Iran’s IRGC chief boasts of attacks on 'Israeli ships'
Hossein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed responsibility for a series of attacks on 12 ships in the past that he called “Israeli”.
Hossein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed responsibility for a series of attacks on 12 ships in the past that he called “Israeli”.
His statement, made during a visit by President Masoud Pezeshkian to the IRGC’s Khatam al-Anbia Construction Headquarters, came in the wake of weeks of tensions following the killing of Hamas's political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran.
Salami justified the attacks by claiming they were in retaliation for strikes on 14 Iranian oil tankers in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean—accusations he placed on Israel, albeit with no evidence.
Since 2019, the IRGC has attacked or boarded numerous commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf region, often claiming that they were Israeli ships.
Salami’s remarks, laden with Tehran's usual conspiratorial tone, stated that Israel's attacks were designed to stymie Iran’s oil exports. However, what Salami left out is that when he refers to “Israeli ships,” these were commercial vessels, not military targets, perhaps partially owned by individuals of Israeli descent. This kind of rhetoric usually accompanies Tehran’s attempts to defend and justify its behavior on the international stage.
Israeli officials have so far remained silent on these claims. Salami’s statements follow a pattern of Iran seizing foreign vessels under dubious pretenses. This includes the seizure of oil tankers, such as the British-flagged Stena Impero in 2019 and, most recently, the Marshall Islands-flagged St. Nikolas in the Gulf of Oman.
Iran’s approach to maritime security seems to hinge on hostage diplomacy. The 2019 seizure of the Grace 1 by British authorities, on suspicion of breaching sanctions by transporting oil to Syria, was met with a retaliatory move by the IRGC, which seized the Stena Impero.
In January, Tehran seized the Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker St. Nikolas and also expanded its maritime provocations, attacking the M/V Pacific Gold tanker, registered in Liberia with a drone in the Indian Ocean.
IRGC’s chief commander attempted to justify such actions by referencing sanctions, military threats, or even former US President Donald Trump, whom Salami described as being "no less of a threat than COVID-19."
Iranian officials appear to be concerned about Trump's possible return to the presidency, expecting a tougher policy by Washington than what has transpired during the Biden administration.
Vice Adm. Brad Cooper of the US 5th Fleet earlier made it clear that Iran’s actions “violate international law and pose a threat to maritime security and stability.” Yet, despite these warnings, Tehran seems determined to continue its behavior, using the high seas as yet another battlefield in its ongoing quest for regional dominance.
The resignation came after Shargh daily, a pro-reform newspaper in Tehran, exposed the personal loans, totaling 105 billion rials ($175,000), sparking widespread outrage.
These officials, appointed during President Ebrahim Raisi’s tenure, approved the loans in the final days of his government, bypassing orders from acting president Mohammad Mokhber and president-elect Masoud Pezeshkian. Experts warn that this move undermines investor confidence and further destabilizes Iran’s struggling capital market.
Eshghi personally received the largest share of the loans—27 billion rials ($45,000)—with a lenient 4% interest rate and a 10-year repayment plan. To put this into perspective, an ordinary Iranian worker earns just $200 a month, highlighting the extreme disparity in access to financial resources.
The loans, initially justified by Eshghi as being "in accordance with laws and regulations" approved by the Supreme Council of the Stock Exchange, have been met with skepticism. Eshghi defended the decision, stating, “The claim that the board of directors approved loans for themselves is a big lie." He argued that the council is responsible for determining board salaries and benefits, and the loan amounts were based on official resolutions.
Despite these defenses, critics were not convinced. The scandal has been dubbed the "Eshghi Loan" and sparked backlash across political lines. Conservative political activist Mohammad Mohajeri called out the government’s audacity, stating, “Not only astronomical loans, but also astronomical audacity; this is what corruption did to the Raisi administration!"
Alireza Salimi, a member of the Iranian Parliament, responded on the social network X, writing: "I once mentioned in parliament that Mr. Eshghi is running the stock exchange based on personal whims. He sent a legion of reporters to attack me to whitewash his performance."
Salimi added, "Now it turns out Eshqi has indeed been taking billions in low-interest loans for himself."
One user on X shared a photo of the Tehran Stock Exchange board and commented: "They ask why the stock market is always in the red. Well, maybe if they gave fewer of these loans to board members, the market might turn a bit green."
The incident has further fueled criticism of Iran's broader financial system, which is already under fire for granting exorbitant loans to bank employees and subsidiaries. A recent report by Iran’s Central Bank revealed that in 2023 alone, major banks funneled over 9,100 trillion rials ($1.5 billion) to their own employees and executives, while ordinary citizens struggle to secure basic loans for housing, marriage, or small businesses.
As Iran’s economy crumbles under the weight of corruption, mismanagement and sanctions, the elite continue to enrich themselves, leaving ordinary citizens to bear the burden of inflation, poverty, and unemployment. According to observers, Eshghi’s resignation, while symbolic, may do little to restore public trust in a system marred by “kleptocracy”.
This is not the first instance of Iranian officials abusing their positions or embezzling public funds. In many cases, there has been no follow-up or report on whether they were made to return their illicit gains. Similarly, in this latest case, despite widespread criticism, there has been no discussion of requiring them to repay the loan if it was unlawfully allocated.
