Two held in Iran after deadly port explosion: state TV
The Apr 26 blast at a dock in the southern port of Shahid Rajaee killed at least 57 people and injured more than 1,000, officials said, revising down an earlier death toll.
The judiciary on Sunday said the toll had been revised because "it was determined that some of the bodies considered separate were in fact one body", adding that it could still change.
At the time of the blast, Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni blamed "shortcomings, including noncompliance with safety precautions and negligence".
Shahid Rajaee is near Iran's coastal city of Bandar Abbas on the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which one-fifth of global oil output passes.
"A government manager and another from the private sector have been arrested," state television said on Sunday, citing a report from the investigating committee.
The committee announced on Monday that "false declarations (of goods) were made in some cases".
It said on Sunday that "suspects have been identified and the summoning process is underway", without elaborating.
The New York Times has quoted a person with ties to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss security matters, as saying that what exploded was sodium perchlorate, a major ingredient in solid fuel for missiles.
Iran's defence ministry spokesman Reza Talaei-Nik later told state television that "there has been no imported or exported cargo for military fuel or military use in the area".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Diplomacy or defiance: Iran's rulers face existential choice after US-Israeli strikes
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox FILE PHOTO: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting with Judiciary Officials in Tehran, Iran, July 16, 2025. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo DUBAI - Weakened by war and diplomatic deadlock, Iran's clerical elite stands at a crossroads: defy pressure to halt its nuclear activity and risk further Israeli and U.S. attack, or concede and risk a leadership fracture. For now, the Islamic Republic establishment is focusing on immediate survival over longer-term political strategy. A fragile ceasefire ended a 12-day war in June that began with Israeli air strikes, followed by U.S. bunker-busting bombings of three underground Iranian nuclear sites. Both sides declared victory but the war exposed the military vulnerabilities and punctured the image of deterrence maintained by a major Middle East power and Israel's arch regional foe. Three Iranian insiders told Reuters the political establishment now views negotiations with the U.S. - aimed at resolving a decades-long dispute over its nuclear ambitions - as the only way to avoid further escalation and existential peril. The strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, which included killings of top Revolutionary Guard commanders and nuclear scientists, shocked Tehran, kicking off just a day before a planned sixth round of talks with Washington. While Tehran accused Washington of "betraying diplomacy", some hardline lawmakers and military commanders blamed officials who advocated diplomacy with Washington, arguing the dialogue proved a "strategic trap" that distracted the armed forces. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Bukit Merah fire: Residents relocated as town council conducts restoration works Singapore askST: What to do in the event of a fire at home Singapore Jalan Bukit Merah fire: PMD battery could have started fatal blaze, says SCDF Singapore askST: What are the fire safety rules for PMDs? Asia AirAsia flight from KL to Incheon lands at wrong airport in South Korea Opinion Could telco consolidation spell the end of attractive mobile plans? Singapore Change in law proposed to pave the way for public-private sector data sharing Singapore From quiet introvert to self-confident student: How this vulnerable, shy teen gets help to develop and discover her strength However, one political insider, who like others requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the matter, said the leadership now leaned towards talks as "they've seen the cost of military confrontation". President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday that resuming talks with the United States "does not mean we intend to surrender", addressing hardliners opposing further nuclear diplomacy after the war. He added: "You don't want to talk? What do you want to do? ... Do you want to go (back) to war?" His remarks were criticised by hardliners including Revolutionary Guards commander Aziz Ghazanfari, who warned that foreign policy demands discretion and that careless statements could have serious consequences. Ultimately, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei holds the final say. Insiders said he and the clerical power structure had reached a consensus to resume nuclear negotiations, viewing them as vital to the Islamic Republic's survival. Iran's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment. DYNAMICS AND EXTERNAL PRESSURE U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have warned they will not hesitate to hit Iran again if it resumes enrichment of uranium, a possible pathway to developing nuclear weapons. Last week, Trump warned that if Iran restarted enrichment despite the June strikes on its key production plants, "we'll be back'. Tehran responded with a vow of forceful retaliation. Still, Tehran fears future strikes could cripple political and military coordination, and so has formed a defence council to ensure command continuity even if the 87-year-old Khamenei must relocate to a remote hideaway to avoid assassination. Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C., said that if Iran seeks to rapidly rebuild its nuclear capacity without securing diplomatic or security guarantees, "a U.S.–Israeli strike won't just be possible - it will be all but inevitable". "Re-entering talks could buy Tehran valuable breathing room and economic relief, but without swift U.S. reciprocity it risks a hardline backlash, deepening elite divisions, and fresh accusations of surrender," Vatanka said. Tehran insists on its right to uranium enrichment as part of what it maintains is a peaceful nuclear energy programme, while the Trump administration demands a total halt - a core sticking point in the diplomatic standoff. Renewed United Nations sanctions under the so-called "snapback" mechanism, pushed by three European powers, loom as a further threat if Tehran refuses to return to negotiations or if no verifiable deal to curb its nuclear activity results. Tehran has threatened to quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But insiders say this is a pressure tactic, not a realistic plan - as exiting the NPT would telegraph an Iranian race for nuclear bombs and invite U.S. and Israeli intervention. A senior Western diplomat said Iran's rulers were vulnerable as never before, and any defiance was a gamble liable to backfire at a time of rising domestic unrest, impaired deterrence power and Israel's disabling of Iran's militia proxies in wars around the Middle East since 2023. MOUNTING ANXIETY Among ordinary Iranians, weariness over war and international isolation runs deep, compounded by a growing sense of failed governance. The oil-based economy, already hobbled by sanctions and state mismanagement, is under worsening strain. Daily blackouts afflict cities around the country of 87 million people, forcing many businesses to cut back. Reservoirs have receded to record lows, prompting warnings from the government of a looming 'national water emergency.' Many Iranians - even those opposed to the Shi'ite theocracy - rallied behind the country during the June war, but now face lost incomes and intensified repression. Alireza, 43, a furniture merchant in Tehran, said he is considering downsizing his business and relocating his family outside the capital amid fears of further air attack. "This is the result of 40 years of failed policies," he said, alluding to Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the Western-backed monarchy. "We are a resource-rich country and yet people don't have water and electricity. My customers have no money. My business is collapsing." At least 20 people across Iran interviewed by phone echoed Alireza's sentiment - that while most Iranians do not want another war, they are also losing faith in the establishment's capacity to govern wisely. Despite broad discontent, large-scale protests have not broken out. Instead, authorities have tightened security, ramped up pressure on pro-democracy activists, accelerated executions and cracked down on alleged Israeli-linked spy networks - fuelling fears of widening surveillance and repression. However, sidelined moderates have resurfaced in state media after years of exclusion. Some analysts see this as a move to ally public anxiety and signal the possibility of reform from within - without "regime change" that would shift core policies. REUTERS
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Britain secretly spent S$4.1m to stop journalists from reporting on data breach
The British government spent US$3.2 million on a secret legal order preventing journalists from reporting a data breach that put almost 19,000 Afghans at risk. LONDON – The British government spent US$3.2 million (S$4.1 million) on a secret legal order preventing journalists from reporting a data breach that put almost 19,000 Afghans and their families at risk, according to records obtained by The New York Times. The breach, which happened in 2022, exposed the personal details of thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces before the Taliban takeover in 2021. The government, led by the Conservative Party at the time, went to England's High Court to obtain an order barring anyone from disclosing the breach, even to the people whose lives were feared to be at risk from the Taliban as a result. Journalists were also prevented from reporting on the existence of the court order itself. The government's legal action began in August 2023, when journalists first asked the Ministry of Defence about the breach, and continued until the order was lifted in July. It cost the British government £2.4 million (S$4.1 million), or more than US$3.2 million, according to information disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request. Government ministers involved in the decision have since defended the stringent legal order, which is known in Britain as a 'super injunction', arguing that it was necessary to protect the people whose personal details had been disclosed. As a direct result of the data breach, Britain spent at least £400 million on a secret programme to relocate 4,500 Afghans to Britain. But the government's unprecedented use of a super injunction has intensified questions about freedom of the press in the country. The US State Department's annual publication of reports on international human rights criticised Britain's record on Aug 12, describing 'credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression', while Vice-President J.D. Vance has also argued that free speech is under threat. The British government has said it upholds free speech, but that it balances that right with the need to prevent violent disorder, hate crimes and the swaying of trial juries. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia India, Singapore ministers discuss deeper tie-ups in digitalisation, skills, industrial parks Singapore 2 dead after fire in Jalan Bukit Merah flat, about 60 evacuated Singapore askST: Public bidding possible if assets seized in $3b money laundering case are sold at auction Singapore TB screenings at two pre-schools after staff member diagnosed in July Singapore HSA seeks Kpod investigators to arrest abusers, conduct anti-trafficking ops Business Haidilao to close Clarke Quay outlet on Aug 31; exit follows 3 earlier outlet closures Opinion How to train a drone warrior, with lessons from Ukraine Opinion The truth about AI: Firms will profit, workers will lose jobs Justice Martin Chamberlain, the judge who lifted the order relating to the Afghan data breach in July, said that it was the first super injunction ever granted 'contra mundum', meaning 'against everyone', and that it interfered with freedom of expression and Britain's democratic processes. When Labour entered government in 2024, it commissioned an independent review into the super injunction and the resettlement program, which led to the lifting of the injunction and the public disclosure of the data breach. Critics argued that the government's legitimate interest in protecting the safety of Afghans was supplanted over time by a desire to avoid an embarrassing headline during an election year. The breach happened in February 2022, when a member of the British military accidentally emailed an external contact a spreadsheet containing the details of 18,700 Afghan service personnel, police officers and others seeking refuge in Britain after the Taliban takeover. The disclosure was not discovered until part of the spreadsheet was posted on Facebook in August 2023. Within days, journalists approached the Ministry of Defence about the breach, prompting the government's application for an injunction. Ms Holly Bancroft, the home affairs correspondent for The Independent newspaper, was among the first journalists to be served with the order. She told The New York Times that she was unaware of the data breach and had asked the Ministry of Defence why many Afghans who had previously been denied permission to travel to Britain were suddenly being approved – decisions she now knows were part of the emergency response. Ms Bancroft said she had been invited into a room inside the ministry's headquarters, handed a paper copy of the super injunction and told not to 'talk to anyone about it' other than a lawyer. Ms Bancroft estimates that over the next 18 months, she attended more than 20 hearings at London's High Court, where The Independent and other news organisations, including The Times of London and Associated Newspapers, were campaigning for the injunction to be lifted. The government fielded a roster of senior lawyers to argue against them. Asked for comment on Aug 13, the Ministry of Defence pointed to the statement made by Mr John Healey, the defence secretary, while disclosing the breach in July. He said he felt 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency' and had chosen to 'reassess' the basis for the injunction when he entered government. Mr Steve Kuncewicz, a specialist media lawyer from Glaisyers Solicitors, said that no legal power comparable to super injunctions existed in the United States and 'couldn't be considered' because of the First Amendment. 'They are a creature of the UK courts,' he said. The orders had previously been sought to prevent the disclosure of 'embarrassing details of people's private lives,' he noted, such as the order obtained in 2010 by a former England soccer player, John Terry, over allegations of an extramarital affair. The use of super injunctions has long been contentious in Britain but, Kuncewicz said, the Afghan data breach case was 'unique'. 'These orders are only meant to stay in place for the shortest amount of time, and be granted in the narrowest terms possible,' he added. 'They are really chilling to free speech.' NYTIMES
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Straits Times
No armed groups allowed in Lebanon, president tells Hezbollah's ally Iran
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani meets with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon, in this handout image released on August 13, 2025. Lebanese Presidency Press Office/Handout via REUTERS BEIRUT - No group in Lebanon is permitted to bear arms or rely on foreign backing, its president told a visiting senior Iranian official on Wednesday after the cabinet approved the goals of a U.S.-backed roadmap to disarm the Iran-aligned Hezbollah group. During a meeting in Beirut with Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's top security body, Joseph Aoun warned against foreign interference in Lebanon's internal affairs, saying the country was open to cooperation with Iran but only within the bounds of national sovereignty and mutual respect. Larijani said the Islamic Republic supports Lebanon's sovereignty and does not interfere in its decision-making. "Any decision taken by the Lebanese government in consultation with the resistance is respected by us," he said after separate talks with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, whose Amal movement is an ally of Hezbollah. By "resistance", Larijani was alluding to the Shi'ite Muslim militant Hezbollah, which was founded in 1982, grew into a "state-within-a-state" force better armed than the Lebanese army and has repeatedly fought Israel over the decades. "Iran didn't bring any plan to Lebanon, the U.S. did. Those intervening in Lebanese affairs are those dictating plans and deadlines", said Larijani. He said Lebanon should not "mix its enemies with its friends - your enemy is Israel, your friend is the resistance". Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore 2 dead after fire in Jalan Bukit Merah flat, about 60 evacuated Singapore How the SAF's drone push for recruits reflects new battlefield realities Singapore HSA seeks Kpod investigators to arrest abusers, conduct anti-trafficking ops Opinion The 30s are heavy: Understanding suicide among Singapore's young adults Singapore Lawyer who sent misleading letters to 22 doctors fails in bid to quash $18,000 penalty Singapore Jail, caning for recalcitrant drug offender who assaulted 2 cops with stun device Singapore 4 taken to hospital after accident near Sports Hub, including 2 rescued with hydraulic tools Singapore SG60: Many hands behind Singapore's success story "I recommend to Lebanon to always appreciate the value of resistance." The U.S. submitted a plan through President Donald Trump's envoy to the region, Tom Barrack, setting out the most detailed steps yet for disarming Hezbollah, which has rejected mounting calls to disarm since its devastating war with Israel last year. Hezbollah has rejected repeated calls to relinquish its weaponry although it was seriously weakened in the war, with Israel killing most of its leadership in airstrikes and bombings. It was the climax of a conflict that began in October 2023 when the group opened fire at Israeli positions along Lebanon's southern frontier in support of its Palestinian Islamist ally Hamas at the start of the Gaza war. Aoun also said recent remarks by some Iranian officials had not been helpful, and reaffirmed that the Lebanese state and its armed forces were solely responsible for protecting all citizens. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran supported any decision Hezbollah makes, adding that this was not the first attempt to strip the group of its weapons. REUTERS
