US arrests Iranian dual national over UAV technology exports

On Ward Carroll's YouTube episode, titled 'Admiral Tells the Real Truth about battling the Houthis in the Red Sea," a US Navy commander from the Dwight D Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, said he suggested more aggressive strikes on the Houthis, but reportedly he was told to avoid that by higher command.

The alleged instruction was to avoid large- scale counterstrikes against the Iranian proxy force due to "the balance of deterrence" with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Rear Adm. Marc Miguez was the commander of the strike group during an eight-month deployment to the Red Sea that defended commercial ships. Iran International has reached out to Rear Adm. Miguez, the US Navy and US CENTCOM for comment and was not able to secure an interview in time for publication.

Miguez appeared to suggest during the podcast episode that they needed to take Iran's response into consideration.

"There are definite strategies that were put forward, but our National Command Authority decided that those - I would call more aggressive postures and more aggressive strikes - was not something we wanted to challenge," Miguez said during the interview with the YouTuber on August 26.

That aggressive posture does not align with the risk-aversion strategy the Americans appear to be taking when it comes to the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the Biden administration hesitant to challenge Tehran.

“We have a deterrence deficit with Iran. They have been attacking our forces. They have been attacking commercial vessels, with impunity since October 2023,” said Jason Brodsky, the policy director for United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).

The root of the problem, said Brodsky, are US policy makers advocating for risk aversion.

From October 2023 to June 2024, Miguez told Carroll the carrier strike group launched seven deliberate, coordinated attacks with partners like the UK on Houthi targets. A couple of the strikes were integrated with the Air Force.

Because of all constant missile and drone attacks by the Houthis who even fired at US Navy vessels, the strike groups' destroyers ran out of anti-air missiles, taking them at least three days to reload, he said. 

While Israel targeted the Yemeni strategic port of Hodeida, after the Iran-backed rebels carried out a deadly drone attack in Tel Aviv in July, the Americans have limited their targets.

“Deterrence against the Houthis has failed, “said Brodsky.

“The United States is aiming at radars, drones, missile launchers and that kind of material without going after more strategic targets like the port of Hodeida that Israel bombed after the Houthis sent a drone that exploded in Tel Aviv," he added.

Are the Houthis winning and the US losing?

A former Royal Navy Commander, Tom Sharpe, wrote an article in the British news outlet Telegraph recently, alleging that the Houthis had defeated the US Navy.

Sharpe wrote that since January of 2024, Houthi attacks increased, and have added more to their arsenal, with the usual drones and cruise missiles now came hijackings and ballistic missiles.

"I understand the desire to not escalate with Iran which is why the Poseidon Archer strikes were focused and quite limited (especially when compared to current Israeli strikes in Yemen) even if I don’t entirely agree with it," wrote Sharpe in the Telegraph article.

The US Central Command said Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels attacked two crude oil tankers - the Saudi-flagged Amjad and the Panama-flagged Blue Lagoon I - in the Red Sea on Monday with two ballistic missiles and a one-way attack uncrewed aerial system, hitting both vessels.

“There are no casualties onboard, and the vessel is proceeding to its next port of call,” British maritime authorities said at the time.

The Saudi shipping firm Bahri said on Tuesday its tanker Amjad was not targeted. The Houthis did not claim responsibility for that, although they admitted to attacking the Blue Lagoon.

Amid continued ship attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea, Republican Senator Tom Cotton said on Tuesday "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have ceded the Red Sea to Iranian-backed terrorists. Our enemies do not take the Biden-Harris administration seriously.”

Republican Senator Joni Ernst also weighed in, and said the “the Biden-Harris administration continues to turn a blind eye as the Iran-backed Houthis disregard the law and terrorize the Red Sea.”

The EU naval mission in the Red Sea announced Tuesday that the salvagers have abandoned attempts to tow away the burning oil tanker, Greek-flagged Sounion, which was attacked by Yemen’s Houthi rebels according to the Associated Press.

On August 29, Houthis rebels released a video showing them planting explosives aboard the Sounion, which had been abandoned after multiple attacks the prior week.

The footage then cuts to a long shot of the vessel as the explosives detonate, while the Houthis chant their slogan: “God is the greatest, death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews, victory to Islam.”

Richard Golberg, a Senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), said the White House's current course of action is obviously not working.

"There is an intelligence ship that the Iranians have, near the Red Sea that provides the targeting intelligence data to the Houthis to support all these attacks. We've never taken out that ship. That would seem to be an obvious next step in the escalation ladder."

Secretary of State Antony Blinken delisted the Houthis as both a foreign terrorist organization and as specially designated global terrorists in February 2021, as one of the first foreign policy acts of the Biden administration.

The White House said it was trying to make it easier to get food and humanitarian aid into Yemen. However, in the face of Houthi attacks, they re-enlisted them back on the specially designated list in 2024, though they are still not on the foreign terrorist list.

Goldberg said the Biden administration strongly believes that if Houthis have access to money and economic capital, they will hold back from serious attacks, and somehow become normalized in Yemeni society. He finds that theory to be nonsense.

“Either they're a terrorist organization or they're not. Either we’re going to treat them like we would treat a terrorist organization or we're going to treat them like some sort of negotiating partner. They're trying to do both at the same time,” said Golberg.

Abbas Araghchi, the new foreign minister approved by Khamenei, was one of the original negotiators in the Iran deal talks. He has chosen as his deputy another member of that negotiating team, Majid Takht-Ravanchi. Both men possess the experience and skills to resolve technical issues related to a potential deal. The problem is that their loyalty to the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) is absolute. They believe in the 'principles' of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy, chief among them, focus on the Axis of Resistance.

Araghchi, compared to Javad Zarif, has fewer differences with hardliners and stands somewhere between Zarif and Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iran’s former foreign minister who was killed along with President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash. So far, Araghchi’s public statements have been in line with the agenda set out by Pezeshkian in an open letter he wrote shortly after his election. There is very little to separate this new agenda and that of Raisi’s, apart from a softer tone.

Pezeshkian did speak about the need for sanctions removal and the normalization of relations with the world during his campaign. Since assuming office, however, he has shifted toward blaming the US for imposing "unjust sanctions" and defending the expansion of strategic ties with Russia and China. This shift negatively impacts his administration’s ability to open a new chapter in the longstanding conflict. The biggest obstacle is, of course, Khamenei, who determines foreign policy. Without a change in his stance, it’s difficult to see a different outcome from the failure of the two previous administrations to revive the Iran deal.

Although Araghchi has retreated from his initial stance on the irrelevance of the JCPOA and the need for a new agreement, this shift reveals a stark reality: the JCPOA, due to the broken commitments of both the US and Iran, no longer exists—it is effectively dead. According to the most recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has added cascades of centrifuges at its main uranium enrichment sites in Natanz and Fordow. Even the IAEA chief has suggested that the JCPOA may have expired.

Iran has significantly reduced the breakout time to just a few months by gradually advancing its uranium enrichment levels and increasing its stockpile over the past six years. It now claims the capability to make atomic bombs, though Khamenei's religious order (Fatwa) supposedly prevents them from doing so. However, it seems their ultimate goal is to use their advanced nuclear program as leverage to pressure the US and EU into reviving the JCPOA or forging a new agreement without substantial changes or additional demands.

Any agreement would be a tall order since the conditions now are far less favorable than 2015, when the nuclear deal was announced. The areas of conflict have expanded after the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Now, a stronger deal is needed to mitigate instability in the region and the world. And Iran is known to be quite hostile to any suggestion of additional demands.

It is worth noting that the Biden administration initially pushed for a new JCPOA. Iranian leaders may not be opposed to the idea in principle, but the gap between the two sides seems too big to bridge. Iran under Pezeshkian will continue its support for armed groups in the region while managing the scope and scale of its tensions with US and Israel. This policy is inherently problematic and may be unsustainable. At best, it could lead to a temporary reduction in tensions.

The Biden administration has so far shown little enthusiasm for engaging with Iran’s new administration. The upcoming US election could be the main reason for both sides’ caution. A Trump victory would likely complicate Pezeshkian’s position. It could mean further escalation of tensions even. It’s not impossible that Trump may seek a stronger deal eventually, humiliating Iran along the way. A Kamala Harris win would therefore look like the more favorable outcome for Iran. But the fundamental issues and obstacles will persist whoever the president.

Another factor complicating the potential for a new agreement is the growing military cooperation between Iran and Russia. If Iran sends Russia ballistic missiles, as reported recently, tensions could reach new heights, given NATO's repeated warnings to Iran. It’s not impossible that Germany, Britain, and France would seek snapback sanctions—a provision in the JCPOA to reimpose suspended UN resolutions against Iran and essentially dismantle the JCPOA. That would be catastrophic for Pezeshkian who taunted his hardline rival for ruining the chances of a JCPOA revival.

An optimistic scenario hinges on new calculations within Khamenei’s court, which could lead to renewed negotiations with the US over the nuclear issue and ultimately result in a new agreement with controlled setbacks—yet another Heroic Flexibility, as Khamenei named his previous retreat. This scenario could be complicated too. China’s purchase of Iranian oil at reduced prices has weakened US leverage and the effectiveness of sanctions. Europe, on the other hand, wants to contain Russia and manage the oil market, which might require offering concessions to Iran to reduce its military aid to Russia.

It is too early to predict where Iran is headed under Pezeshkian. It can be said with some confidence, however, that a strategic change in Iran’s foreign policy is unlikely. Any change would most likely be tactical or symbolic. A scenario somewhere between the two outlined here could also emerge, potentially allowing for an interim agreement that initially breaks the current deadlock by having the US lift some sanctions in exchange for Iran halting some of its nuclear activities that violate the JCPOA framework.

For now, due to increased tensions amid the Gaza war, confrontation continues, with the US enforcing and expanding unilateral sanctions while Iranian proxies attack American military and diplomatic centers in Iraq. Barring a near miraculous turn of events, there will be no easing of tensions in the months to come.

With at least 93 executions last month, the number is more than twice as many as the 45 executions reported in July, according to Mai Sato.

"I have been the Special Rapporteur on Iran 1 month. During August 2024, at least 93 individuals were executed. Based on information received, only a fraction is officially reported by the Islamic Republic of Iran, highlighting the need for transparency," Sato said on X.

So far this year, there have been over 400 executions, including 15 women, however, concerns remain that the number is in reality, much higher. Last year, it was well over 850, most of whom were political dissidents.

"Wrongful executions are irreversible. Reports that I have received on the current implementation of the death penalty in the Islamic Republic of Iran leave me extremely concerned that innocent individuals may have been, and may be, executed," she added.

Nearly half the executions were carried out for drug offences. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iran is a party, restricts the application of the death penalty to ‘most serious crimes’, understood as intentional killing.

“Executions for drug offences violate international standards,” a panel of UN experts said.

Among those executed last month was Reza (Gholamreza) Rasaei, a Kurdish protester from the Yarsani religion, banned in Iran where only Islam, Christianity and Judaism are legally recognised.

His case was, according to the UN, based on a confession reportedly obtained through torture. “Reports of serious violations of fair trial and due process rights mean that the death penalty as it is currently practiced in the Islamic Republic of Iran amounts to unlawful execution,” the UN experts said.

Sato spoke of the many sentences for broadly defined security offences such as armed rebellion, spreading corruption on earth, waging war against God, and apostasy. "International law does not permit the use of the death penalty for such offences," she added.

The case, occurring at a detention center in northern Gilan province, starkly illustrates that extrajudicial killings are not isolated incidents but integral to the state’s broader system of repression and oppression.

For some time now, human rights activists have identified several of Iran's detention centers as particularly deadly for prisoners, including Shapour Intelligence Detention Center in Tehran and others in Shiraz, Yasuj, Bushehr, Bandar Abbas, and Zahedan. Among these, Shapour Detention Center in southern Tehran stands out as one of the most notorious, often referred to as the "dungeon for prisoners."

In these detention centers, suspects are treated as guilty from the outset, with interrogators using various forms of torture to extract confessions. Detainees are often handcuffed, shackled, and kept in unsanitary conditions throughout their detention and interrogation.

Upon arrival at these centers, suspects are immediately presumed guilty, and interrogators employ various torture methods to extract confessions. The moment a detainee enters the interrogation rooms, they are often told that the only way out is to confess to the charges already prepared for them. The interrogators, who often conceal their identities, use a range of torture methods, from sleep deprivation and beatings to more extreme physical abuse, such as whipping with cables, baton strikes, and even "roasting," where detainees are tied and suspended from a rod, enduring severe pain until they confess.

The sanitary conditions are deplorable, and detainees are often kept in handcuffs and shackles for the duration of their detention and interrogation. If a detainee denies the charges, they are immediately subjected to beatings by multiple officers, escalating to more brutal forms of torture if they continue to resist.

If they refuse to confess, they are subjected to further torture, including prolonged sleep deprivation, beatings with cables and batons, and other cruel methods. Extreme methods such as suspending detainees by their hands or feet, breaking bones, and burning with cigarettes are routinely employed. As their physical condition deteriorates, many are coerced into giving false confessions or accepting fabricated charges.

Some detainees, after being forced to make false confessions under torture, retract their statements in court, only to face threats of further torture from their interrogators. These confessions often lead to long prison sentences or even execution.

In recent years, some detainees who have been coerced into confessing under torture have recanted their statements in court, emphasizing the brutality they endured during interrogation. However, many others, fearing further torture or retribution, reluctantly confirm their confessions in court, which often leads to severe sentences, including imprisonment or execution. Some suffer lifelong physical and psychological scars from their ordeal, bearing the pain and trauma of their torture for the rest of their lives.

Security agencies such as the Ministry of Intelligence and the IRGC Intelligence Organization sometimes transfer political and ideological prisoners who resist confessing under torture in security wards to the detention centers of the Intelligence Department. They believe that detainees sent to these detention centers will eventually, under the pressure of torture, accept all or part of the fabricated scenarios prepared for them and confess to crimes they did not commit.

Despite the ongoing use of torture, which violates Article 38 of the Islamic Republic's Constitution which bans torture for extracting confessions or obtaining information, authorities continue their practices unchecked. Iran has consistently refused to join the United Nations Convention Against Torture, citing this constitutional provision.

A pattern of impunity

Mir-Mousavi’s death has sparked widespread outrage in Iran, with many on social media also sharing the stories of other detainees who have suffered similar fates under the regime’s security apparatus.

Lawyer Ali Mojtahedzadeh condemned the death, calling it "a crime." He stressed that "those who ordered and carried out this atrocity, regardless of their position, are criminals deserving of punishment."

Mohammad Habibi, a teachers' union activist, highlighted that many young individuals like Mir-Mousavi face torture within police and security institutions, with their suffering frequently remaining unacknowledged. Habibi shared his own experiences from the Greater Tehran Central Penitentiary, where he observed numerous inmates with broken limbs and bruised bodies returning from the Shapour Detention Center’s Intelligence section and other police facilities.

Atefeh Nabavi, previously a political prisoner, shared a story of a female inmate accused of murder, noting how she had been beaten so severely that her speech had become impaired, oscillating between confusion and consciousness. Despite the lack of evidence against her, she was tortured into confessing.

A former commander of the notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guards also commented on the death of Mir-Mousavi. "Why do such incidents keep happening from time to time?" Hossein Alaei said at a police station in Lahijan. The Navy commander stressed the importance of proper training for police officers in their interactions with the public.

In fact, it is not a matter of incidents occurring "from time to time" but rather a recurring pattern of abuse and torture that has persisted under the regime for years, with impunity.

Since the inception of the Islamic Republic, tens of thousands—likely many more—of political and ideological detainees, protesters, opponents of the mandatory hijab, journalists, and other societal members have endured torture in Iran’s detention centers, with many losing their lives as a result.

Families of these victims, seeking justice for their loved ones, often encounter futility in their efforts. Investigations rarely identify the perpetrators, and accountable officials frequently face no consequences.

For decades, Iranian authorities have persistently refused to acknowledge any responsibility for these deaths.

The strike, now in its second month, has spread to more than 50 cities, marking the largest professional protest by nurses in a century. Nurses and emergency medical technicians are protesting against long working shifts, low wages, and mandatory overtime.

Fereydoun Moradi, a member of the Supreme Council of the Nursing System, recently highlighted the issue of unpaid nursing service fees which have not been deposited into nurses' accounts for over a year.

Meanwhile, Health Minister Mohammad Reza Zafarghandi admitted that the government owes nurses more than 70 trillion rials (over $116 billion). Although he said that these dues would be paid promptly, no action has been taken, leaving nurses determined to continue their industrial action.

The situation is further exacerbated by the Iranian government's mismanagement of the National Development Fund (NDF) which was intended for long-term national investments. In a Saturday interview on state TV, President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that, with the approval of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, funds from the National Development Fund will be allocated to pay nurses, farmers, teachers, and for essential medicines.

The crisis has also led to a increase in the migration of nurses. Ahmad Nejatian, head of the Nursing Organization, reported that the average annual migration of nurses has doubled between 2021 and 2023. With approximately 20% of nursing students now seeking to leave the country, the trend is expected to worsen, particularly as countries like Germany and Denmark have made it easier for Iranian nurses to migrate.

The exodus, combined with low wages and harsh working conditions, has weakened Iran's healthcare system. The country currently has only 1.5 nurses per 1,000 people, compared to the global average of three. Many nurses report burnout and an inability to provide adequate care to patients, further straining an already fragile system.

Samira Rahi, a journalist based in Turkey who specialises in Iranian social issues, criticized the Iranian government's lack of resolve.

"When nurses demonstrated their dedication during the pandemic, the system took advantage of them. The Islamic Republic relies on temporary fixes to address the issue superficially, but as long as the underlying structural problems remain unresolved, all these measures will be ineffective," she told Iran International.

As the government continues to neglect the demands of its healthcare workers, the future of Iran's nursing profession—and the quality of care available to its citizens—remains uncertain.