Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has ordered the restoration of international internet access across the country, ending an 87-day blackout that left most of the population cut off from the global web. The directive was formally sent to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology and aims to return connectivity to its pre-January 2026 status. ICT Minister Sattar Hashemi told the Shargh daily that the restoration process had already begun, and the semi-official ISNA news agency reported the order is expected to be implemented on Tuesday.

The decision followed the fourth meeting of the Special Task Force on Cyberspace Management, which ended with nine votes in favor and three against reconnecting Iran to the global internet. Peyman Jebelli, head of Iran's state broadcaster, and Mohammad-Amin Aghamiri, secretary of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, were among the strongest opponents of the move. The IRGC-affiliated Fars News agency initially questioned whether the administration had the authority to issue such an order, arguing that because the restrictions were imposed by the Supreme National Security Council, only the same body could formally reverse them. Hours later, Fars softened its position in an editorial describing the reopening as a necessary technical and security decision that would have happened sooner or later as cyber conditions improved.

The internet restrictions began on January 8 following nationwide anti-regime protests driven by economic instability. The curbs were briefly eased on January 23 before being reimposed on February 28, the same day the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran. According to internet monitoring group NetBlocks, connectivity across the country remained between just 1 percent and 2 percent of normal levels for weeks, compared with 90 percent to 100 percent before the restrictions began. NetBlocks described the shutdown as the most severe by extent and duration tracked in the history of modern internet connectivity, lasting more than 2,064 hours of total disconnection.

The prolonged restrictions inflicted severe damage on Iran's digital economy. A report by Shargh newspaper estimated direct economic losses at more than 3,000 trillion rials, roughly $4 billion, over a 60-day period, with daily losses for internet-dependent businesses estimated at between $30 million and $40 million. More than a million people are believed to have lost work due to the combined effects of war, protests, and internet restrictions. Small businesses that depended on social media advertising were among the hardest hit. Freelancers working with overseas clients lost communication channels, and tech startups and software developers saw projects stall or be abandoned. Meta, the owner of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram, reported that average daily users of its apps fell from 3.58 billion to 3.56 billion in the first quarter of the year, partly because of internet disruptions in Iran.

During the blackout, Iran introduced a restricted paid system called Internet Pro, offering selected users less-filtered internet through special white SIM cards. Applicants reportedly had to provide personal documents and explain why they needed access. Large-volume internet packages for preferred users were being sold for more than 20 million rials (around $12), while the minimum wage in Iran currently stands at just over $90 per month. Meanwhile, the satellite-based internet system Starlink spread inside the country, with thousands of terminals reportedly smuggled in after the government crackdown. Using Starlink remains illegal in Iran, and authorities have reportedly searched homes and rooftops to find users. VPN prices also multiplied several times since the beginning of the war, though free anti-censorship tools developed by independent developers have occasionally disrupted the market.

The broader context shows Iran under severe economic strain. Majid Rahmati, a board member of Tehran's Coordination Council of Islamic Labor Councils, said chicken prices had risen to around 470,000 tomans per kilogram. A minimum household living basket previously estimated at 45 million tomans had climbed to around 70 million, while married workers receive wages of roughly 24 million tomans a month.

Diplomatic efforts to end the three-month conflict continue. Senior Iranian officials, including parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, arrived in Doha for talks with Qatar's prime minister. A source familiar with the talks told Al Jazeera that Qatari mediation had helped secure an understanding between the United States and Iran over Tehran's frozen financial assets, and that the breakthrough on one of Iran's key demands had significantly increased the chances of a wider agreement being announced soon. Qatar dismissed reports claiming Iran was being offered $12 billion to help secure a deal, calling the claims an attempt to sabotage ongoing diplomacy.

Both Washington and Tehran played down expectations of an immediate breakthrough. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said diplomacy would be given every opportunity but warned the US would pursue another way if negotiations failed. US President Donald Trump stressed that no deal had been finalized and insisted the US naval blockade around Iran would remain in place until a formal agreement was signed. Trump stated that Iran's enriched uranium must be turned over to the United States or destroyed under international oversight as a condition for a diplomatic agreement, insisting that the International Atomic Energy Agency verify the process. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said progress had been made on several issues but cautioned that the sides were still not close to signing any agreement. Former US special envoy to Iran Robert Malley said Tehran would not abandon what it sees as its right of enrichment, regardless of pressure from Trump.

The negotiations are focused on restoring navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, resolving disputes over Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, sanctions relief, and the release of frozen Iranian assets. Major sticking points remain unresolved, including the sequencing of commitments by both sides. The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council said there would be no surrender or retreat, signaling Tehran's continued defiance amid ongoing tensions.

Talk of a possible agreement has intensified political attacks on Qalibaf, a central figure in Iran's diplomatic push. An unusually blunt report published by the semi-official Iran Labour News Agency described what it called organized destruction, media pressure campaigns, and coordinated text-message attacks targeting Qalibaf ahead of the parliamentary leadership vote. A lawmaker interviewed by ILNA accused political rivals of orchestrating text-message campaigns against Qalibaf in an effort to influence members of parliament, saying opponents were portraying support for negotiations as a form of surrender or deviation from revolutionary principles.

The United States military carried out strikes against Iranian missile launch sites and boats near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, describing the actions as defensive measures to protect American troops. US Central Command said the strikes targeted boats attempting to lay mines and missile launch sites, adding that forces continue to exercise restraint during the ongoing ceasefire. Explosions were reported in the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas, which hosts a major Iranian naval air base, and in nearby coastal areas including Sirik and Jask. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said three explosions were heard in Bandar Abbas early on Tuesday local time and later reported an explosion near Bandar Abbas airport, adding that Iran's air defense system in the area had been activated to counter hostile targets. Several people were reported killed after what Iranian outlet SNN described as a US-Israeli attack on the southern part of Larak Island near the Strait of Hormuz early Monday local time. The report named three of the alleged victims as Abbas Eslami, Ghodrat Zarangari, and Abdolreza Golzari, though the total number of casualties remains unclear. There were also unconfirmed reports that those killed were affiliated with the IRGC.

Oil prices dropped sharply on Monday amid cautious optimism over diplomacy. The head of the International Energy Agency warned in May that unless progress is made toward ending the crisis with Iran, the global oil market could enter a red zone by summer. IEA member states began gradually releasing strategic petroleum reserves in mid-March to offset sharp declines in Gulf energy exports, with hundreds of millions of barrels already released from emergency stockpiles. High energy prices have weakened demand growth and raised recession fears in major economies, while shipping disruptions in the Persian Gulf continue to inject volatility into global markets.

In Lebanon, fighting continued as Israeli forces and Hezbollah exchanged fresh attacks across the border. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to wipe out Hezbollah and ordered an escalation of attacks. The Israeli military said it struck more than 70 Hezbollah targets across Lebanon over the past 24 hours, including command centers and weapons depots in the southern city of Tyre, using more than 85 munitions. The Lebanese Health Ministry reported 34 people killed and 62 wounded in the past 24 hours, with Lebanese sources saying 3,185 people have been killed and 9,633 wounded since the beginning of Israel's war with Iran. Seven people were killed and several others injured in Israeli air strikes across southern Lebanon. An air strike on Machghara killed five people and left rescue teams searching through rubble for survivors. In a separate strike on Kouthariyeh el-Siyad, two people were killed and two others injured. Israeli warplanes also carried out raids on Nabatieh, Chmait, and Rachaf. Families began leaving Beirut's southern suburbs following fresh warnings from Netanyahu. The Israeli military also announced tightened restrictions on public gatherings in northern Israel, limiting open-area gatherings to 50 people and indoor gatherings to 200. Hostile aircraft sirens sounded in northern Israel early Tuesday but were later determined to be a false alarm.

US President Donald Trump paid tribute to American troops killed during the Iran conflict while speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, vowing that Tehran would never have a nuclear weapon. He honored the 13 US service members killed in Operation Epic Fury.

The Tehran municipality said that 97 percent of buildings requiring minor repairs after damage caused by US-Israeli attacks have already been restored, with all remaining damaged units expected to be repaired by next week. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi issued messages of support to Lebanon's parliament speaker Nabih Berri and Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on the anniversary of Resistance and Liberation Day, marking Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, reaffirming Tehran's backing for Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a phone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss tensions involving Iran, the war in Ukraine, and broader US-Russia relations. Oman's Sultan Haitham bin Tariq held a phone call with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to discuss bilateral ties and ongoing regional developments, with the Omani leader praising the emir's role in supporting dialogue and peaceful solutions.

In other developments, Iran executed Abbas Akbari Feyzabadi, a detainee arrested during January protests in Isfahan province, after the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence. He had been convicted on charges including moharebeh, or waging war against God, deliberate destruction of public property, disrupting public order, and collusion against national security. With this execution, at least 38 prisoners convicted on political or security-related charges have been executed in Iran since March 18. Cases involving espionage and national security accusations in the Islamic Republic have long drawn scrutiny from rights groups and lawyers over allegations of forced confessions, torture, restricted access to independent lawyers, and denial of fair trial guarantees.

Rauf Derakhshani-Mehr, a 19-year-old university student killed during January protests in the southern city of Dezful, was buried at night under pressure from security forces after his family located his body in a morgue. The law student at Islamic Azad University was shot dead during protests on January 9, struck by a live bullet in the side and also suffering metal pellet wounds. His family spent hours searching for him and were given conflicting information by different authorities, at one point being told he was still alive. His body was eventually identified at the forensic medicine office in Ahvaz after being transferred there as an unidentified person. Before handing over the body, authorities forced the family to agree that the burial would take place at night and be attended only by a small number of people.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told Israeli President Isaac Herzog that the treatment of Canadian citizens detained aboard a Gaza-bound flotilla was unacceptable and called for an independent investigation. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar responded that the activists were inspired by Hamas and raised concerns about antisemitic incidents in Canada.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (iran) (irgc) (tehran) (qatar) (centcom)

This article provides limited practical value for a normal reader. It reports on military strikes, diplomatic negotiations, and internet policy changes in Iran, but it does not give any clear steps, choices, or tools that a person can act on right now. There are no instructions to follow, no resources to contact, and no decisions a reader can make based on the information presented. The article simply recounts what happened near Bandar Abbas, what Trump said about uranium, and what is happening with frozen assets and internet access. A reader cannot do anything with this information beyond being aware that these events occurred.

The educational depth is shallow. The article mentions the Strait of Hormuz, enriched uranium, frozen assets, and internet restrictions, but it does not explain what any of these things mean in practice. A reader unfamiliar with why the Strait of Hormuz matters to global oil shipping would not learn that here. A reader who does not know what enriched uranium is or why handing it over would be significant would not find an explanation. The 12 billion dollars in frozen assets is stated as a number without context for how that money got frozen, who controls it, or what releasing it would actually do. The article tells a series of events but does not teach the reader how to think about similar situations in the future.

Personal relevance is narrow for most readers. The events described affect people in Iran, US and Iranian military personnel, and those involved in diplomatic negotiations. For a reader elsewhere, this is a distant event with no direct impact on their safety, money, health, or daily decisions. The article does not explain how these events might affect global oil prices, travel to the region, or other areas that could touch a normal person's life. Without that connection, the information stays abstract and remote.

The public service function is weak. The article does not offer warnings, safety guidance, or emergency information that a reader can use. It does not tell someone how to stay safe if they are in the region, how to verify news about the conflict, or what to do if they are affected by internet disruptions. It recounts events without offering context or help for the public. The conflicting reports from Iranian sources are presented without guidance on how to evaluate which claims are more reliable.

There is no practical advice in the article. No steps, tips, or guidance are given that a reader could follow. The article does not suggest how to evaluate news about international conflicts, how to prepare for potential disruptions in global markets, or how to think critically about competing claims from different governments. It leaves the reader with information but no direction.

The long term impact is minimal. The article focuses on a single moment in an ongoing conflict and does not help a person plan ahead, improve habits, or make stronger choices in the future. A reader cannot use this information to navigate similar situations later because the article does not explain the underlying dynamics or how to recognize patterns in international disputes.

The emotional impact is mixed. The description of strikes, casualties, and conflicting reports may create anxiety or concern, but the article does not offer clarity or constructive thinking. It presents a tense and unresolved situation without giving the reader a way to process or respond to the information. The emotional weight sits unresolved, which may leave a reader feeling uneasy rather than informed.

The article does not rely heavily on clickbait language, but the structure of presenting multiple dramatic developments in one piece, strikes, uranium demands, frozen assets disputes, internet restoration, creates a sense of constant crisis that serves to maintain attention. The phrase "still unfolding" adds urgency without adding substance. The conflicting reports are presented in a way that highlights drama rather than clarity.

The article misses several chances to teach. It could have explained why the Strait of Hormuz is strategically important and what happens when tensions rise there. It could have described what enriched uranium is and why its disposal is a standard part of nuclear negotiations. It could have offered basic guidance on how to evaluate conflicting reports from different government sources during a crisis. A reader could independently compare accounts from multiple independent outlets, look for patterns in how similar events are reported, and consider general principles when assessing the reliability of claims made by parties in a conflict.

To add value, a reader encountering a situation like this can use basic reasoning. When evaluating any news about an international conflict, a person can check whether multiple independent sources report the same facts, whether the sources have a clear reason to favor one side, and whether official statements match observable events. Asking direct questions about who benefits from a particular claim, what evidence supports it, and whether the source has been reliable in the past can help separate fact from spin. If a person wants to understand how global events might affect them, thinking through basic connections, such as whether a conflict could affect oil prices, travel routes, or the cost of goods, helps make distant events more personally relevant. For anyone trying to stay informed about international disputes, setting a personal policy of waiting for confirmation before accepting dramatic claims, and relying on sources that explain context rather than just reporting events, can lead to a clearer and more useful understanding. These steps do not require specialized knowledge and apply broadly to evaluating news, making decisions, and staying informed in a complex world.

The text uses the phrase "defensive actions" to describe US military strikes. This phrase makes the attacks sound like they were only done to protect, not to hurt. It helps the United States look like it was not the one starting a fight. The word "defensive" pushes the reader to think the US had no other choice. This hides the fact that the strikes still killed people and could be seen as an attack by others.

The text says "several people were reported killed" but does not say who reported it or give a clear number. This soft wording hides how many people died and makes the deaths feel less real. It helps the United States by not making the harm feel too big. The reader may not feel as sad or angry because the words are vague and do not show the full picture.

The text calls the Iranian outlet "SNN" and says it described the event as a "US-Israeli attack." By naming only one small source for this claim, the text makes it sound less sure than the US Central Command report. This helps the US side look more trustworthy. The reader may think the Iranian report is just one opinion, while the US report sounds more official.

The text says the IRGC-affiliated outlet "initially questioned the legality of the decision but appeared to fall in line behind it." This makes the Iranian government look divided and then forced to agree. It helps the idea that the Iranian leadership is not united. The word "appeared" also hides whether they really agreed or just stopped talking about it.

The text says Qatar "denied reports suggesting it offered Iran 12 billion dollars" and calls the claims "an attempt to sabotage ongoing diplomacy." This makes Qatar look like it is being blamed unfairly. The phrase "attempt to sabotage" pushes the reader to think someone is trying to hurt the talks. It helps Qatar by making the claim sound like a lie meant to cause trouble.

The text says "Iran disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz" but says the US "moved to enforce a naval blockade." The word "disrupted" makes Iran sound like the one causing problems. The word "enforce" makes the US sound like it is keeping order. This helps the US look like it is fixing what Iran broke, even though both actions made shipping harder.

The text says "Iranian officials demanding guaranteed access to billions of dollars held abroad." The word "demanding" makes Iran sound pushy and not willing to work together. It helps the reader think Iran is being difficult in the talks. A softer word like "requesting" would not make Iran look as stubborn.

The text says "soaring food prices have pushed many workers beyond the brink." This strong phrase makes the situation sound very bad and urgent. It helps the reader feel sorry for workers in Iran. The words push the idea that the government has failed its people, which can make the reader support actions against that government.

The text says the IEA head "warned" that the oil market "could enter a red zone by summer." The word "red zone" is a strong, scary phrase that makes the reader feel danger is coming. It helps the idea that the crisis with Iran is a big threat to the whole world. The reader may feel more scared and support stronger actions because of this warning.

The text says "Hundreds of millions of barrels have already been released from emergency stockpiles, according to market estimates." The phrase "market estimates" hides who exactly said this and how sure the number is. It makes the claim sound like a fact without showing the source clearly. This helps the reader accept the number without questioning it.

The text says "High energy prices have weakened demand growth and raised recession fears in major economies." This sentence puts the blame for money problems on the crisis with Iran. It helps the reader think Iran is hurting the whole world's economy. The words push the idea that stopping Iran's actions would fix these problems.

The text says "unconfirmed reports that those killed were affiliated with the IRGC." The word "unconfirmed" tells the reader this might not be true, but it still puts the idea in their head. It helps the US by making the dead people sound like they were part of a military group, not regular people. This can make the reader feel less sad about the deaths.

The text says "An IRGC-affiliated outlet initially questioned the legality of the decision." The phrase "IRGC-affiliated" links the outlet to a military group the US has called a terrorist group. This helps the reader think the outlet is not fair or independent. The words push the idea that the outlet is just repeating what the military wants people to hear.

The text says "the global oil market could enter a red zone by summer" but does not explain what "red zone" means. This vague phrase scares the reader without giving clear facts. It helps the idea that the situation is very dangerous. The reader may feel more worried and support stronger actions because they do not fully understand what is being warned about.

The text says "shipping disruptions in the Persian Gulf continue to inject volatility into global markets." The word "volatility" is a soft, technical word that hides how bad the problems really are. It helps the reader feel like this is just a money problem, not something that hurts real people. The words make the situation sound less serious than it might be.

The text says "A minimum household living basket previously estimated at 45 million tomans had climbed to around 70 million, while married workers receive wages of roughly 24 million tomans a month." These numbers show a big gap between what people need and what they earn. The text uses these numbers to make the reader feel that workers in Iran are suffering a lot. This helps the idea that the Iranian government is not taking care of its people.

The text says "Iran appears set to restore internet access after a three-month blackout." The word "appears" hides whether this is really going to happen or just a guess. It helps the reader feel like things might be getting better, but the text does not promise it. This soft wording keeps the reader from being sure about what will happen next.

The text carries a strong undercurrent of hardship and distress, most vividly expressed through the description of Iran's economic crisis. The phrase "soaring food prices have pushed many workers beyond the brink" conveys desperation and suffering, painting a picture of ordinary people struggling to afford basic necessities like chicken, eggs, and legumes. The specific numbers, such as chicken prices reaching 470,000 tomans per kilogram and the minimum household living basket climbing from 45 million to 70 million tomans while wages remain at roughly 24 million tomans, ground this suffering in concrete, relatable terms. This creates sympathy for Iranian civilians and subtly builds the case that the government has failed its people, which may lead the reader to view external pressure on Iran as justified or necessary. The emotional weight here is heavy and deliberate, designed to make the reader feel the urgency of the crisis and to see it as more than just a political or military issue.

A sense of relief and cautious hope appears in the opening paragraphs regarding the restoration of internet access. The phrase "Iran appears set to restore internet access after a three-month blackout" carries a tone of positive change after a period of restriction and isolation. The word "appears" tempers this hope with uncertainty, but the overall direction suggests improvement. This emotion serves to signal that the situation in Iran is not static and that policy shifts are occurring, possibly in response to internal or external pressure. It gives the reader a sense that progress, however tentative, is being made, which can build a subtle narrative that sustained pressure on Iran yields results.

Fear and anxiety run throughout the sections dealing with military conflict and global economic consequences. The description of US strikes targeting boats and missile launch sites, combined with the phrase "several people were reported killed," introduces a tone of danger and loss. The mention of "unconfirmed reports that those killed were affiliated with the IRGC" adds a layer of ambiguity that can heighten unease, as the reader is left uncertain about the full scope of casualties and who exactly was affected. The IEA head's warning that the global oil market "could enter a red zone by summer" is perhaps the most fear-driven passage in the text. The phrase "red zone" is deliberately alarming, evoking a sense of imminent crisis without requiring detailed explanation. This fear is extended to the global economy through phrases like "recession fears in major economies" and "shipping disruptions continue to inject volatility into global markets." These emotions are designed to make the reader feel that the conflict with Iran is not a distant, contained event but one with direct consequences for the entire world, thereby building support for decisive action to resolve the crisis.

Anger and tension are present in the diplomatic passages, though they are expressed through word choice rather than explicit emotional language. The phrase "Iranian officials demanding guaranteed access to billions of dollars held abroad" uses the word "demanding" to convey a tone of confrontation and stubbornness, framing Iran as an uncooperative party in negotiations. Similarly, Qatar's denial of reports that it offered Iran 12 billion dollars, described as "an attempt to sabotage ongoing diplomacy," introduces an emotion of frustration and accusation, suggesting that outside forces are working to undermine progress. These word choices guide the reader to view the diplomatic process as fraught with obstacles, some of which are attributed to Iranian intransigence and others to external interference.

The text also conveys a sense of authority and control through the language used to describe US military actions. The phrase "defensive actions intended to protect troops from threats posed by Iranian forces" frames the US strikes as necessary and justified, evoking a sense of measured strength rather than aggression. The use of "defensive" is a key persuasive tool, as it shifts the emotional framing from one of attack to one of protection. This serves to build trust in the US position and to make the reader more accepting of military action by associating it with safety and responsibility rather than escalation.

The writer employs several techniques to increase emotional impact. Repetition of crisis-related themes, economic hardship, military strikes, shipping disruptions, and diplomatic stalemate creates a cumulative effect that makes the situation feel overwhelming and urgent. Specific numbers and concrete details, such as the price of chicken or the amount of frozen assets, serve to make abstract geopolitical issues feel personal and immediate. The contrast between the suffering of Iranian civilians and the measured, defensive language used to describe US actions creates an implicit comparison that guides the reader to view the US as a stabilizing force and the Iranian government as the source of instability. The use of vague but evocative phrases like "red zone" and "beyond the brink" relies on emotional resonance rather than precise definition, allowing the reader to fill in the gaps with their own sense of alarm. Together, these tools steer the reader toward a view of the situation that is sympathetic to Iranian civilians, wary of the Iranian government, and supportive of efforts, both diplomatic and military, to bring the crisis to an end.