support of continued smart management and control of the Strait of Hormuz:

Sunni scholars of Sistan and Baluchestan province, in a statement supporting the continued smart management and control of the Strait of Hormuz, said that restricting access to the strait for hostile forces should be considered a form of preemptive defense and a factor in strengthening national security.

The statement reads that the Strait of Hormuz is not an international waterway granting unconditional access to any aggressive state, but is instead located within Iran’s territorial waters and linked to the strategic position of the islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb. It further emphasizes that, in principle, the owner of a house holds its key.

According to the religious and customary view expressed by these Sunni scholars, in a situation where the country is under attack from multiple directions, the principle of legitimate defense and the jurisprudential rule of “no harm and no harming” justify the right to manage maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz in order to strengthen security and prevent the entry of vessels linked to hostile states into the Persian Gulf.

The Sunni scholars of Sistan and Baluchestan also expressed readiness, alongside Sunni tribes along the Makran coast, to support the IRGC Navy and the Army if required.

They further described certain political authorities in some Persian Gulf littoral states as acting against regional security, stating that allowing foreign military use of their territory constitutes a breach of good neighborly conduct and a threat to collective regional stability.

🔹@enemywatch

+