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.5 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 in response to the criminal US-Israeli aggression that began on February 28.

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 says that Washington contests Iran's authority over the Strait, that the June agreement was an interim deal, or that negotiations have stalled. Without this, a reader believes a final settlement gave Iran undisputed control and the US simply broke it, when Anadolu reports an open dispute and stalled talks.

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.”

The US and against Iran, 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, .

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

Press TV reports Abbas Araghchi's speech fairly as speech, but in its own voice it states Iran's contested reading of the June memorandum, the US blockade and the outcome of both wars as settled fact. It also leaves out that Washington disputes control of the Strait and that the June deal was an interim one with stalled talks. It narrates with loaded labels such as "criminal", "terrorist" and "the Israeli regime".

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

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

    Why this matters
    Press TV states in its own voice, with no attribution, what Article 5 of the memorandum means: "squarely in Iran’s hands".
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes the June memorandum plainly settled control of the Strait in Iran's favour and that nobody disputes this.
    The context
    Control of the waterway is the open dispute between the two governments. Anadolu reports that the two remain at odds over control and that Washington demands unrestricted navigation. Press TV gives Tehran's reading of the text as fact.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “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
    Press TV asserts as its own fact that the US blockade violated the deal and calls the June memorandum the "war-ending deal".
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes a final peace settlement existed and the US plainly broke it.
    The context
    Anadolu describes the June agreement as an interim deal and says negotiations have stalled. Whether the blockade breached it is Tehran's charge. Press TV does not present it as a claim made by one party.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iran says Article 5 of the June memorandum gives it responsibility for managing the Strait, and accuses Washington of breaching the interim deal by imposing a naval blockade. The US demands unrestricted navigation, and talks have stalled.

  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 narration, not as Araghchi's view, that Iranian operations "forced" the US and Israel to accept both ceasefires.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes it is an established fact that Iran's military action alone compelled both ceasefires.
    The context
    This is the Iranian government's account of why the fighting stopped. The article itself says negotiations were mediated by Pakistan, Qatar and others, and it cites no source for the causal claim.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“in all our negotiations with the US side, mediated by Pakistan, Qatar and other friendly countries”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

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

  3. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “the Israeli regime waged their first criminal war”

    Why this matters
    Press TV calls Israel's government "the Israeli regime" and the war "criminal" in its own narration, not in a quotation.
    The impression it gives
    The reader is handed a verdict on the government and the war as part of the plain facts.
    The context
    These are characterisations, not facts the article establishes. Anadolu describes the same events as "the US-Israeli war that began in February". "Regime" belongs inside quotation marks, as the brief requires for the same word applied to Iran.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “a terrorist US-Israeli strike”

    Why this matters
    Press TV labels the strike on Kharrazi "terrorist" in its own voice, not as an Iranian official's description.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the terrorism label as a neutral fact of the killing.
    The context
    The strike's actor is named, which is right. The label "terrorist" is Tehran's characterisation, and the article attributes it to no one.

    Show it in the article

  4. Writes the death out

    Minor

    “a strike that also claimed the life of his spouse”

    Why this matters
    Press TV writes the death of Kharrazi's wife as a strike that "claimed the life" of her and gives her no name.
    The impression it gives
    The reader registers her death as an aside to Kharrazi's story, not as a killing in its own right.
    The context
    She was killed in the same US-Israeli strike on the family's Tehran residence that the article names in S2. The article never uses the word killed for her.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“assassinated in a terrorist US-Israeli strike earlier this year”

    Show it in the article

  5. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article never says that Washington contests Iran's authority over the Strait, that the June agreement was an interim deal, or that negotiations have stalled. Without this, a reader believes a final settlement gave Iran undisputed control and the US simply broke it, when Anadolu reports an open dispute and stalled talks.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 25 OctIran3.0
  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