Press TV, on Iran, 6 November 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Iran

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

An Iranian lawmaker has warned that the country’s retaliatory missile strikes will reach Europe in case of a new US-Israeli war of aggression, . Hossein-Ali Haji Deligani issued the warning on Friday, one week after Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei ordered the Iranian Armed Forces to deliver a “geographically unrestricted response” to any military assault. He said that Iran’s response will not be limited or proportionate to the scale or location of the enemy’s attacks, but instead it will be a massive, amplified and strategic one, carried out without geographical constraints.

“Any act of sabotage or military aggression by the United States and Israel would trigger an Iranian response, with missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe. Such an escalation could drive oil prices above $150 per barrel,” he added. Meanwhile, Haji Deligani emphasized that there is no rush to end the war and that Tehran will continue on the path of resilience until final victory is achieved, consolidated, and full deterrence is established.

Highlighting the active public support for the Iranian Armed forces and the performance of brave military commanders, he noted that Iran has managed to instill “fear, doubt and division” among its adversaries, thwarting their plots to impose a third criminal war on the nation. The US and , which lasted 12 days, in June 2025. Their second aggression began on February 28 and came to a halt in early April after 40 days.

Iran has also maintained a tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz since the early days of the second imposed war . ‘US moved warships 1,000 kilometers away from Iran’s borders’ Speaking on Thursday, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, a senior advisor to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) commander-in-chief and former Navy commander, said that Iran’s naval capabilities compelled the US to retreat from Iran's coastline.

“During the recent wars, US forces moved their naval vessels and maritime assets more than 1,000 kilometers away from Iran’s borders,” he said. “On occasions when they attempted to approach the region, they were met with a response from Iran’s Armed Forces.” Fadavi further referred to the US’s policy of confrontation with Iran that began in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and continued through a range of measures, including coup attempts, the 1980s’ imposed war, economic sanctions and political pressure.

“In the recent wars, the United States entered the battlefield directly and with its full military might for the first time, bringing the Israeli regime into the confrontation as well. Washington believed it could bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to its knees in a short period of time, but ultimately failed to achieve its objectives,” he pointed out. and remained steadfast despite the most severe economic sanctions.

Read the original article on presstv.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

Press TV reports an Iranian lawmaker's warning that missiles could reach Europe if the US and Israel attack again, and quotes an IRGC adviser. In its own background paragraphs it states as plain fact that the previous wars were illegal and that Iran's retaliation forced a ceasefire, with no source attached. It also uses loaded words in its own voice and turns the lawmaker's conditional oil price warning into a firmer lead.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “waged their first illegal war against Iran”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls the June 2025 war "illegal" in its own narration, with no ruling, body or official named as the source of that judgement.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it that the war's illegality has been established, as a settled finding.
    The context
    The article cites no court, UN body or legal finding. This is the Iranian government's position, and Press TV states it as its own fact. Attributing it to Iranian officials would have been accurate.

    Show it in the article

    “In both wars, Iran’s resistance and successful retaliatory operations forced the aggressors to accept a ceasefire.”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states in its own voice why both wars ended: Iranian retaliation "forced" the US and Israel to accept a ceasefire.
    The impression it gives
    The reader comes away believing that the reason for both ceasefires is a known fact.
    The context
    Why a ceasefire came about is contested between the parties. The article gives no source, and no US or Israeli account is set against it. It is the Iranian official account written as narration.

    Show it in the article

    “in response to Washington’s acts of mischief in West Asia”

    Why this matters
    Press TV gives Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz a cause, "Washington's acts of mischief", in its own voice, without saying who describes it that way or what those acts were.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes Iran's grip on the strait as a plain response to unspecified US wrongdoing.
    The context
    The article names no specific US action and no source for this account of the reasons. It is one side's justification presented as fact.

    Show it in the article

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “the Israeli regime”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls Israel's government "the Israeli regime" in its own narration, outside any quotation.
    The impression it gives
    The reader receives a verdict on the Israeli state's legitimacy as part of the plain news account.
    The context
    The term is a political label. It belongs inside quotation marks, attributed to whoever uses it. The same label appears in Fadavi's quote in S16, which is legitimate there, but here it is the outlet's own word.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“bringing the Israeli regime into the confrontation”

    Show it in the article

    “Driven by their lofty ideals, Iranians have endured hardships”

    Why this matters
    Press TV closes with its own praise of Iranians' motives, saying they are "driven by their lofty ideals", with nothing in the article to support it.
    The impression it gives
    The reader is told, as fact, what drives a whole people's endurance under sanctions.
    The context
    No poll, interview or source in the article speaks to what Iranians feel or why they endure. It is the outlet asserting an unseen motive for millions of people.

    Show it in the article

  3. Lead hardens a conditional quote

    Minor

    “pushing oil prices to new record highs”

    Why this matters
    Press TV's lead says the strikes would push oil prices "to new record highs", stated without any condition.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the effect on oil prices as part of a firm warning, or even as something already happening.
    The context
    The lawmaker's own words are conditional and name a figure, not a record: such an escalation "could drive oil prices above $150 per barrel".

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“could drive oil prices above $150 per barrel”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 8 NovIran prepared to make any new US aggression far more costly: Analyst3.0
  2. 7 NovUS3.0
  3. 7 NovIran’s resolve challenges US-Israeli war plans, reshaping regional dynamics: Analysts0.0
  4. 6 NovNews3.0
  5. 6 NovRezaei’s Moscow meeting part of Iran’s preparations for ‘geographically unrestricted’ war: Analyst3.0

Everything we scored from Press TV