Iran International
Talks involving Saudi Arabia and its defense partners in Tehran may offer a final diplomatic opportunity before a collective military response, a regional affairs analyst said Monday, amid attacks on Saudi territory and threats of renewed US-Iran fighting.
Mohamed Fahmy, a journalist and regional affairs analyst, described the visit as an exercise in "coercive diplomacy," arguing that the alliance was combining negotiations with preparations for a possible military response.
"This may be the last chance before a collective imminent military action," he told Iran International.
Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, Pakistani army chief Asim Munir and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin met Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei, with Rezaei hosting the four-way talks.
Riyadh said the visit by representatives of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement was part of efforts to reduce tensions and promote dialogue.
The attacks on Saudi Arabia have presented the first major test of the agreement, signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan in August, which pledges collective action when a member comes under attack.
Iranian state television reported that the four countries agreed to continue discussions on regional peace and security. No agreement to halt the Houthi attacks was announced.
The talks also unfolded against renewed threats of military action between Washington and Tehran. President Donald Trump has kept open the possibility of renewed strikes, while Iranian officials have warned of retaliation.
"The main objective is pressure," Fahmy said.
He said Saudi Arabia and its partners were attempting to exhaust diplomatic options while demonstrating that continued Houthi attacks could bring a collective response.
Professor Saad bin Tefla al-Ajmi, a former Kuwaiti information minister, told Iran International that the seniority of the delegation demonstrated the lengths to which Iran's neighbors were prepared to go to prevent another war.
He described the visit as an extraordinary diplomatic effort to prevent renewed hostilities, but said it could be interpreted in sharply different ways within Tehran, either as evidence of Iranian strength or as an opportunity to pursue a diplomatic settlement.
Iranian hardliners, he said, could portray the arrival of senior Saudi, Turkish and Pakistani officials as evidence that the Islamic Republic had gained the upper hand, forcing its neighbors to seek accommodation on Iranian territory.
A more pragmatic interpretation would see the visit as an opportunity for Tehran to demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with neighboring countries and pursue a diplomatic settlement, while portraying Washington and Israel as responsible if negotiations failed.
"It depends on whose mind you are reading in Tehran now," al-Ajmi said.
Attacks test the Mecca pact
Al-Ajmi also pointed to a hardening Saudi position toward the Houthis, arguing that Riyadh had exhausted its attempts to accommodate the group.
"I think that they have made their mind that the Houthi will have to go and they can't take it anymore," he told Iran International.
Al-Ajmi said Saudi Arabia was seeking international diplomatic and political support while demonstrating that it had been the target of aggression by the Houthis and their Iranian backers.
The urgency of the talks follows a series of deadly attacks on Saudi civilian and strategic infrastructure.
The Houthis claimed fresh attacks Monday on Saudi oil infrastructure and Riyadh airport, although Saudi authorities did not immediately confirm those claims.
The Saudi-led coalition also reported destroying Houthi missile infrastructure in Yemen, while Egypt's parliament authorized military support to help defend Saudi Arabia, potentially drawing another regional power more directly into the confrontation.
Egypt's decision, Fahmy argued, adds another dimension to the confrontation, with potential consequences for the country's already vulnerable economy.
The diplomatic effort may also involve financial concessions.
Israel Hayom reported Monday, citing unnamed Persian Gulf diplomatic sources, that Saudi Arabia was discussing a possible $1 billion payment to the Houthis through Iran as part of a ceasefire arrangement.
The Israeli newspaper said a Saudi official did not confirm any transfer but acknowledged that earlier understandings with the Houthis included financial assistance for public-sector salaries and reconstruction in exchange for an end to attacks.
Iran International could not independently verify the reported $1 billion proposal.
The possibility of a negotiated settlement comes as the Mecca pact's ability to fulfill its military commitments faces growing scrutiny.
Historian and political analyst Dr. Shahram Kholdi told Iran International that the alliance had failed to deliver the protection promised to its members.
"The Mecca Pact has effectively been a paper tiger," Kholdi said.
He argued that despite military cooperation among the three countries, Saudi Arabia remained vulnerable to Houthi missile and drone attacks.
Obstacles to a lasting settlement
Kholdi believes the delegation's principal objective is to persuade Tehran to restrain the Houthis, potentially in exchange for efforts to convince Washington to reconsider some of the conditions preventing renewed US-Iran negotiations.
He said Turkey and Pakistan were reluctant to confront the Houthis directly because of the risk of Iranian retaliation, leaving Saudi Arabia pursuing diplomacy while continuing to face attacks.
Even securing Tehran's cooperation, however, may not produce a lasting settlement.
Kholdi argued that the Houthis could demand political guarantees amounting to the effective partition of Yemen before agreeing to stop their attacks.
Such an arrangement could leave Saudi Arabia facing an entrenched hostile entity along its southern border, an outcome Riyadh has so far resisted.
Other regional diplomatic efforts have focused on the US-Iran standoff. Qatari officials visited Tehran on Sunday, while Pakistan has continued to serve as an intermediary between the United States and the Islamic Republic.
Disagreements remain over the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, access through the Strait of Hormuz and the terms of a broader settlement addressing Iran's nuclear program.
Kholdi expects the diplomatic effort could produce a temporary reduction in hostilities, but doubts it will deliver a lasting ceasefire. He warned that even a brief lull could unravel through miscalculation.
The Mecca pact was established to provide collective security. Continued attacks on Saudi Arabia are now testing that commitment while its members pursue talks with Iran.
With no announced agreement to halt the Houthi attacks and the US-Iran standoff unresolved, the risk of a military confrontation extending well beyond Yemen remains.
Ammar al-Hakim’s warning that Baghdad must protect Iraq from US sanctions despite its solidarity with Iran has sparked a sharp backlash on Persian-language social media, with some hardliners calling for retaliation against Iraq.
An excerpt from an interview al-Hakim gave to Iraqiya TV on September 29 has gone viral in recent days.
Al-Hakim, head of Iraq’s National Wisdom Movement and a former head of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, said Washington had explicitly warned Baghdad to comply with US sanctions against Iran or risk sanctions itself.
He said Iran was justified in feeling it had been treated unfairly under what he described as a US siege, but argued that countries could not be governed by emotions and aspirations alone.
Iraq, he said, stood in solidarity with the Iranian people while also having a responsibility to shield its own population from the consequences of sanctions.
‘Honour vs dishonour’
Hardline Iranian social media users accused al-Hakim of betraying Iran and showing ingratitude for its support, with some calling for retaliatory measures against Iraq.
Ehsan Salehi, an adviser to former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, accused al-Hakim on X of bowing to Washington, justifying that stance and moving closer to Arab Gulf rulers.
Hardline commentator Alireza Taghavinia interpreted al-Hakim’s comments as an admission that Iraq had little choice but to comply with Washington.
“When Ammar al-Hakim, a Shiite whose position he owes to Iran, says this, what can we expect from [Pakistan’s Prime Minister] Shehbaz Sharif?” he wrote.
Filmmaker Ali Zarnegar wrote: “This is precisely the line between honor and dishonor, and unfortunately, you chose to be dishonorable.”
Another user sarcastically called for Iran to prevent Iraqi oil from passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
“Our feelings are with Iraq, too, but what can we do? We have to attack tankers associated with them,” the user wrote. “Since they are so afraid that America will freeze their oil money, we will make things easier for them and prevent even a drop of their oil from being exported through the Strait of Hormuz.”
National interest first
Other users defended al-Hakim, arguing that his remarks reflected the Iraqi government's responsibility to protect its national interests and criticizing Iran’s leaders for putting ideology ahead of Iran's own welfare.
Mohsen Salehikhah, a journalist and documentary filmmaker associated with reformists, praised the Iraqi politician.
“Ammar al-Hakim said something absolutely right,” he wrote. “If the Islamic Republic also understood that it should prioritize Iran’s interests rather than sacrifice our national interests at the altar of ideological delusions and aspirations, perhaps the situation would be different today.”
Another user pointed out that al-Hakim leads one of the Iraqi political movements closest to Iran, suggesting that other Iraqi groups could hardly be expected to put Iranian interests first.
“Some people spent years selling the public the illusion that sanctions did not matter because we could maintain relations with our neighbors instead of America,” the user wrote. “Well, this is our closest neighbor.”
‘Teach others a lesson’
The backlash comes amid a separate dispute over Iraq’s closure of the al-Shaib/Chazabeh border crossing with Iran.
An adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaidi has said the crossing was closed to prevent the smuggling of narcotics and counterfeit money from Iran, while Iran’s Interior Ministry complained that Baghdad had not informed Tehran in advance.
The closure has prompted calls from some Iranian hardliners for retaliation against Iraq.
Iranian businessman Babak Zanjani called for greater restrictions on Iraq’s access through the Strait of Hormuz, saying Baghdad should be made to understand “the real meaning of a blockade and its consequences.”
He went further, arguing that Iraq should be brought closer to collapse over what he described as a strategic mistake “so that others learn a lesson.”
As Iran hosted senior Saudi, Turkish and Pakistani officials for security talks on Monday, an influential hardline newspaper editor warned that the diplomatic initiative could undermine Tehran's position and relieve pressure on the United States.
Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of Kayhan daily and a longtime appointee of the late supreme leader Ali Khamenei, questioned the purpose of the gathering in an article headlined “Tehran summit: Oasis or mirage?”
His criticism extended even to Ali Bagheri Kani, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and himself a prominent hardliner who opposed the nuclear diplomacy of former President Hassan Rouhani.
Bagheri had presented the meeting as an opportunity to develop a new regional security framework. Shariatmadari dismissed that prospect, arguing that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were too close to the United States to credibly mediate between Tehran and Washington.
He accused the three countries of supporting US and Israeli military operations against Iran and questioned why Tehran would expect them to abandon their longstanding strategic ties with Washington.
Iran's support for the Houthis
Shariatmadari's central objection concerned Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the Mecca mutual defense pact in August, committing themselves to collective defense. With Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia intensifying, Shariatmadari argued that cooperation with the three countries risked weakening Iran's support for the Yemeni group.
He described Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias and Palestinian armed factions as “one spirit in several bodies,” arguing that confronting any of them amounted to confronting Iran itself.
Shariatmadari questioned whether the visiting delegations intended to pressure Tehran into distancing itself from the Houthis and insisted Iran would never abandon them.
Yet he also portrayed the diplomatic visit as evidence of Iranian strength, arguing that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz had brought Washington and its allies close to economic suffocation and forced regional governments to seek relief through Tehran.
His argument exposed a tension in the hardline position: the arrival of foreign delegations was presented as proof that Iran's pressure was succeeding, while negotiations aimed at easing that pressure risked squandering the leverage it had created.
Against compromise
On Saturday, the hardline Paydari Front urged Iran to begin withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and reconsider its defense doctrine. Hardline lawmakers have also sought to impeach Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi over his dealings with Washington.
These critics are closely tied to Iran's security establishment. Paydari Front leader Sadegh Mahsouli is a former Revolutionary Guards officer, while Shariatmadari represented the late supreme leader at Kayhan for decades.
Their criticism has continued even as President Masoud Pezeshkian and national security chief Mohsen Rezaei welcomed the visiting delegations. The four countries ended Monday's meeting with an agreement to continue discussions on regional peace and security.
The dispute exposes a growing divide within Iran's ruling establishment over what to do with the leverage created by months of confrontation.
Shariatmadari and like-minded hardliners believe that confrontation is working. In their view, diplomacy that requires Tehran to relinquish that leverage risks trading away the very gains it has produced.
An Iraqi court ordered the arrest of a provincial leader on Monday after he threatened road blockades and even separation from Iraq over the closure of a border crossing with Iran, revealing tensions over Baghdad's efforts to curb Tehran’s influence on Iraqi security decisions.
Mustafa Duair, head of the provincial council in Maysan, a southeastern governorate bordering Iran, threatened civil disobedience unless the Al Sheeb crossing was reopened.
Baghdad has cited technical problems for the closure, while Tehran has pointed to US pressure.
The Iran-aligned Badr Organization defended Duair, turning the dispute over a border crossing into a broader challenge to the central government's authority from within Iraq's Shiite political establishment.
Risks of another battlefield
In September, Iraqi authorities seized a drone launcher allegedly used to attack Saudi Arabia's East-West oil pipeline. Saudi officials had traced the attack to the province, close to the Iranian border.
Asharq Al-Awsat reported Saturday that Iraqi officials suspected Israel had struck two depots storing Chinese-made portable air-defense systems allegedly supplied by Iran to allied Iraqi militias.
The reported shipments and Israeli involvement remain unconfirmed, but the allegations underscore the risks Baghdad faces when armed factions acquire weapons and pursue military agendas outside state control.
Ammar al-Hakim, a veteran leader with longstanding ties to Tehran, acknowledged sympathy for Iranians facing sanctions but warned in a September interview that Iraq must protect its own citizens from the same penalties.
“The feeling that the Islamic Republic has been treated unjustly under this siege of sanctions is valid and justified. But countries cannot be governed by wishes and emotions,” Hakim said.
On Monday, a spokesman for his Hikma Movement warned that breaking a militia de-escalation agreement could plunge Iraq into a “tunnel of sanctions.”
Baghdad pushes for greater control
Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has set June 2027 as the deadline for bringing armed factions under state authority, although some Iran-backed groups continue to resist.
He has also replaced several security chiefs since taking office in May. On Monday, Zaidi dismissed intelligence chief Hamid al-Shatri, who was appointed by his predecessor and had himself been considered for prime minister. No official explanation was given for his dismissal.
The push for greater state authority aligns with Washington's longstanding demands that Baghdad curb independent militias.
Zaidi has also sought closer economic and political ties with the United States, with more than $60 billion in commercial agreements and memorandums announced during his July visit to Washington.
But Zaidi still relies on a coalition that includes Iran-aligned parties. He insists Iraq will not become involved in the Iran war and wants Baghdad to act as a mediator, while acknowledging that disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has damaged Iraq's economy.
Iraq’s leaders are emphasizing national authority and economic interests over involvement in Tehran's confrontations, but the reaction to the Maysan border closure shows how difficult asserting that authority over Iran-aligned factions remains.
Two retired employees of Iran's national airline died after being forced to abandon medical treatment they could not afford, the semi-official ILNA news agency reported on Monday, citing the head of the airline's retirees' association.
Jalal Hashemi, chairman of the Iran Air Retirees Association, said the deaths occurred over the past two to three weeks amid worsening financial and healthcare problems affecting around 13,000 retirees and pensioners of the airline, also known as Homa.
"The situation has become so catastrophic that in just the past two or three weeks, two of our retired colleagues were forced to abandon treatment because they could not afford hospital expenses, and unfortunately lost their lives," Hashemi told ILNA.
Iranian households face mounting economic hardship after years of inflation, sanctions and economic mismanagement, compounded by two rounds of war with the United States and Israel.
Iran Air retirees have staged repeated protests over pension payments, healthcare coverage and the management of their retirement fund.
In August, retirees gathered outside the airline's headquarters in Tehran to demand improvements to healthcare services and the reinstatement of suspended welfare payments.
Hashemi said Iran Air had paid only two of 12 installments owed to Iran Insurance Company under its insurance contract for the Iranian year ending in March 2026, prompting the insurer to suspend inpatient hospital coverage for retirees.
According to Hashemi, Iran Air retirees receive an average monthly pension of around 270 million rials (about $100), while approximately 5,600 receive minimum pensions of just over 180 million rials (about $66).
He estimated the shortfall in the airline's healthcare insurance fund at 4 trillion rials (about $1.5 million), saying no institution had accepted responsibility for covering the deficit.
Recent reductions in government-subsidized foreign currency for medicine imports, drug price increases and rising out-of-pocket healthcare costs have further strained the fund.
Hashemi also said Iran Air management had suspended a monthly welfare allowance of 60 million rials (about $22), citing financial losses from the war and reduced flights.
Hardliners in Tehran are hailing a surge in global oil prices as evidence that pressure on shipping is paying off, even as moderates warn that the same confrontation is inflicting mounting damage on Iran's economy and strengthening the case for a deal with Washington.
Crude prices rose above $116 a barrel on October 24 following reports of two attacks involving supertankers near Oman, prompting hardline newspaper Kayhan to portray the increase as vindication of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy's strategy of asymmetric pressure around the Strait of Hormuz.
Under the headline “Minefields near Musandam Prove Diplomacy Is Obsolete,” Kayhan argued that disruption to shipping and the resulting pressure on global energy markets had strengthened Iran's bargaining position rather than demonstrated the need for compromise.
The newspaper accused moderates and more pragmatic conservatives of “begging for an agreement,” singling out the centrist Sazandegi newspaper, which supports reaching a deal with the United States.
But the same confrontation is taking a growing toll on Iran's economy.
Moderate daily Shargh warned that higher crude prices offer little relief to private-sector manufacturers facing bankruptcy and argued that keeping negotiations with Washington alive is essential to Iran's economic survival.
The economic daily Donya-ye Eghtesad has also highlighted pressure on factories in industrial centers including Isfahan, Tabriz and Arak, reporting an unprecedented wave of corporate bankruptcies as the maritime blockade continues.
The competing assessments expose an increasingly important argument in Tehran: whether the economic disruption caused by the confrontation is leverage to be exploited or damage Iran can no longer afford.
Signs of diplomatic movement
The debate comes as signs of diplomatic movement feed cautious optimism among some Iranian political figures that an agreement with the United States may be becoming more likely than another round of war.
Former deputy parliamentary speaker Ali Motahari gave voice to that view on Monday, saying that for the first time in several weeks, the prospects of an agreement with Washington appeared greater than the likelihood of renewed conflict.
Speaking to reporters in Tehran, Motahari argued that war was becoming less likely because the United States was facing multiple problems and might therefore be prepared to accept some of Iran’s conditions.
Monday’s high-level talks with regional powers have added to that sense. Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, Pakistani army chief Asim Munir and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin are in Tehran to meet national security chief Mohsen Rezaei and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
According to Iranian state outlets, Tehran has reiterated its proposal for reducing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. Following technical discussions in Doha, it resubmitted a plan to restore shipping through the waterway in stages over seven days.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that Iranian technical negotiators were examining US counterproposals on procedures for lifting the naval blockade.
Tehran insists the seven-day window will not begin until $24 billion in foreign reserves becomes fully accessible and restrictions on container clearance at Bandar Abbas are lifted.
Iran has also insisted that its seven-point de-escalation plan, based on the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, remain separate from negotiations over uranium enrichment, International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and regional missile defense arrangements.
It remains unclear whether Washington accepts that separation. Tehran's position suggests it is seeking immediate economic relief while avoiding concessions on broader strategic issues.
The divide leaves Tehran confronting an awkward calculation. The disruption around Hormuz may be imposing higher costs on Iran's adversaries just as hardliners intended, but it is also increasing the economic pressure driving others in Tehran toward a deal.