Iranian MP says Tehran is restraining military from striking US fleet amid Gulf tensions
Political leaders in Tehran are holding back the military from launching high-intensity attacks on US naval assets in the Persian Gulf, according to an Iranian member of parliament on a key national security committee. The comments point to internal friction inside Iran's decision-making structure at a time of heightened tension over a US blockade and the risk of a naval confrontation. The lawmaker said the restraint was being applied by political authorities and traditional decision-making bodies rather than by the armed forces themselves.
Sponsored
Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, who sits on the parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said Iran had so far been prevented from carrying out high-intensity offensive operations against the US fleet. He described the commission as one of the Majlis's most sensitive committees, saying it receives classified security briefings and helps shape legislative responses to foreign and defence policy. In the same remarks, he said Tehran had warned Washington that any seizure or strike on Iranian vessels would be met with the sinking of a US warship or attacks on US regional bases.
Ardestani said Iran views asymmetric naval retaliation as its main way out of what he called the pressure of the blockade. That framing suggests Iranian leaders are weighing the costs of direct confrontation against the possibility of limited but wider-reaching retaliation in the Gulf and beyond. The comments also indicate that, for now, the political leadership is trying to prevent a move that could trigger a broader military exchange with the United States.
The issue matters because the Persian Gulf is a critical maritime corridor and any clash involving naval forces there could quickly affect regional security. The remarks also underline the role of Iran's overlapping centres of power, where elected institutions, security bodies and the armed forces can all influence policy. In this case, the public statement from a parliamentarian offers a rare glimpse into how escalation decisions may be being managed behind closed doors.
Sponsored
The report comes amid wider uncertainty over Iran's leadership and security chain of command. Unconfirmed reports have circulated that IRGC commander General Ahmad Vahidi has taken on a more prominent role in day-to-day security decisions since the US-Israeli strikes on 28 February left Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei out of public view. Those claims have not been confirmed by Iranian officials, but they add to the sense of strain around the country's top decision-making structures.
Khamenei has not appeared in any video or audio recording since then, although he has released written statements read on state-run media. In one recent statement, he said Iranian leaders stood before what he called the "epic actions" of the Iranian nation in its "unique and historic resistance" against two global terrorist armies. He also said the burden on officials of the Islamic Republic had become heavier, from the leadership and heads of government branches to all levels of management.
The same statement also referred to the broader strategic backdrop, including the issue of high-enriched uranium stockpiles, which remain a key obstacle to ongoing peace talks. According to the report, Khamenei ordered on Thursday that those stockpiles must not be removed. That detail suggests the confrontation with Washington is not limited to naval tensions, but is also tied to wider disputes over sanctions pressure, military posture and the future of negotiations.
What remains unclear is how much operational control the military has over any response and whether the restraint described by Ardestani will hold if Iranian vessels are seized or attacked. It is also not clear how far the reported internal friction extends across Iran's security institutions, or whether the warnings to Washington are intended mainly as deterrence. The next developments to watch are any movement by US naval forces, any Iranian response at sea, and whether further official statements clarify the balance between political control and military readiness.
Sponsored
Sponsored
