Press TV, on Iran, 24 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Iran will not allow ‘rusty’ US military vessels to re-enter Persian Gulf: Top commander

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

Iran will never allow US military vessels to enter the Persian Gulf, the country’s top military commander has warned, saying US naval forces are no longer capable of approaching the waters surrounding the strategic waterway.

Major General Ali Abdollahi, Chief of the General Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, made the remarks .

He said Iran’s Armed Forces have rendered the US Navy ineffective, despite Washington’s portrayal of the force as a symbol of American power and its use to threaten countries in the region and beyond.

“The US president must only dream of their military and army entering the Persian Gulf again. They will take this wish to their graves,” Abdollahi said.

“We will under no circumstances and at no time allow rusty US military vessels to enter the Persian Gulf,” he added.

The senior commander also questioned US President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that Iran’s nuclear facilities have been destroyed, while Washington continued to insist that Tehran must not possess nuclear weapons — a claim repeatedly rejected by the Islamic Republic.

“If you have destroyed everything, then what is the meaning of repeating this delusion?” Abdollahi said, describing the statements as meaningless and contradictory.

He argued that they were intended to mislead public opinion worldwide, particularly in the United States.

, asking why US warships and military forces have not dared to approach the Strait of Hormuz or Iran’s maritime and land borders.

Abdollahi said Iran’s leadership, people, armed forces, and officials are determined to push the United States and Israel deeper into a quagmire of their own making.

Iran’s strategy, he went on, is to ensure that the longer the confrontation continues, the deeper its enemies would sink into “a quagmire of death and decline.”

The US and , which lasted 12 days, in June 2025. , and came to a halt in early April after 40 days.

In both wars, .

Iran has also maintained a tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz since the early days of the second imposed war.

In July, the US conducted waves of deadly air raids on Iran and imposed a naval blockade of the country , signed on June 17, to end the war.

In response, the Iranian Armed Forces launched devastating strikes against strategic American targets across West Asia and declared the Strait of Hormuz closed to all traffic.

Read the original article on presstv.ir (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

Press TV reports the Iranian military chief's threats against US warships fairly as his words, but then gives the Iranian government's account of the two wars and the July events in its own voice. It calls the US and Israeli actions 'criminal war' and 'aggression', says Iran forced both ceasefires, and says the US broke the Islamabad deal, all as plain fact. No US account is set against any of it.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “waged their first criminal war against Iran”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls the June 2025 war 'criminal' in its own narration, with no source attached.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it as established fact that the June 2025 war was a crime.
    The context
    This is the Iranian government's characterisation. The article cites no ruling, finding or source for it. It is a party's verdict written as the outlet's own.

    Show it in the article

    “Their second aggression began on February 28, 2026”

    Why this matters
    Press TV labels the February 2026 war 'aggression' in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes the second war was plainly an unprovoked attack on Iran, as settled fact.
    The context
    The article gives no facts on how the February 2026 fighting began. It names no source for the label. It simply adopts one side's framing.

    Show it in the article

    “in violation of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Islamic Republic”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states in its own voice that the July US raids and blockade broke the Islamabad MoU.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it as fact that the US broke the June 17 agreement.
    The context
    Whether the MoU was violated is a contested question between the two parties. The article gives no US account and attributes the claim to no one.

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    In July, the US carried out deadly air raids on Iran and imposed a naval blockade, which Iran says violated the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 17.

  2. 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 asserts in its own voice why both wars ended: Iran's strikes 'forced' its enemies into a ceasefire.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes it is established that Iran won both wars militarily and dictated the ceasefires.
    The context
    This is Iran's government's account of why the fighting stopped. The article offers no sourcing and no other party's account of the ceasefires.

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iranian officials say Iran's military operations forced the US and Israel to accept a ceasefire in both wars.

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “the Israeli regime”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls Israel's government 'the Israeli regime' in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    The reader receives a verdict on the Israeli government's legitimacy as plain description.
    The context
    The word carries a verdict the article's facts do not set out. 'The Israeli government' would report the same fact without it.

    Show it in the article

  4. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “while pointing to successive US military defeats in West Asia”

    Why this matters
    Press TV describes 'successive US military defeats' in its own narration, not as the commander's words.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the US defeats as an agreed fact that the commander merely cited.
    The context
    The article names no defeats and gives no source for them. It is the commander's view folded into the outlet's voice.

    Show it in the article

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “He also challenged Washington’s assertions that Iran’s military capabilities have been eliminated”

    Why this matters
    Press TV reports the commander's rebuttal of US statements but never quotes the US statements themselves or any US response.
    The impression it gives
    The reader hears only the Iranian side of the dispute over Iran's capabilities and US naval movements.
    The context
    The article contains no US official's words. Washington appears only as paraphrased by the commander.

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 24 OctIran presented no new proposals to Pakistani mediator on Hormuz: Report6.0
  2. 24 OctIRGC warns ‘apocalyptic war’ will reverberate beyond Iran, shape region’s fate6.0
  3. 24 OctIranian intelligence, IRGC forces arrest two over collaboration with foreign spy agencies8.2
  4. 24 OctTwelve countries warn against normalizing attacks on peaceful nuclear sites3.0
  5. 24 OctNo state can rewrite NPT to undermine Tehran’s right to nuclear energy: Iran at UN6.0

Everything we scored from Press TV

See how 7 outlets covered this story