Iran

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

A trial session has been held on a lawsuit lodged by 100 victims of the illegal US-Israeli wars of aggression against the Islamic Republic, according to the head of Iran Judiciary’s Center for Lawyers, Official Experts and Family Counselors. Speaking on the sidelines of the hearing on Sunday, Hassan Abdolianpour said that the case seeks compensation for material, moral, and punitive damages arising from the crimes committed by the United States and the Israeli regime against the Iranian nation.

A total of 100 individuals affected by the criminal wars are named as plaintiffs, and the number is continuing to grow, he added. American and Israeli officials, along with the US government, are also listed as defendants in the complaint. Abdolianpour noted that the suit has been brought under the legal provisions governing the protection of Iranian nationals and the principle of reciprocity. He further emphasized that the court proceedings will continue in future sessions, with the Center for Lawyers working on behalf of people to pursue their legal claims and seek justice.

In cooperation with Iran’s diplomatic missions, the defendants, including the White House, the US Treasury Department, the US Department of War, arms companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, and the Persian Gulf Arab states, have been formally served with the complaint, he said. The US and the Israeli regime waged their first unlawful war against Iran, 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.

In both wars, Iran’s resistance and successful retaliatory operations forced the aggressors to accept a ceasefire. Iran has also maintained a tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz since the early days of the second imposed war in response to the United States’ acts of mischief in West Asia. In recent weeks, Washington has mounted its threats of renewed military assault, prompting Tehran to warn of a "geographically unrestricted response" in legitimate defense of the Iranian nation.

Read the original article on presstv.co.uk

What we found (4)

Press TV reports a hearing in an Iranian court on a compensation suit brought by 100 people harmed in the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. In its own voice the outlet then declares the wars unlawful, credits Iran's operations with forcing a ceasefire and calls Iran's possible response legitimate defence, without attributing any of these to anyone. It also uses loaded terms such as "the Israeli regime" and "acts of mischief" in its narration.

States one side's claim as fact
Serious
“Iran’s resistance and successful retaliatory operations forced the aggressors to accept a ceasefire”
Why this matters
Press TV states in its own voice, with no source, why both ceasefires came about: Iran's operations "forced" them.
The impression it gives
The reader takes it as fact that Iran's military action alone compelled the US and Israel to stop.
The context
How each war ended is contested. The outlet's own earlier report records Trump claiming he had destroyed Iran's military capabilities. The article gives no evidence for its account of why the ceasefires happened.
How we know
- Press TV wrote earlier“dismissing President Donald Trump’s claims of having destroyed Iran’s military capabilities”Iran’s resolve challenges US-Israeli war plans, reshaping regional dynamics: Analysts (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
States one side's claim as fact
Minor
“waged their first unlawful war against Iran”
Why this matters
Press TV uses the word "unlawful" in its own narration, with no source attached, to give a legal verdict on the June 2025 war.
The impression it gives
The reader takes it that the war's unlawfulness is a settled finding the outlet is simply reporting.
The context
The article cites no court or legal body for this verdict. Its only source is an official of Iran's judiciary, a party to the dispute, whose suit is still being heard (S1, S6).
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“according to the head of Iran Judiciary’s Center for Lawyers”
- Elsewhere in the article“the court proceedings will continue in future sessions”
Show it in the article
“in legitimate defense of the Iranian nation”
Why this matters
Press TV describes a threatened "geographically unrestricted response" as "legitimate defense" in its own voice, outside the quotation marks.
The impression it gives
The reader takes it as established that any future Iranian strike, wherever it lands, would be lawful self-defence.
The context
This is Tehran's own characterisation of its warning. The outlet adopts it instead of attributing it.
How we know
- Press TV wrote earlier“it extends beyond the Strait of Hormuz to military bases and facilities supporting attacks on Iran”Iran’s resolve challenges US-Israeli war plans, reshaping regional dynamics: Analysts (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“the Israeli regime”
Why this matters
Press TV calls the Israeli government "the Israeli regime" in its own narration.
The impression it gives
The reader receives a verdict on the Israeli state's legitimacy as plain description.
The context
Nothing in the article supports the term as a description. It is a political label, used here in the outlet's own voice and not attributed to anyone.
Show it in the article
“acts of mischief”
Why this matters
Press TV describes US actions in West Asia as "acts of mischief" without saying what those actions were.
The impression it gives
The reader is given a moral verdict on unnamed US conduct as the reason for Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz.
The context
The article names no specific US action, so the phrase carries a judgement without facts behind it.
Show it in the article
One side gets the space
Minor
“the defendants, including the White House, the US Treasury Department, the US Department of War, arms companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, and the Persian Gulf Arab states, have been formally served with the complaint”
Why this matters
Press TV lists named defendants, including companies and Gulf Arab states, but the only voice in the article is the plaintiffs' lawyer.
The impression it gives
The reader hears only the plaintiffs' account of the suit, including the claim that the defendants were formally served.
The context
The article gives no comment from any defendant and does not say whether one was sought.
How we know
- Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “comment”.
Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

Everything we scored from Press TV

Iran

States one side's claim as fact

States one side's claim as fact

Uses a loaded word

One side gets the space

More from Press TV