More Stories
Female protestors, including three minors, detained during with the nationwide protests on January 8 and January 9, were raped and sexually assaulted while in custody, local sources with knowledge of the matter told Iran International.
Two teenage girls, aged 15 and 17, who were arrested during protests on January 8, were raped by on duty soldiers at a detention facility, according to the sources.
Following their arrest at the site of the gathering, their families were denied any information regarding their whereabouts or their physical and mental state for nearly three weeks.
Sources close to the victims said the harm inflicted during their disappearance was not limited to physical violence.
In a separate account, sources detailed the experience of a young woman and another 17-year-old teenager.
According to the sources, the two were held in an informal detention center which they both described as belonging to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).
Sources said the victims were raped by individuals at the site during their detention.
According to sources, the severity of the trauma has led some of these victims to attempt suicide.
Monday’s cautious optimism about renewed US–Iran diplomacy took several blows on Tuesday, as Tehran reportedly signaled fresh conditions for talks and Iranian and American forces clashed at sea.
US officials said American forces shot down an Iranian drone after it approached a US Navy aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, and later intervened when armed Iranian boats harassed a US-flagged merchant vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
The incidents underscored the fragility of a diplomatic process that Washington and Tehran had suggested was back on track only a day earlier.
Iran’s foreign ministry sought to downplay growing uncertainty around talks expected later this week, saying discussions over the venue and timing were ongoing and should not be “turned into a media issue.”
Esmail Baghaei, the ministry’s spokesman, said Turkey, Oman and other regional countries had offered to host the talks, and thanked “friendly countries” for helping create conditions for diplomacy.
“In principle, the venue and timing of talks are not complicated issues and should not be used as a pretext for media games,” Baghaei said, adding that details would be announced once finalized.
Behind the scenes, however, Iranian officials appeared to be revisiting earlier understandings. Reuters and Axios reported that Tehran was seeking to move the talks from Istanbul to Oman and to limit discussions strictly to the nuclear file, excluding missiles and support for regional armed groups—issues that Washington and regional allies have said must be addressed.
Axios cited informed sources saying Iran was “walking back” agreements reached in recent days after other countries had already been invited to participate.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Iranian officials had also threatened to pull out of talks altogether, though it was not immediately clear what prompted the warning.
At sea, the confrontations continued. US Central Command said Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces harassed a US-flagged, US-crewed merchant vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, while a US fighter jet downed an Iranian drone that had approached a carrier strike group.
Iranian state-linked media said the drone was conducting a “routine and lawful mission” in international waters and that data had been transmitted successfully before contact was lost.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff were still scheduled, but stressed that military options remained on the table. “For diplomacy to work, of course, it takes two to tango,” she said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu struck a harsher note, saying Iran “has repeatedly proven it cannot be trusted to keep its promises.”
Iran’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday the location and timing of talks with the United States are not complicated matters and should not be turned into a media issue, adding that consultations about the venue are ongoing and details will be announced once finalized.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei thanked all "friendly countries that, out of concern and goodwill, have worked to help create the conditions for a diplomatic process."
“In principle, the venue and timing of talks are not complicated issues and should not be used as a pretext for media games," Baghaei said.
"Turkey and Oman, as well as some other countries in the region, have declared their readiness to host the talks, which we consider highly valuable."
"Consultations to determine the venue are also ongoing, and information will be announced as soon as a final decision is made," he added.
"Italy supports dialogue and the commitment of the mediators: we must work against a new escalation in the Middle East, create the conditions for an effective negotiation that can build peace and stability in the region," Italian foreign minister Antonio Tajani said Tuesday.
He expressed his strong support for Turkey's mediation efforts between Iran and the United States in a phone call with his Turkish counterpart.
"Iran must cooperate with the IAEA in the spirit of the Cairo agreement, and the Agency’s inspectors must return to the Iranian nuclear sites."
The reappearance of diplomacy between Washington and Tehran is being shadowed by limited but dangerous military showdowns, revealing how narrow the space for negotiation has become in the absence of trust.
As talks expected later this week faltered over venue and format,tensions in the Persian Gulf continued to rise.
On Tuesday, US forces shot down an Iranian Shahed-139 drone approaching a US aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, while armed Iranian boats attempted to stop a US-flagged oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said hours later that talks between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi were “still scheduled” despite the escalatory events. “For diplomacy to work, of course, it takes two to tango,” she added, warning that a military option remained on the table.
Together, these developments capture the defining contradiction of the moment: diplomacy is being pursued, but the conditions that might allow it to succeed remain elusive.
Familiar pattern
Iran’s leadership enters this phase struggling with military setbacks, economic collapse and mass protest that have narrowed its strategic options. The Islamic Republic’s capacity to absorb pressure—long central to its survival—has markedly diminished.
It is against this backdrop that diplomacy has resurfaced, haltingly. The pattern is familiar: engagement paired with coercive signalling, compromise floated even as escalation continues.
The analytical question, then, is not whether a negotiated outcome is possible. It is whether any agreement reached under such conditions can resolve the underlying conflict without accelerating regime destabilisation.
Washington’s publicly articulated demands extend well beyond nuclear fuel cycles. They include eliminating domestic enrichment, constraining Iran’s ballistic missile programme, and ending support for armed groups across the region.
Tehran’s dilemma
Taken together, these demands strike at the institutional and ideological foundations of the Islamic Republic, while implicitly challenging its reliance on internal repression to maintain control.
Compliance would generate a strategic paradox. Nuclear rollback would weaken deterrence; missile constraints would erode Iran’s asymmetric posture; proxy disengagement would dismantle its regional influence architecture; and ideological retreat would hollow out the revolutionary legitimacy that sustains clerical authority.
No historical precedent suggests the Islamic Republic can survive such cumulative disarmament intact. The more fully Tehran complies, the less viable the regime becomes.
The protests of late 2025 and early 2026—unfolding as the rial fell to historic lows—rapidly evolved into demonstrations rejecting clerical rule and calling for systemic change.
Wary neighbours
Regional reactions, particularly among Persian Gulf states, remain ambivalent. Some governments privately fear that an Iranian transition could introduce instability or renewed competition.
Yet history suggests a more complex picture. During the 1970s, within the Cold War security framework of the period, Iran functioned as a stabilising pillar of regional order rather than a source of disruption—an approach sharply at odds with the Islamic Republic’s subsequent reliance on proxy warfare.
For the United States, the strategic dilemma is increasingly constrained. Sustaining a large forward military posture—carrier strike groups, advanced air assets, missile defence systems, and logistics—carries steep financial and opportunity costs.
Conservative estimates place the monthly expense well above one billion dollars, at a time when Washington faces mounting pressures in East Asia, renewed instability in the Western Hemisphere, and competing domestic priorities.
Interactable problem?
These constraints are sharpened by signals from the White House, where. President Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted that the United States would come to the aid of Iranian demonstrators if violent repression continued.
Such statements are not cost-free. Repeated often, they risk transforming intervention from a contingency into an expectation, narrowing Washington’s room for manoeuvre should events move faster than policy can adapt.
A negotiated settlement that leaves Iran’s coercive capabilities partially intact risks repeating earlier cycles of temporary de-escalation followed by strategic relapse. Yet comprehensive Iranian compliance would likely accelerate regime fragmentation by stripping away the pillars that sustain clerical authority. Indefinite military pressure, meanwhile, is fiscally and strategically unsustainable.
President Trump therefore confronts not a binary choice, but a narrowing decision space shaped by volatility and exhaustion. Each available pathway carries consequences that extend beyond Iran itself, affecting US credibility, regional security, and the broader balance of power.
What distinguishes the present moment is not diplomatic momentum but strategic fatigue.
Negotiation still holds the possibility of de-escalation, but it no longer offers an obvious route to durable equilibrium. Instead, it points toward competing trajectories of erosion or escalation. How Washington manages this unstable phase will shape not only Iran’s future, but the strategic contours of the Middle East for years to come.
