Q&A: What are the religious qualifications for Khamenei's successor as Supreme Leader?

Fatemi-Amin, currently free on bail, is implicated in the high-profile "Debsh Tea" scandal, a multi-billion-dollar corruption case involving tea imports.

His appearance on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) has been interpreted by many as a platform for self-defense, sparking public outrage and accusations of preferential treatment.

The public reaction has been swift, with many questioning the propriety of giving airtime to someone facing serious corruption charges.

Journalist Hossein Saremi wrote on X, "How can you bring a defendant, a member of the shadow government and former minister to the IRIB?!"

The reference to the shadow government is to ultra hardliners who maintain a an alternative cabinet to that of President Masoud Pezeshkian.

Amir Tanha, a reformist media activist, echoed the same sentiment, writing, "Where in the world does a country's national television give live airtime to a defendant, whose case has reached a final verdict, to defend himself?!"

The timing of Fatemi-Amin's appearance is particularly sensitive. It coincides with increased scrutiny of the judiciary's handling of the Debsh Tea case.

Earlier this week, the presiding judge of the ongoing Debsh Tea case issued a strict warning against the public disclosure of any information about the 61 defendants before a final verdict is reached for the entire case.

The trial, which began in December, involves allegations of significant financial irregularities within the tea import industry, implicating individuals connected to the Debsh group, as well as officials from several ministries and bank managers. The case involves allegations of the company receiving cheap US dollars from the government to import tea, but pocketed some of the exchange rate difference and also imported low-quality tea.

The judiciary spokesperson has confirmed that Fatemi-Amin and his then deputy were summoned and presented their defense, and are currently free on bail. However, the case is still ongoing.

"My suggestion is different. Instead of Palestinians, expel Israelis and send them to Greenland so they can kill two birds with one stone," Araghchi said in an exclusive interview with Sky News.

President Trump, who initially suggested acquiring Greenland in his first term, has doubled-down on the claim since returning to office.

On Saturday, the US President disclosed that he had conferred with Jordan's King Abdullah II about building housing to move over 1 million Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring nations. He also said he planned to address the same issue with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi on Sunday.

The proposal was preemptively rejected by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA), which said it would violate its “red lines”.

"You’re talking about a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing,” the US President also told reporters over the weekend.

The comments come after a ceasefire deal and hostage release negotiated jointly by the incoming Trump administration and the Biden administration between Israel and Hamas.

Nuclear negotiations would be 'more challenging' than before

Addressing the possibility of negotiations over its nuclear program, Foreign Minister Araghchi told SKY News that while Tehran is willing to hear President Trump out, reaching an agreement will be far more challenging than in 2018, when the original nuclear deal was finalized.

"The situation is different and much more difficult than the previous time," he told SKY News. "Lots of things should be done by the other side to buy our confidence… We haven't heard anything but the 'nice' word, and this is obviously not enough."

This follows President Trump’s earlier remark that it would be "nice" if the nuclear crisis could be resolved without escalating further—and without the need for Israel to launch military strikes against targets in Iran.

Iran's Foreign Minister told SKY News that any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would trigger an immediate response, calling it "crazy" for Israel and the US to take such action.

"Due to recent baseless statements made by Sadegh Zibakalam, the Tehran Prosecutor's Office has filed charges against him," Mizan, Iran's judiciary news website, said on Tuesday, without providing further details of the charges.

The charges come after a video of his lecture, titled “The Trump presidency and the 46 years of hostility between Iran and the US,” was widely shared on social media.

"More than being worried about Trump and what Trump is going to do with Iran, I am worried about the situation in Iran – the sharp contradiction, the sharp conflict between the younger generation of Iranians and their hatred of literally anything which is tied to the Islamic Republic,” Zibakalam said in a lecture at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Doha on US President Trump's inauguration on January 20.

Zibakalam also said that Iran's youth hate Palestinians because the Islamic Republic's leaders support them. "You'll be surprised how many Iranians hate Palestinians," he said, the sympathy now eroded in the wake of October 7.

Instead, he said the young generation see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as a "hero" after the war which has seen Tehran's regional allies Hamas and Hezbollah significantly weakened.

Mizan said that Zibakalam, who is currently on medical leave outside of prison, faces multiple cases for "making false statements in the media and on social media."

He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and a two-year ban from political activities for "propaganda against the system."

In a second case, he received a one-year sentence for publishing "false material," and in a third, he was sentenced to six months in prison for "spreading false information." The Supreme Court upheld his sentences, Mizan reported.

Within two weeks, the number rose to at least 46—that is one life taken every 8 hours. Human rights groups believe the real toll is even higher.

It was clear that the Islamic Republic had no intention of slowing down after it executed more than 900 in 2024, a record since 2015, as reported by the United Nations human rights office.

On January 30, 2024, a Tuesday, political prisoners in the women’s ward of Tehran’s Evin prison announced that they would go on hunger strike every Tuesday to protest the rising executions, and in solidarity with ten others who had done so in Ghezel Hesar prison.

The move was triggered by the execution of Mohammad Qobadlou and Farhad Salimi just a week prior. A new campaign was born: No to Execution Tuesdays. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi backed the move on Instagram.

In the one year since that Tuesday, hundreds of political prisoners from over 30 prisons have joined the campaign, refusing to eat or drink on Tuesday. They accuse the Islamic Republic of weaponizing the death penalty to silence dissent.

Their demand? The abolition of what they call "state-sponsored premeditated murder”.

“This is the first time prisoners from diverse political backgrounds have united to consistently protest executions,” Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, Director of IHR NGO told Iran International, hailing the campaign as a “milestone” in Iran’s fight against the death penalty and calling on Iranian civil society to join the campaign and express opposition to executions every Tuesday.

The long death row

At least 54 political prisoners are currently on death row in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), with 19 having their convictions upheld by higher courts of the Islamic Republic.

One is Pakhshan Azizi, a Kurdish-Iranian human rights activist and social worker, who has been sentenced to death for "armed rebellion against the state." Amnesty International has condemned her sentence, calling it another example of a broader pattern targeting minorities and activists.

Leading in capital punishments

The Islamic Republic of Iran carries out three-quarters of all executions globally—outside China, which clas­si­fies cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment num­bers as state secret, according to Amnesty International. It’s worth noting that Iran holds around 1 percent of the world’s population.

In 2024, a total of 31 women were executed in Iran, the highest annual number in 17 years. Many were convicted of murder in cases stemming from domestic violence or forced marriage. Iran also leads in executions of ethnic minorities, who often face systemic discrimination and lack access to fair trials.

Executions for drug-related offenses have surged since 2020, reversing a brief decline following the 2017 Amendment to the Anti-Narcotics Law. IHR NGO reported that drug-related executions in 2023 were 18 times higher than the annual average between 2018 and 2020. Ethnic minorities disproportionately bear the brunt of these executions.

In December 2024, political prisoner Ahmadreza Haeri issued a chilling warning from Ghezel Hesar prison about an impending "massacre" of drug offenders.

“Prosecutors in Tehran’s surrounding areas have decided to execute ALL drug offenders with final death sentences before Norouz [Iranian New Year, March 21],” Haeri warned, highlighting that the prison holds three times its official capacity.

Road ahead: collective responsibility

The campaign No to Execution Tuesdays represents an act of resistance by political prisoners and a step in the long march to the abolition of the death penalty in Iran.

But stopping, even slowing, Tehran’s execution machine requires an urgent and unified response from various players, according to Amiry-Moghadam.

Political advocacy, public awareness campaigns, and targeted sanctions on judicial officials could all be part of a collective effort to challenge the Islamic Republic on its continued executions.

Iranian political prisoners have sparked a movement of hope and defiance. But ending the death penalty in Iran is a tall order that those involved in the campaign say requires sustained efforts at every level—domestic, regional, and international.

Whether or not they can attract the widespread solidarity they seek remains to be seen.

The agreement, signed during the administration of reformist President Mohammad Khatami, was never implemented.

Iran has been ordered to pay substantial damages to Crescent and has lost billions of dollars in potential revenue after gas exports under the deal, which were supposed to begin in 2008, failed to materialize.

The controversy primarily centers on allegations of corruption leveled by ultra-hardliners against former Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh and other officials aligned with the so-called reformist faction, unfavorable rulings by international arbitration courts against NIOC, and the loss of substantial revenue from the Salman oil and gas field.

Q: What is the Crescent Deal?

The Crescent gas deal was a 25-year contract to export natural gas from Iran's offshore Salman field in the Persian Gulf to the United Arab Emirates.

Under the agreement, Iran was to deliver approximately 500 million cubic feet of natural gas per day to the UAE, starting in 2008.

Crescent Gas invested approximately $300 million in infrastructure, including a gas sweetening plant and transmission facilities, while NIOC spent over $1.5 billion developing the Salman gas field and its related transport infrastructure.

Negotiations with the UAE side over pricing terms continued after the government transitioned to populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. These talks initially broke down due to Tehran's insistence that the previously agreed price was too low compared to rising global prices at the time.

The Ahmadinejad administration later dropped its opposition to the agreement and chose to implement it. However, under political pressure, NIOC ultimately refused to begin supplying gas to CGC as agreed.

Q: Who opposed the Crescent deal and why?

Saeed Jalili, ultra-hardline politician and secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) under then-President Ahmadinejad, is known as the staunchest critic of the Crescent Deal.

Former Oil Ministry official Mahmoud Khaghani claimed in July 2024 that in early 2010, Ahmadinejad urged the Supreme National Security Council to resolve the Crescent issue in order to avoid litigation.

Khaghani, accused Jalili of sabotaging the deal due to personal grudges against former Oil Minister Zanganeh, the architect of the deal, and insisted that the deal should never be implemented. According to Khaghani, Jalili argued that CGC would not be awarded more than $850 million in damages if the case went to court.

Proponents of the deal have also accused Jalili of attempting to create insurmountable obstacles in nuclear talks with world powers while he headed the nuclear negotiation team.

Currently a member of the Expediency Discernment Council (EDC), appointed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Jalili leads the faction within the EDC that opposes Iran's accession to the conventions of the global money laundering watchdog, the FATF.

Despite repeated challenges from Zanganeh to publicly debate the matter, Jalili has declined, stating that the issue is too complex for a debate and should instead be resolved in court.

Q: What legal steps has CGC taken against NIOC?

In 2009, Crescent Gas filed a lawsuit against NIOC with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. In 2014, the arbitration court ruled that NIOC had breached its contractual obligations.

In 2021, the arbitration tribunal awarded CGC $2.43 billion in damages for lost profits due to NIOC's failure to deliver gas. NIOC appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal in London, but the appeal was rejected in July 2023.

As of January 2025, the award, including accrued interest, amounts to approximately $2.75 billion.

Separately, in September 2021, another tribunal awarded Dana Gas, an affiliate of Crescent Petroleum, $607.5 million for NIOC’s failure to supply gas under the same agreement. This award only covers the first 8.5 years of the 25-year contract.

Additional arbitration claims could raise the total damages sought from NIOC to as much as $18 billion.

Q: Has NIOC paid the sums awarded to the UAE side?

To date, NIOC has not fulfilled its payment obligations. However, Crescent Petroleum has successfully obtained orders to seize NIOC assets abroad in order to enforce the arbitration awards.

In April 2024, a UK court ordered the transfer of the NIOC House in London to CGC as partial settlement of the damages. More recently, another NIOC-owned building in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was seized for the same purpose.