Press TV, on Iran, 25 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

‘Nothing will be the same’: Araghchi says Hormuz management will never return to pre-war era

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has declared that “nothing will be the same” as before the US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran, including the administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

He made the remarks during the inauguration ceremony of the documentation center and museum of martyred diplomat Kamal Kharrazi, who was assassinated in earlier this year.

He said that fundamental and strategic changes have taken place in West Asia and that nothing will be the same as it was before the 40-day imposed war (also known as the Ramadan war).

“For decades, the Strait of Hormuz has remained open, and neither Iran nor Oman, the two coastal states bordering the waterway, has imposed any restrictions on maritime traffic. On the contrary, both countries have helped ensure security and safety and protect the marine environment,” he added.

“However, the current war has changed everything. We must acknowledge that new realities have emerged. The shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz will no longer be the same as before, nor will the Strait be managed as it was in the past.”

🔴 Iran's FM Araghchi:

— Press TV 🔻 (@PressTV) October 25, 2026

🔺 Israeli regime seeks to weaken regional countries

🔺 Any security plan originating from within region itself is welcomed

🔺 Foreign players should not be in the region as they're only seeking security of Israeli regime pic.twitter.com/FiLIi3wrdi

Iran restricted transit through the Strait of Hormuz .

On June 17, Tehran and Washington signed aPakistan-brokered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), .

However, , prompting Tehran to declare the vital global energy chokepoint closed to all traffic.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never gives the US position on the Strait: that Washington demands unrestricted navigation and that the two sides remain at odds over control, with talks stalled. Without it a reader believes the June deal settled the question in Iran's favour and that only the US is acting against an agreed arrangement.

How we know

Additionally, in his remarks, the foreign minister said that if the aggressors have any sense of reason, they will not try another military assault against the Iranian nation, noting, “They’ve tried twice, and they’ve seen the results.”

, which lasted 12 days, in June 2025. Their second aggression began on February 28, 2026, and came to a halt in early April after 40 days.

Araghchi also stressed that regional security must be ensured by the countries of the region themselves, without relying on or requiring the presence of foreign forces.

Iran and the regional states should live together in peace, without foreign interference, he said. “This is the only way to achieve peace, security, and stability in our region.”

Iran maintains relations with all the Persian Gulf countries while working to reach a shared understanding on a new regional security framework, he continued.

“Our neighborliness policy is based on peaceful coexistence with our neighbors… Another important point is that, in our view, all regional issues are interconnected. It is not possible to have war and conflict in one part of the region while expecting peace and calm in another.”

“That is why, in all our negotiations with the US side, mediated by Pakistan, Qatar and other friendly countries, we have emphasized that any end to the war must encompass all fronts and bring an end to hostilities on every front. Otherwise, we will not see stability in the region.”

Meanwhile, the top Iranian diplomat said that the recent wars constitute a turning point in the history of the region as they have fundamentally disrupted existing security structures and reshaped the regional landscape.

“These wars have demonstrated that the security arrangements of certain countries in the region, which rely on a foreign military presence and external intervention, have proved ineffective,” he pointed out.

“American military bases in the region have failed to bring peace and security to their host countries. On the contrary, their presence has itself become a source of insecurity.”

Moreover, Araghchi described Israel as the primary source of instability and warmongering in the region, saying the regime has consistently obstructed efforts to establish security and stability, and pursued policies that fuel conflict and seek to weaken the regional countries.

He further reiterated Iran’s commitment to endogenous security in the region, a policy promoted by martyr Kharrazi, the head of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations and a former foreign minister, who was assassinated on April 9.

He had been severely wounded in an attack targeting his Tehran residence on April 1, a strike that also claimed the life of his spouse.

Read the original article on presstv.ir (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

Press TV reports Araghchi's speech on the Strait of Hormuz faithfully. In its own voice, though, it states Iran's contested account of the June deal and the US blockade as settled fact, and asserts that Iran's retaliation forced the ceasefire. It also narrates with charged labels such as "terrorist", "criminal" and "Israeli regime", and never gives the US position that other coverage of the same speech reports.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “Washington attempted to undermine Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait and imposed a naval blockade in violation of the war-ending deal”

    Why this matters
    In its own narration Press TV says Washington "attempted to undermine Iran’s sovereignty" and imposed a blockade "in violation of the war-ending deal". Neither claim is attributed to anyone.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it as established that the June deal gave Iran control of the Strait and that the US blockade plainly broke it.
    The context
    The meaning of the deal and control of the waterway are disputed between Iran and the US. Anadolu reports the two sides remain at odds, with Washington demanding unrestricted navigation. This is Iran's position and should be marked as such.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “whose Article 5 places responsibility for reopening and managing the Strait squarely in Iran’s hands”

    Why this matters
    Press TV gives its own reading of Article 5, that responsibility sits "squarely in Iran’s hands", as a plain fact about the agreement.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes the text of the MoU settles the question of who manages the Strait in Iran's favour.
    The context
    Other coverage of the same day reports that control of the Strait is still contested and that talks have stalled. That makes this reading Iran's interpretation, not an agreed fact, and the article cites no text or other party to support it.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iran says Article 5 of the June 17 MoU gives it responsibility for managing the Strait and accuses Washington of breaching the deal by imposing a naval blockade. The US demands unrestricted navigation, and the two sides remain at odds over control of the waterway.

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “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 that Iran's operations "forced the aggressors to accept a ceasefire". This gives one side's account of why two wars ended as established cause and effect.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it as fact that Iranian military action alone compelled the US and Israel to stop.
    The context
    The article offers no source for this causal claim. Elsewhere it mentions negotiations mediated by Pakistan, Qatar and other countries and a signed MoU, so how the ceasefires came about is not as simple as the sentence asserts. The claim should be attributed to Iranian officials.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iranian officials say Iran's retaliatory operations forced the US and Israel to accept ceasefires in both wars.

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “a terrorist US-Israeli strike”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls the strike that killed Kharrazi "terrorist" in its own narration. The sentence rightly names who carried out the strike.
    The impression it gives
    The reader receives a legal and moral verdict on the strike as the outlet's own fact.
    The context
    The article names the actor and calls the killing an assassination, which the facts support. The label "terrorist" is a verdict that belongs to Iranian officials and should be attributed to them.

    Show it in the article

    “in response to the criminal US-Israeli aggression that began on February 28”

    Why this matters
    In a narration line under the embedded post, Press TV calls the war "criminal" aggression in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the criminality of the war as something the outlet has established.
    The context
    No ruling or source in the article supports "criminal". It is a characterisation that should be attributed to Iran's government.

    Show it in the article

    “The US and the Israeli regime waged their first criminal war against Iran”

    Why this matters
    Press TV uses "the Israeli regime" and "criminal war" in its own narration, outside any quotation from Araghchi.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the outlet's own dismissive term for the Israeli state and its verdict on the June 2025 war as plain description.
    The context
    These are terms used by Iranian officials. In the outlet's own voice they carry a verdict the article does not support with evidence.

    Show it in the article

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article never gives the US position on the Strait: that Washington demands unrestricted navigation and that the two sides remain at odds over control, with talks stalled. Without it a reader believes the June deal settled the question in Iran's favour and that only the US is acting against an agreed arrangement.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 26 OctVessels violating Iran’s protocols in southern waters will suffer damage: Top commander3.0
  2. 25 OctIran3.0
  3. 25 OctQalibaf: Any violation of Iran’s territory will trigger response ‘beyond enemy’s imagination’3.0
  4. 25 OctIran’s Baghaei exposes US hypocrisy as Rubio forgets Trump’s ‘pirates’ boast over ship seizures7.3
  5. 25 OctIranian Army intercepts, shoots down US LUCAS drone over Bandar Abbas3.0

Everything we scored from Press TV