Week of March 16, 2026 | Iran Unfiltered is a digest tracking Iranian politics & society by the National Iranian American Council

• Energy De-Escalation, Regional Backlash, and the Opening of a Northern Front
• Attack on South Pars Signals a Dangerous New Phase in the War with Global Consequences
• The Sinking of the IRIS Dena: Escalation at Sea, Human Cost, and the Erosion of Humanitarian Restraint
• Iran Executes Three Men Over January Protest Killings Amid Ongoing Concerns About Due Process
• Execution of Alleged Israeli Spy in Iran Reflects Intensifying Security Crackdown
• The Passing of Younes Tarakmeh: A Quiet Voice of Integrity in Iranian Literature
• Iranian Civil Society Warns of Escalating Humanitarian Crisis and Calls for Global Action to End War
• Ali Larijani’s Reported Death and the Deepening Regionalization of the Iran War
• Escalation Around Kharg, Regional Retaliation, and Emerging Domestic Risks in Iran

Energy De-Escalation, Regional Backlash, and the Opening of a Northern Front

The latest developments in the war on Iran include a partial U.S. pullback from an all-out energy infrastructure war, mixed regional responses, and the expansion of the conflict into new geographic and strategic domains. After the Israeli strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field on March 18 and Iran’s subsequent retaliatory attacks targeting similar infrastructure in Qatar, the United States reacted with alarm. President Donald Trump publicly distanced Washington from the South Pars strike – despite reporting indicating the U.S. was intimately involved – and signaled that further attacks on Iran’s major energy infrastructure should not continue unless Iran again targets regional facilities. If Iran targets Qatar again, Trump vowed to destroy the entire South Pars gas field.

The part of the message that emphasized restraint appears to reflect a recognition that a sustained energy war could trigger uncontrollable global economic consequences, harming the United States. At the same time, this does not represent a broader de-escalation. U.S. and Israeli attacks are continuing and any rhetoric suggesting restraint may not restrain future action. Each side is continuing full military pressure while seeking to mitigate reactionary global economic shocks.

The latest dialing back of rhetoric follows a rapid and visible reaction in global markets. Oil and gas prices surged sharply after the South Pars attack and Iran’s strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex, with European gas prices and global oil benchmarks rising significantly. Initial reports indicate that Iran’s strikes knocked out 17% of the Ras Laffan complex’s LNG production capacity for up to five years, a significant blow to one of the world’s most critical LNG hubs. The damage raised concerns about long-term global supply disruption, demonstrating that damage to energy infrastructure has immediate global consequences.

At the same time, Iranian strikes appear to have reached into Israel’s core energy infrastructure. Damage to the Haifa oil refinery, one of Israel’s most important energy facilities that supplies a major share of the nation’s fuel, signals an expansion of Iran’s retaliation into Israel’s economic backbone. Israeli authorities asserted that the damage was limited and did not impact core facility functions. Regardless, together with attacks in the Gulf, this suggests that Iran’s response has been multi-front and strategically coordinated, targeting both regional and Israeli energy systems.

From Iran’s perspective, the recent actions appear to follow a clear retaliatory doctrine. The strikes on Persian Gulf energy infrastructure suggest that Tehran aimed to mirror the attack on South Pars and demonstrate an ability to inflict calculated damage. Iranian officials have indicated that further escalation will depend on whether its own infrastructure is targeted again, suggesting a conditional pause rather than full de-escalation.

However, the escalation was not without cost. Twelve Islamic and Arab countries in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain and Syria strongly condemned Iran’s attacks in a joint statement, particularly those affecting civilian and energy infrastructure in the Gulf. These states emphasized that such actions are unjustifiable and threaten both regional stability and global energy security. At the same time, many of these countries continue to criticize Israeli actions elsewhere, reflecting a dual position: opposition to escalation from all sides, but increasing concern about Iran’s direct impact on neighboring states. 

In response to criticism, Iran has noted that the U.S. and Israel are using the soil and airspace of Gulf monarchies to conduct attacks on Iran. Recent reporting from the Wall Street Journal indicates that evidence shows the U.S. has begun using ground-launched ballistic missiles against Iran with a range of roughly 200–300 miles, including from locations in Bahrain. Iran’s Foreign Minister has also suggested that Kharg island was fired upon from positions in the United Arab Emirates. Thus, even as the Gulf monarchies respond with understandable outrage, Iran does not view some of them as neutral bystanders to the war.

Qatar’s reaction has been significant. Following the attack on Ras Laffan, Doha condemned Iran’s actions, took diplomatic measures and signaled a breakdown of trust. Yet, on Thursday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani – standing alongside Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan – called for an immediate end to the war and suggested only Israel benefited from it. “This war needs to stop immediately. The aggression needs to stop immediately.” He continued, “Everyone knows who the main beneficiary of this war is, and dragging the whole region into this conflict is.” The intervention adds nuance to the earlier condemnatory statement. Qatar has previously served as a key mediator between Iran and the United States, and with its shared energy resources with Iran, could lose significantly in a further escalation of tensions.

Similar calls for deescalation have accompanied Oman’s condemnations of attacks on energy infrastructure. The Oman Foreign Ministry called for “de-escalation, an end to military operations and the prioritising of diplomatic solutions to resolve disputes in a way that preserves security and stability and safeguards the interests of the region and the wider world.”

The broader international response reinforces the trend of Iran’s isolation. The United Kingdom announced increased defensive support to Gulf states, describing Iran’s actions as a serious escalation that risks further destabilizing the region. At the same time, global powers have emphasized the need to secure the Strait of Hormuz and maintain energy flows, while countries like Japan have expressed deep concern about the economic impact but remain cautious about direct involvement. This reflects a broad international alarm without unified military escalation.

New military developments highlight the continued intensity of the conflict. Reports indicate that an American F-35 fighter jet was struck while flying over Iran and was forced to make an emergency landing, with the pilot in “stable condition.” The F-35 is considered the most advanced fifth generation stealth aircraft in operation. Those advocating for war had argued that the June war, along with earlier Israeli strikes, had rendered Iranian skies clear for combat aircraft. Yet, there have been numerous incidents signaling that this is not the case. Iran has shot down many drones operating in its airspace, a refueling aircraft was shot down in Iraq and now the most advanced fighter jet in the world was damaged, apparently, by Iranian fire. This signals that Iran’s airspace is far from uncontested. If confirmed, it would indicate that Iran retains the capability to challenge high-end U.S. military assets despite sustained strikes on its infrastructure.

Perhaps the most strategically significant shift is the opening of a northern front inside Iran. Strikes on Bandar Anzali and related infrastructure are highly consequential because this region is a key trade corridor linking Iran to Russia through the Caspian Sea. At a time when southern routes are under pressure and the Strait of Hormuz is unstable, northern connections have become critical for Iran’s trade, logistics, and strategic resilience. Targeting this area suggests a shift in military pressure toward areas that have not been hit as hard thus far, creating additional pressure on Iran’s economy, supply chains, and military logistics, potentially significantly increasing the cost of the war for Tehran.

Overall, the current moment reflects a paradoxical shift. On one hand, the United States appears to be shying away from an all-out energy war, and Iran signals that its retaliation for South Pars may be complete. On the other hand, the conflict is expanding geographically and strategically, with new fronts, deeper strikes, and broader regional involvement. The result is not true de-escalation, but rather a continuation of a consequential and multifaceted conflict. While direct attacks on major energy infrastructure may temporarily slow, the war continues to evolve and shape regional security, global energy flows and critical trade routes.

Attack on South Pars Signals a Dangerous New Phase in the War with Global Consequences

Published March 18, 2026

The reported Israeli-U.S. attack on Iran’s South Pars gas field appears to mark a critical turning point in the ongoing war that will significantly raise the risk of regional escalation and global economic disruption. Unlike earlier phases of the conflict, which largely focused on military assets, missile systems, and command structures, this development represents a direct shift toward targeting substantial energy infrastructure at the heart of the global economy.

According to Iranian officials and multiple reports, phases 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the South Pars gas field in Asaluyeh were struck, with parts of the facilities taken offline to contain fires and prevent further damage. Local authorities stated that the situation is under control and no casualties have been reported at the site, though emergency operations continue.

South Pars is not an ordinary facility, it is the largest natural gas field in the world and a shared resource between Iran and Qatar. Roughly one-third lies in Iranian waters and two-thirds in Qatari territory, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy assets globally. The field holds massive gas reserves and condensates that are central not only to Iran’s economy but also to global energy supply through Qatar’s LNG exports.

Targeting such a shared energy structure immediately internationalizes the conflict. Qatar condemned the strike as “dangerous and irresponsible,” warning that attacks on energy infrastructure threaten global energy security, regional stability, and the environment. This reaction highlights that the consequences extend far beyond Iran, directly affecting neighboring states and global markets.

The market response underscores the seriousness of this escalation. Following the attack, oil prices surged above $108 per barrel, reflecting growing fears that the war is entering a phase where energy supply disruptions are becoming a central risk rather than a secondary concern. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20 percent of global oil supply typically passes, is already under pressure due to military activity and disruptions to maritime traffic. Any further escalation involving energy infrastructure could significantly impact energy production and prices, global shipping, insurance markets, and supply chains.

At the same time, Iran has issued explicit warnings that energy infrastructure across the region could be targeted in retaliation. Officials stated that facilities in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, including major refineries and petrochemical complexes, have become “legitimate targets.” This signals a shift toward intensified reciprocal attacks on vital energy systems across multiple countries.

The war’s expansion to the shared energy architecture of the Persian Gulf will further disrupt some of the world’s most critical oil and gas hubs. Israel has significantly expanded its targeting doctrine, openly declaring that senior Iranian officials are now direct targets. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that the military no longer requires additional authorization to eliminate high-ranking Iranian officials once operational intelligence is complete. In this context, Israeli officials have claimed that Esmail Khatib, Iran’s Minister of Intelligence, was targeted and killed in recent strikes in Tehran, though Iran has not officially confirmed his death at the time of reporting.

The reported killing of a sitting intelligence minister, if confirmed, would represent another escalation in the war’s leadership targeting strategy, moving beyond military commanders to core figures in Iran’s internal security and intelligence apparatus. This follows earlier assassinations of senior Iranian figures and suggests a deliberate effort to degrade decision-making structures at the highest levels of the state.

Separate military operations continue to intensify across multiple fronts. The United States reported conducting strikes on Iranian missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran has launched additional waves of missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and U.S. bases in the region. In Israel, damage was reported at Ben Gurion airport and in Tel Aviv, where a munition destroyed an apartment building in the Ramat Gan area, killing a couple in their 70s. This reflects an expanding cycle of retaliation that is now intersecting with both leadership, economic and civilian infrastructure.

Inside Iran, the war’s domestic and political dynamics are also becoming clearer. Despite calls from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Reza Pahlavi to use the Charshanbe Suri (Fire Festival) Tuesday evening as a moment for anti-government protests, there were no credible reports of widespread demonstrations against the government. Instead, reports indicate that pro-government supporters were present in the streets and that security forces maintained control across major cities.

This suggests that the conditions for large-scale protests capable of threatening the government amid war are not present. Rather than triggering internal destabilization, the ongoing war – including the targeting of national infrastructure such as South Pars – appears to be reinforcing a security-driven environment in which the state retains control.

Moreover, the shift toward targeting economic and energy assets may be influencing public perceptions. For segments of the population who may have previously viewed external pressure or conflict as a potential catalyst for political change, the visible damage to national infrastructure, without any clear pathway to political transformation, could alter those calculations. Instead of accelerating internal change, such attacks risk strengthening concerns about national loss and instability without delivering meaningful political outcomes.

Inside Iran, the humanitarian toll continues to grow. Hundreds of sites in Tehran have been struck, millions of civilians displaced, and emergency housing provided for affected populations. At the same time, mass funeral ceremonies for senior officials and military personnel, including figures such as Ali Larijani and other high-ranking individuals, highlight both the scale of losses and the symbolic mobilization of the state.

Taken together, these developments indicate that the war has entered a new and far more dangerous phase. The attack on South Pars, combined with the expansion of leadership targeting, threats against regional energy infrastructure, and the absence of internal destabilization, represents a shift from conventional military confrontation toward systemic and strategic escalation.

If energy infrastructure continues to be targeted and high-level assassinations intensify, the consequences are likely to extend far beyond the immediate parties to the conflict. In this sense, the attack on South Pars—alongside the reported killing of Iran’s intelligence minister and the lack of internal unrest—should be understood as a warning signal. The conflict is evolving into a crisis with direct implications for regional stability, global energy security, and international economic order. It may already be too late to prevent the war from deepening and causing further regional and global shockwaves.

The Sinking of the IRIS Dena: Escalation at Sea, Human Cost, and the Erosion of Humanitarian Restraint

On March 18, in Tehran, thousands gathered for funeral processions honoring victims of the ongoing war, including the sailors of the IRIS Dena, whose deaths have become a symbol of the widening scope and human cost of the conflict. The ceremonies, beginning at Enghelab Square and continuing toward Meraj al-Shohada, reflect a moment of national mourning that underscores how deeply this war is affecting the Iranian public.

Among those mourned were the sailors of the IRIS Dena, an Iranian naval vessel sunk on March 4, 2026 in the Indian Ocean by a U.S. submarine torpedo attack. At least 87 sailors were killed, with only 32 survivors from a crew of approximately 130. Many of the victims were young personnel who had just days earlier participated in the MILAN 2026 multinational naval exercise in India, an event centered on maritime cooperation and international engagement. Iran has claimed that the Dena was unarmed, amplifying concerns that the vessel may have been illegally targeted.

The transformation of these sailors, from participants in an international naval gathering to victims of a sudden and devastating attack, highlights a troubling dynamic: the line between spaces of cooperation and zones of conflict is rapidly eroding. This concern is further intensified by public rhetoric surrounding the war. President Trump recounted a debate he had with military commanders in public, during which he suggested that Iranian vessels could have been captured rather than sunk. However, the President said he was told ‘It’s more fun to sink them,’ with the President stating “They like sinking them better.” This underscores that the use of lethal force against Iranian targets is being treated with insufficient gravity. In the context of an ongoing armed conflict, such language can undermine confidence in the careful application of international humanitarian law and the principle of restraint, which also amplifies risks against U.S. servicemembers who could be illegitimately targeted.

From a human rights perspective, the sinking of the Dena raises serious concerns not only regarding the scale of loss of life, but because it reflects a broadening geographic scope of hostilities. The attack reportedly occurred near Sri Lanka, in an area widely used for international maritime transit and outside the immediate core of active hostilities. This expansion increases risks for civilian shipping, regional stability, and neutral states, while reinforcing the perception that large areas of international waters are becoming zones of active conflict.

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), the legal framework governing naval warfare is complex but relatively well established. As a general matter, enemy warships are considered lawful military targets in war, provided they are not in neutral territorial waters and have not been rendered hors de combat. Here, there are indications that the Dena should not have been considered a lawful target, given it was not yet in an area of active hostilities and may have been unarmed. Moreover, given that the Iran war was launched without UN authorization, targets that might otherwise be considered permissible under the law of war – such as naval vessels at sea – might otherwise be considered an illegitimate target for the use of force. 

Compliance with IHL requires more than identifying a lawful target. It also requires adherence to the principles of military necessity, proportionality, and precautions in attack. Even when a target is lawful, an attack must be intended to achieve a concrete and direct military advantage, and the expected harm must not be excessive in relation to that advantage. The reported use of a heavy torpedo, which caused the vessel to sink within minutes, resulted in rapid and widespread loss of life, leaving limited opportunity for evacuation. This underscores the importance of the obligation to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm, particularly when the foreseeable consequences of an attack include high casualties.

In addition, international humanitarian law imposes obligations after an attack has taken place. Under the Second Geneva Convention, parties to a conflict must, without delay and as far as feasible, take steps to search for, collect, and care for the shipwrecked. While submarine operations present operational constraints that may limit immediate rescue capabilities, these constraints do not eliminate the obligation itself. Available information indicates that regional actors, including Sri Lanka and India, played a central role in rescue operations, which raises reasonable questions about whether all feasible measures were taken by the attacking party to facilitate or support those efforts.

The broader implications of the incident extend beyond the immediate tragedy. The expansion of naval warfare into areas such as the Indian Ocean – far from traditional theaters of combat – places increased pressure on neutral states, complicates regional security dynamics, and raises the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation. It also challenges long-standing expectations about the geographic limits of armed conflict and the protection afforded to areas not directly engaged in hostilities.

Questions regarding the assessment of military necessity, the proportionality of the attack, the precautions taken, and the fulfillment of post-strike obligations warrant careful and independent examination. Ultimately, the sinking of the IRIS Dena – and the funerals taking place – serve as a powerful reminder that armed conflict is not only a legal framework, but a human reality. Sailors who recently stood in formation in a setting of international cooperation are now being laid to rest. Without continued emphasis on restraint, accountability, and the protection of human life, the gap between what is legally permissible and what is morally sustainable risks growing wider—undermining both the law itself and the stability it is meant to protect.

Iran Executes Three Men Over January Protest Killings Amid Ongoing Concerns About Due Process

Iran’s judiciary has carried out the execution of Mehdi Ghasemi, Saleh Mohammadi, and Saeed Davoudi, three individuals arrested in connection with violence during protests on January 8, 2026 (18 Dey 1404) in the city of Qom. According to official accounts released by the judiciary-affiliated Mizan News Agency, the three men were convicted of involvement in the killing of two police officers – Mohammad Ghasemi Hamapour and Abbas Asadi – in separate incidents at Nokouei Intersection and Nabovat Square. Authorities stated that the attacks were carried out using “cold” or bladed weapons during what they described as “illegal gatherings.”

The judiciary announced that the defendants were charged with “moharebeh” (enmity against God) and that their death sentences were upheld by the Supreme Court before being carried out in Qom following final legal authorization. Officials further alleged that the individuals had engaged in actions “in favor of Israel and the United States” and had attempted to incite unrest aimed at undermining national security.

Iranian authorities emphasized that the case went through what they described as a complete legal process, including investigation, trial proceedings, and review by the Supreme Court, with both appointed and court-assigned defense lawyers involved. However, cases of this nature – particularly those linked to protest activity – have consistently drawn serious concerns regarding due process and transparency. Legal observers and rights groups have long questioned whether defendants in such cases receive full access to independent legal representation, whether proceedings are conducted openly, and whether evidence – especially confessions – is obtained under conditions that meet international legal standards.

These concerns are not new but have intensified since the nationwide protests that began in late 2022, after which the use of capital punishment in Iran has reportedly increased, including in cases framed as threats to national security. Reports in recent years have pointed to expedited judicial procedures, limited public oversight, and the use of broadly defined charges such as “moharebeh,” which can carry the death penalty.

In the case of the three executions in Qom, the combination of serious charges, rapid judicial progression, and limited publicly available details about the proceedings has reinforced ongoing questions about the fairness and proportionality of such outcomes. While authorities present the executions as a necessary response to violence against law enforcement personnel, with killings of government-affiliated personnel reportedly numbering 214 amid the January protests according to human rights monitors, critics argue that the application of the death penalty in protest-related cases risks prioritizing deterrence and control over transparent justice. 

The executions also come amid a broader environment shaped by heightened internal tensions and external conflict dynamics, where Iranian authorities have increasingly framed domestic unrest within a narrative of foreign involvement and national security threats. This framing has been accompanied by a more securitized judicial response, particularly in cases involving alleged violence during protests. Overall, the case reflects the continuing intersection of protest activity, security policy, and judicial enforcement in Iran, where the use of capital punishment—especially under charges such as moharebeh—remains highly controversial and raises enduring concerns about due process, legal standards, and the role of the judiciary in politically sensitive cases.

Execution of Alleged Israeli Spy in Iran Reflects Intensifying Security Crackdown

Published March 18, 2026

Iran’s judiciary has announced the execution of Kourosh Keyvani on the morning of Wednesday, March 18 (27 Esfand), following the confirmation of his death sentence by the Supreme Court. Keyvani had been arrested during the 12-day war earlier this year on charges of espionage for Israel, marking the latest in a series of executions tied to alleged intelligence cooperation with Israeli agencies.

According to Iranian state media, Keyvani was detained on June 16 (26 Khordad) by the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in a villa in Savojbolagh County. Authorities claim he was arrested in possession of €30,000 in cash along with advanced espionage, intelligence, and satellite communication equipment.

His first court session reportedly took place on December 8 (17 Azar). The judiciary accused Keyvani of providing “images and information of sensitive locations” inside Iran to Israel, a charge frequently used in cases involving alleged collaboration with foreign intelligence services.

According to a report published by Tasnim News Agency, Iranian authorities alleged that Keyvani had initiated contact with Israeli intelligence networks in Sweden in 2023, and subsequently underwent two years of training by Mossad operatives in Europe and Israel. He was reportedly deployed to Iran in April–May 2025 (Ordibehesht 1404) to carry out operational tasks. Authorities further claimed that his activities included conducting reconnaissance of potential targets, transmitting coordinates of sensitive sites, and installing electronic systems and equipment in locations designated by Israeli intelligence. These allegations were presented as evidence of a coordinated espionage operation.

Keyvani is one of several individuals executed in recent months under similar charges of “spying for Israel,” signaling an escalation in Iran’s internal security response amid heightened regional tensions.

• On January 7 (17 Dey), Iran announced the execution of Ali Ardestani on espionage charges.
  
• Earlier, on December 20 (29 Azar), Aqil Keshavarz, an architecture student, was executed for allegedly photographing military and security sites.
  
• On September 29 (7 Mehr), Bahram Choobi Asl was executed, described by authorities as a “trusted and reliable spy” for Israel.
  
• Prior to that, on September 17 (26 Shahrivar), Babak Shahbazi was executed after being arrested and tried two years earlier on similar accusations.

The growing number of executions tied to espionage accusations highlights a broader pattern of intensified domestic crackdowns, particularly in the context of ongoing conflict with Israel and heightened fears of internal infiltration. Despite the grave stakes on death penalty cases, reputable human rights observers have raised concerns that due process and transparency have been sharply limited in cases involving alleged espionage. At a time of escalating regional conflict, these executions reflect the Iranian government’s effort to demonstrate control, deter perceived internal threats, and reinforce its security posture, while also drawing increased scrutiny from international observers and human rights organizations.

The Passing of Younes Tarakmeh: A Quiet Voice of Integrity in Iranian Literature

Published March 18, 2026

The passing of Younes Tarakmeh, an Iranian short story writer and literary critic, on March 15, 2026, at the age of 78, marks a profound loss for Iran’s literary and cultural community. While Tarakmeh published relatively few works, his influence and moral stature within contemporary Iranian literature were both distinct and enduring.

Tarakmeh represented a generation of writers for whom literature was not merely a profession, but a principled commitment to intellectual and creative freedom. Known for his introverted personality and deliberate distance from literary publicity, he chose a path defined not by visibility, but by integrity.

At the core of his legacy lies a rare and uncompromising stance: a refusal to submit his work to censorship. Rather than dilute his ideas or conform to ideological restrictions, Tarakmeh chose to leave many of his writings unpublished – “in the drawer,” as he described it – rather than sacrifice creative independence. This decision, while limiting his public output, elevated his moral authority and positioned him as a symbol of resistance to imposed constraints on artistic expression.

Despite this, Tarakmeh produced a number of notable and deeply reflective works that reveal his literary vision and stylistic precision. His early story, “Dar Sobh-e Madreseh” (At the School Morning), first published in Jong-e Esfahan in 1968, offered vivid imagery and atmospheric realism. This was followed by “Tamami-ye Vaqeiat dar Yek Vahed-e Koochak-e Zaman” (All Reality in a Small Unit of Time), a short but highly visual narrative centered on memory, perception, and the blurred boundary between reality and the mind.

After the revolution, he continued writing, including the story “Parvaz” (Flight), published in 1984. Decades of writing eventually culminated in his first and only short story collection, “Maks-e Akhar” (The Final Pause), published in 2004. This collection brought together six stories, including previously published works from journals such as Jong-e Esfahan, Cheragh, Zendeh-Rood, and Karnameh. Among its most notable pieces is the final story, “Mikhaham Zendeh Bemanam” (I Want to Stay Alive), a deeply human narrative exploring war, migration, and the emotional weight of staying versus leaving.

Tarakmeh’s life reflects the broader struggle of Iranian civil society to preserve freedom of thought and cultural authenticity under sustained pressure. His belief that literature must be created free from ideological interference underscores a fundamental principle: that artistic expression is inseparable from human dignity and intellectual liberty.

Tarakmeh’s early literary formation was closely tied to the influential “Jong-e Esfahan” (Isfahan Literary Circle), a movement that played a critical role in reshaping modern Persian literature. In an era dominated by politicized narratives, this circle emphasized the artistic and structural dimensions of storytelling, helping to establish a new literary horizon that would influence generations of writers.

Despite criticism at the time, often labeled as proponents of “art for art’s sake,” Tarakmeh and his peers demonstrated that attention to form, language, and narrative depth could serve as a powerful cultural contribution. Their work helped shift Iranian literature toward a more nuanced and globally resonant tradition.

Following the 1979 revolution, Tarakmeh continued writing but remained cautious about publication due to the expansion of ideological censorship. He consistently warned that such censorship does not merely limit expression, it attempts to reshape the writer’s identity itself. As he noted, “the worst form of censorship is ideological censorship, because it seeks to reconstruct who you are.”

Equally significant was Tarakmeh’s decision to remain in Iran, despite the increasing pressures that led many of his contemporaries to emigrate. His choice reflected a deep attachment to his homeland, as well as a belief that cultural production must persist even under difficult conditions. His writings on migration reveal a nuanced understanding of displacement, belonging, and the emotional cost of leaving—captured in his enduring message: “I stay. I want to remain alive.”

From the standpoint of NIAC, Tarakmeh’s life and work serve as a reminder that Iran’s cultural vitality is sustained not only by widely recognized figures, but also by quieter voices who uphold intellectual independence at great personal cost. His legacy speaks to the resilience of Iranian writers who continue to create, think, and imagine—often without recognition, and frequently in the face of constraint.

We extend our deepest condolences to Tarakmeh’s family, colleagues, and the broader Iranian literary community. The loss of Younes Tarakmeh is not only the loss of a writer, but the loss of a principled voice that stood firmly for creative freedom, integrity, and the enduring power of literature.

Iranian Civil Society Warns of Escalating Humanitarian Crisis and Calls for Global Action to End War

Published March 17, 2026

A series of coordinated letters issued by Iranian civil society organizations highlight growing domestic concern over the humanitarian consequences of the ongoing war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel. Addressed to major international legal, academic, and humanitarian institutions, as well as the United Nations Secretary-General, these communications – from the Iranian Association for Cultural Studies and Communications, the Komak Network and the Narges Foundation – reflect an organized and coordinated effort to draw global attention to the civilian impact of the conflict and to advocate for urgent international engagement.

These organizations note that the escalation began when Iran was subjected to extensive and coordinated military attacks despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States. The organizations portray the shift from diplomacy to military confrontation as a significant breakdown in international law, conflict resolution efforts and a setback for peaceful engagement.

The letters place particular emphasis on the humanitarian consequences of the war, reporting that thousands of civilians – including children, women, and other vulnerable populations – have been killed. They describe widespread damage to civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, welfare institutions, pharmaceutical facilities, and media infrastructure. The strike on the Minab primary school, which reportedly resulted in the deaths of more than 165 students and teachers, is highlighted as a particularly devastating incident that underscores the need for accountability and international investigation. Additional accounts provided by civil society networks point to the scale of destruction across the country, indicating that tens of thousands of civilian locations have been affected, with significant damage to medical centers, schools, and humanitarian facilities. 

From a legal perspective, these communications frame the conflict in terms of potential violations of international law, including the United Nations Charter, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. Particular concern is raised regarding the targeting of civilian and humanitarian infrastructure, which may violate the principles of distinction and proportionality and could constitute grounds for independent international inquiry.

Beyond the immediate humanitarian toll, the letters describe broader societal impacts within Iran. Major cities, including Tehran and Isfahan, are portrayed as living under continuous threat, with daily life disrupted by insecurity, fear, and damage to essential infrastructure. The conflict is presented not only as a military confrontation but as a comprehensive societal crisis affecting economic systems, public services, and cultural heritage.

The Komak Network issued a direct appeal to global peace and social justice organizations and networks to:

• “Raise widespread awareness regarding the humanitarian, legal, and environmental dimensions of these attacks.
• Call for independent international investigations into attacks against civilians, particularly the Minab school tragedy, and ensure the findings are widely reported.
• Support civil institutions and human rights defenders in Iran through humanitarian ties and collaborative efforts.
• Urge governments and international bodies to strictly observe the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets, proportionality in the use of force, and the necessity of accountability.
• Renew their global commitment to sustainable peace based on the cessation of hostilities, justice, human dignity, and opposition to the logic of war and violence, while actively helping to expedite the end of this aggression.”

Likewise, the Iranian Association for Cultural Studies and Communications stated: “In light of these grave violations and the ongoing humanitarian crisis, Iran’s major cities, including Tehran and Isfahan, remain under continuous threat. Fear, insecurity, and disruption of daily life have become part of a calculated strategy to spread terror. In addition to the human tragedy, these attacks have gravely damaged the country’s vital infrastructure, industries, banks, and even cultural heritage sites. The Iranian Association for Cultural Studies and Communications calls upon your association to extend its support and solidarity to the people of Iran in the face of the unjust aggression launched by Israel and the United States of America against Iranian territory.”

Likewise, the letter issued by the Narges Foundation was signed by 80 prominent figures, calling for an immediate ceasefire, an investigation of war crimes and a supervised transition to democracy, while noting that Narges Mohammadi – Nobel Peace Prize laureate – remains imprisoned and at significant risk. The signatories call for “An immediate cessation of hostilities by all parties including the United States, Israel, and Islamic Republic of Iran in order to prevent further civilian casualties and avert a wider regional escalation. Crucially, the international community must uphold Iran’s territorial integrity and prevent any foreign invasion or intervention.” On rights violations, the signatories call for “The immediate establishment of an independent international commission of inquiry, under the auspices of the United Nations, to investigate alleged ‘war crimes’ by United States, Israel and Islamic Republic and ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ by the Islamic Republic for massacre of protestors in January to ensure accountability in accordance with international law.”

A notable dimension of these appeals is the emphasis on the role of civil society. Iranian activists, volunteers, and non-governmental organizations report that they are actively documenting the consequences of the conflict to preserve evidence and promote accountability. However, they stress that these efforts require international support to ensure that violations are properly investigated and addressed.

The letters collectively call on international organizations and global civil society to take a more active role. Key recommendations include raising global awareness, supporting independent investigations into attacks on civilians, strengthening engagement with Iranian civil institutions, and ensuring adherence to international humanitarian law by all parties. They also call for renewed diplomatic efforts, de-escalation, and an immediate cessation of hostilities.

At their core, these coordinated appeals seek to reframe the conflict through a civilian-centered lens, emphasizing the human cost of war and the urgency of protecting non-combatants. By mobilizing international legal, academic, and civil society networks, Iranian civil actors are attempting to elevate the humanitarian dimension of the conflict and press for a global response grounded in accountability, international law, and the pursuit of peace.

Ali Larijani’s Reported Death and the Deepening Regionalization of the Iran War

Published March 17, 2026

Israel has claimed that it has killed Ali Larijani, one of the most influential figures in the Islamic Republic’s political and security system, in an airstrike on March 17. As the time of publication, Iran has not officially confirmed his death, but if verified, it would constitute one of the most serious blows to the Iranian state through two and a half weeks of war.

Ali Larijani was not merely the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council; he represented a rare type of actor within the system – one who bridged security institutions, political leadership, and strategic decision-making. Over decades, he served in key roles including positions within the Revolutionary Guard structure, Minister of Culture, head of state broadcasting, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and Speaker of Parliament for three terms. More recently, he operated at the highest advisory levels of the state. His influence extended beyond formal titles; he was deeply embedded in elite networks and came from one of the most prominent political families in the Islamic Republic. His role became even more significant after the death of Ali Khamenei, as figures like Larijani were essential in maintaining internal coordination and continuity.

What has made Larijani particularly important is his dual identity as both a regime insider and a pragmatic operator. Although in recent weeks he adopted more hardline and war-oriented rhetoric, historically he was viewed as a flexible and strategic figure capable of navigating internal divisions and managing crises. In a system under extreme wartime pressure, such figures are critical – not because of their ideology alone, but because they help maintain coherence at the top. If his death is confirmed, it would not only remove a senior official but also weaken one of the key mechanisms through which the regime balances internal factions and absorbs external shocks.

At the same time, it is important not to overstate the structural impact of the loss of any individual figure. The Islamic Republic has, over time, demonstrated a “mosaic” or distributed model of governance and security, in which authority, operational capacity, and decision-making are spread across multiple overlapping institutions. This model—visible across the military, intelligence, and political system—has allowed the state to absorb shocks, including the loss of senior figures. Even the earlier assassination of Ali Khamenei did not produce immediate systemic collapse, in part because of this decentralized resilience. Within this context, Larijani’s potential death should be understood as a significant shock, but not a decisive or system-breaking event. The system is designed to adapt, redistribute roles, and continue functioning under pressure, even when key individuals are removed.

Israel also claimed to have killed Gholamreza Soleimani, the commander of the Basij – a paramilitary organization under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that is often deployed in government crackdowns. Tasnim News Agency confirmed Soleimani’s killing in an “attack by the American-Zionist enemy.” Taken together, these actions suggest that Israel in particular is aiming to degrade Iran’s internal control infrastructure – including institutions responsible for domestic repression and political order. This indicates a strategic shift toward weakening not only Iran’s battlefield capacity but also its ability to maintain internal stability under pressure. Thus far, the system has proven resilient even as it has absorbed the loss of senior figures and some government checkpoints have been targeted.

At the same time, Iranian authorities are signaling heightened concern about the domestic front. Officials have warned that Chaharshanbeh Suri could be exploited to create unrest, while security forces have emphasized the need for public vigilance in what they describe as wartime conditions. The judiciary has also announced measures including asset seizures and severe punishments for alleged collaborators, reflecting a tightening internal security posture. These developments suggest that the leadership is increasingly focused on the risk that external war pressures could intersect with internal tensions, potentially creating a more volatile domestic environment.

The war has continued to impact across the region and has caused significant economic and infrastructure consequences. Persian Gulf states are now directly exposed to Iranian missile and drone operations. Drone strikes have disrupted operations at major energy facilities, including the Shah gas field in the UAE, while repeated attacks on Fujairah’s oil infrastructure have caused temporary shutdowns and fires. Oil loading operations have been intermittently halted, and reports indicate that UAE oil production has dropped significantly, partly due to the ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. In parallel, Persian Gulf airspace has been temporarily closed as a precaution, and major international airports have experienced disruptions. Given the region’s role as a critical hub for global aviation and energy transport, these developments are producing cascading effects across global supply chains and transportation networks. 

The United Arab Emirates has reported intercepting dozens of drones and ballistic missiles in a single day, while Qatar has also intercepted incoming missiles and drones, with at least one projectile landing without causing casualties. Since the beginning of the war, the UAE alone reports facing more than two thousand drone and missile attacks, highlighting the scale and persistence of Iran’s regional strike capability.

Despite sustained U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran continues to demonstrate operational missile and drone capacity across multiple fronts. Iranian forces have launched repeated waves of attacks targeting Israeli territory as well as regional assets, including reported strikes on strategic industrial and cyber-related facilities. Israeli defense systems remain actively engaged in intercepting incoming threats. These developments suggest that Iran’s retaliatory capabilities remain sufficiently intact to sustain pressure, inflict damage and prolong the conflict.

The war is also expanding into Iraq, where the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has come under one of the most intense waves of drone and rocket attacks since the beginning of the conflict. At least one drone reportedly struck inside the embassy compound. These attacks indicate that the conflict continues to unfold across multiple interconnected theaters—inside Iran, across Israel, throughout the Persian Gulf, and in Iraq—raising the risk of further escalation and reducing the likelihood that the conflict can be easily contained.

Inside Iran, the war is increasingly affecting civilian areas and infrastructure. Reports and visual evidence indicate damage to electricity infrastructure, police facilities and urban neighborhoods in Tehran – including areas such as Niavaran, Shahrak-e Gharb, and around Meydan-e Shohada. While some of these strikes have targeted military personnel, their impact has extended into surrounding civilian areas, impacting daily life in the capital and other bombed facilities. This not only increases civilian risk but also disrupts normal activities in major urban centers.

Data compiled by human rights monitoring groups further underscores the scale and human cost of the conflict. Since the beginning of the war on February 28, aggregated reporting from the Human Rights Activists Network Agency (HRANA) indicates:

• 1,351 civilian deaths, including at least 207 children
• 1,126 military personnel killed
• 622 additional fatalities whose status (civilian or military) remains unclear

These figures highlight the extent to which the war is affecting both civilian populations and military structures simultaneously, with fatalities well higher than the June war. It remains unclear to what extent ongoing internet blackouts may impact the verification of casualties.

At the operational level, the scope and diversity of targets also reflect an intensifying and complex battlefield. In a recent 24-hour period alone, at least 36 distinct sites and facilities were reported damaged or affected, including military installations such as air force bases, IRGC headquarters, and Basij facilities and infrastructure including Mehrabad Airport in Tehran. 

In addition, preliminary reports indicate that protected civilian and humanitarian-related sites have also been affected, including a water desalination facility in Nikshahr, an electricity administration building in Tehran, a school in Khomein and multiple residential buildings, including an eight-story structure in Tehran’s Zarafshan area and at least ten other residential units destroyed in airstrikes. While some of these cases may involve proximity to intended targets or secondary damage, their inclusion reflects the increasing overlap between military operations and civilian environments, raising concerns under international humanitarian law and further illustrating how deeply the conflict is penetrating urban and civilian spaces.

The humanitarian and global economic consequences are also intensifying. The continuation of the war threatens to significantly worsen global food insecurity, with projections indicating that tens of millions of additional people could face acute hunger if the conflict persists. Rising energy prices, disrupted shipping routes, and increased operational costs for humanitarian organizations are contributing to global economic strains. Asian economies, which depend heavily on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, are particularly vulnerable to prolonged disruption.

Continued leadership targeting, regional escalation, economic disruption, and intensified internal securitization inside Iran indicate that the war continues to surge with no end in sight. Within this context, the reported death of Ali Larijani stands out as a significant political development. If confirmed, it would mark the removal of a figure who embodied the regime’s capacity to mediate between power centers, manage crises, and maintain strategic coherence under pressure.

However, the broader trajectory of the conflict suggests that Iran’s system is not structured around any single individual, but rather around a layered and resilient network of institutions. As a result, while Larijani’s loss would represent a serious shock to the system, it is unlikely on its own to fundamentally alter the regime’s ability to continue the war or maintain internal control. The more decisive factors will be the cumulative effects of sustained external pressure, internal social dynamics, economic strain, and the regime’s capacity to adapt within its existing “mosaic” structure. As the war continues to expand across borders and domains, the interaction between these forces – rather than any single event – will shape the future trajectory of the conflict and the stability of the Iranian state.

Escalation Around Kharg, Regional Retaliation, and Emerging Domestic Risks in Iran

Published March 15, 2026

The war between Iran, the United States, and Israel continues to impact across the Persian Gulf while domestic tensions inside Iran begin to intersect with the regional conflict. Recent developments suggest that Washington is widening the range of military options under consideration while still attempting to avoid steps that would escalate the global energy crisis. At the same time, Iran appears to be implementing a strategy of reciprocal retaliation – an “eye for an eye” approach – designed to mirror attacks on its own infrastructure and interests across the region.

One of the most significant recent developments was the large-scale U.S. strike on Kharg Island, one of the most strategically important locations in Iran’s economic and energy system. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) portrayed the strikes as a precision operation targeting more than 90 military sites on the island, including missile storage areas, naval logistics infrastructure, defensive installations, and other positions believed to support Iran’s maritime operations in the Persian Gulf.

Despite the scale of the attack, both U.S. and Iranian reporting emphasized that Kharg’s oil export infrastructure was not targeted. This distinction is strategically important. Kharg Island handles approximately 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports, making it one of the most sensitive energy nodes in the entire Middle East. President Donald Trump indicated that the decision to avoid oil facilities was deliberate, suggesting that Washington does not currently intend to cross the threshold of directly destroying Iran’s oil export capacity. Instead, the strike appears designed to weaken Iran’s military capabilities while avoiding an immediate shock to global energy markets.

Even so, targeting Kharg – an island that functions as both a military base and Iran’s primary oil export terminal – signals a notable expansion of the battlefield. Kharg lies roughly 35 kilometers off Iran’s northern Gulf coast and plays a central role not only in oil exports but also in maritime logistics and naval operations. Striking military facilities there demonstrates that the United States is prepared to challenge Iran’s strategic position along the coastline surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supply passes. Even the perception that Kharg could become more directly involved in the conflict could influence global oil markets when trading resumes.

The Kharg strike is unfolding alongside reports that the United States may consider deploying ground forces into Iranian territory, either to seize Kharg or other land considered strategically important or to seek to enter bombed Iranian nuclear facilities and extract uranium. It is hard to know precisely how seriously to take this speculation. Reports indicate that the U.S. is sending additional forces to the region, including thousands of Marines and an amphibious assault group centered around the USS Tripoli. Amphibious task groups typically include ships capable of transporting helicopters, landing craft, and expeditionary forces capable of landing troops along coastlines or on islands.

However, these U.S. land forces and the USS Tripoli amphibious naval group have not yet arrived in the region. While Washington has announced that these forces are being deployed, there is a significant difference between announcing deployments and actually arriving, staging, and becoming operational in the theater. Moreover, it remains unclear which countries in the region would be willing to host forces that could be used in a territorial invasion under the current circumstances, given the political and security risks involved. This uncertainty suggests that the operational timeline for any expanded U.S. ground presence may be longer and more complicated than official announcements imply.

In parallel with these military moves, the United States has implored countries to form a broader international coalition to secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump publicly called on China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom to deploy naval forces to ensure freedom of navigation. Initial responses, however, suggest that many governments are approaching the request cautiously. Several states have emphasized consultations and independent decision-making rather than committing ships immediately. France has indicated that its naval forces will remain in the Mediterranean, while Japanese officials have signaled that any deployment decision requires further evaluation. This cautious response highlights the difficulty Washington faces in transforming the current conflict into a broad multinational maritime mission despite the global importance of Gulf energy flows.

Iran, for its part, appears to be implementing a strategy of reciprocal retaliation. Iranian officials have signaled that attacks on Iranian infrastructure will be answered with similar actions elsewhere in the region. After Israeli and U.S. strikes targeted a bank inside Iran, Iranian forces responded by striking a bank in the United Arab Emirates, demonstrating Tehran’s willingness to mirror attacks on financial infrastructure.

Following the attack on Kharg, Iran also issued evacuation warnings for several major UAE ports, including Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Fujairah, warning that facilities connected to U.S. operations or logistics could become targets. Iranian officials have stated that if Iran’s energy infrastructure is attacked, Tehran will respond by targeting energy infrastructure belonging to companies associated with the United States in the region. These warnings suggest that Iran intends to expand the economic costs of the war beyond its own territory by threatening infrastructure that supports Western military operations and global energy markets.

Another important development involves damage to key U.S. aviation assets in the region. Reports indicate that five U.S. aerial refueling aircraft were damaged during an Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. This adds to the refueling aircraft that crashed in western Iraq on March 12, killing six crewmembers, and a separate refueling aircraft that was damaged and forced to make an emergency landing in Israel. Taken together, seven damaged or destroyed refueling aircraft represent a significant operational challenge for U.S. air operations. Aerial refueling tankers are essential to sustaining long-range air missions, enabling fighter aircraft, bombers, and surveillance platforms to remain airborne for extended periods and operate far from their bases. While CENTCOM suggests the aircraft in Saudi Arabia were only damaged and are reportedly undergoing repairs, the incident highlights Iran’s ability to strike high-value logistical assets that could complicate the tempo of sustained U.S. air campaigns in the region.

The battlefield itself continues to evolve over the broader region. Iranian missiles and drones have been intercepted in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan, as regional governments activate air defense systems to counter incoming attacks. In one notable incident, a fire broke out at the Fujairah port in the UAE, one of the region’s most important oil storage and refueling hubs, after debris from intercepted drones reportedly fell near the facility. Although casualties were limited, the incident temporarily disrupted fuel-loading operations, illustrating the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure throughout the Gulf.

Meanwhile, Iranian missile attacks on Israel continue. Israeli authorities reported multiple waves of missile strikes, including five separate waves within a nine-hour period. Israel’s health ministry stated that 108 individuals were hospitalized within the past 24 hours, most with minor injuries. Since the start of the war, Israeli officials report that 3,195 people have received hospital treatment for war-related injuries, although the government has not publicly released a comprehensive wartime death toll. Wartime censorship and reporting restrictions also limit the extent to which imagery and documentation from strike sites are publicly available, meaning that the full scale of damage inside Israel may not be visible in real time.

Alongside the regional military escalation, internal tensions inside Iran may also be rising. Some opposition figures outside the country have signaled that they may attempt to encourage domestic unrest during the ongoing war. In particular, Reza Pahlavi and Saeed Ghaseminejad, one of the former crown prince’s closest advisers, have recently issued statements that some observers interpret as encouraging anti-government cells within the country to attack Iranian police and Basij forces in the streets.

Charshanbe Suri, the traditional Iranian fire festival held on the Tuesday evening before Norooz, is just a few days away and could emerge as a flash point of societal tensions. Iranian authorities have already banned fire-related celebrations this year, citing security concerns and the need to preserve emergency resources during wartime. Police and security forces appear to be on heightened alert, reflecting concerns that the holiday could be used as an opportunity for anti-government demonstrations at a time when the country is already under external military pressure.

The war is playing out in numerous spaces involving regional military operations, maritime security, energy infrastructure, and internal political tensions. The United States is expanding military deployments while maintaining certain escalation thresholds—most notably the deliberate decision not to target Iran’s oil export facilities. Iran, meanwhile, is responding through reciprocal strikes across the region and leveraging its geographic position along the Persian Gulf to exert pressure on maritime routes and regional infrastructure.

As the war enters its third week, the interaction between military escalation, global energy security, and domestic political dynamics inside Iran may become increasingly consequential. Even limited tactical actions—whether involving maritime operations in the Strait of Hormuz, retaliatory strikes on regional infrastructure, or internal unrest—could have significant implications not only for the Middle East but also for the stability of global energy markets and the broader international economy.