US-Israel war on Iran

Thousands take to the streets in support of Houthis in Sanaa, Trump extends sanctions on Iran.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians have marched in a government-organised show of defiance in Tehran, pledging their readiness to take up arms.

The Iranian government showcased a newly formed volunteer force at the rally on Friday. It will receive limited military and emergency response training to serve as an additional layer of security for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij militia.

Volunteers rallied through downtown Tehran in combat uniforms, some carrying flags and weapons, while the government displayed drones, anti-aircraft batteries and other weaponry.

Iranian authorities said 313,000 people joined the event in the capital. Attendance figures could not be independently verified.

Tehran’s IRGC chief, Hassan Hassanzadeh, told the state broadcaster IRIB that over 600,000 people had registered to participate in the voluntary Janfada-ye-Iran campaign. That roughly translates to “Those who sacrifice their lives for Iran”, with over one million expected to take part in the training.

Senior Iranian leaders at the rally included President Masoud Pezeshkian and Basij head, Hossein Taeb.

Taeb told participants that the volunteers would be ready for “full-fledged defence” and would be a “nightmare” for Iran’s enemies.

A broader strategy

Iranian authorities say mobilising the new volunteer force is part of a broader defence strategy.

“The Islamic Republic has mobilised these people to show that they are united, that they have solidarity and that their people are ready to give anything for the country,” said Al Jazeera’s Sinem Koseoglu, reporting from the rally.

Women and teenagers have also registered with the volunteer units, she added.

“I want to show the world that Iran is strong and united. We don’t want war, but we’re ready to defend our country to the very end,” one of the volunteers, Bahera, told our reporter.

Another volunteer, wearing a combat uniform and carrying a rifle, said: “This is our homeland and we won’t let others decide its future”.

President Pezeshkian said in a speech that the rally was a show of solidarity, Koseoglu noted.

“This is not only a message to countries like the US and Israel, which are attacking Iran, but also to the Islamic Republic that we are ready for any crisis.”

Economy and mobilisation

Friday’s rally happened as the Iranian economy struggles under the US naval blockade of Iranian ports and new US sanctions.

Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, condemned the “brutal economic war, deliberately designed to inflict maximum pain and suffering on every Iranian citizen”.

As the latest addition to its economic pressure campaign, the US administration on Thursday went after digital currency networks that it says are illegally providing sanctioned Iranian entities with access to the international financial system.

The struggling economy was a key driver for protests last December that quickly turned into a challenge to the political system in place since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran said about 3,000 people were killed in the protests, but activists say the state crackdown killed over 7,000.

However, the war launched in late February by US-Israeli strikes has since allowed the authorities to regain the initiative by presenting themselves as a bulwark against the country’s enemies.

The volunteer mobilisation campaign started in early April, at the height of US-Israeli attacks.

According to the authorities, more than 30 million people registered for a potential call-up, about a third of the population of 86 million.

Italy’s defence minister warns of severe economic fallout if Bab al-Mandeb becomes impassable, bypassing EU delays.

Italy will deploy warships to ensure safe passage for its commercial vessels through the Bab al-Mandeb strait, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said, adding that Rome would not wait for a joint decision from the European Union.

“We have the capabilities to protect the passage,” Crosetto said, warning that if the waterway became impassable, the economic consequences would be severe.

The Italian defence minister said that Rome “must not allow bureaucratic delays in decision-making to exacerbate an already complex situation”.

Bab al-Mandeb links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, forming one of the world’s busiest shipping corridors between Europe and Asia and a critical route for oil, gas and container traffic heading to and from the Suez Canal.

Roughly 12 to 15 percent of global trade has historically passed through the narrow waterway, which separates Yemen from Djibouti and Eritrea on the African side and is only about 30km (19 miles) wide at its narrowest point.

The strait’s importance has grown sharply since Iran effectively seized control of the Strait of Hormuz earlier this year amid its war with the United States and Israel, choking off the world’s most important oil chokepoint and pushing much of the Gulf’s crude exports towards alternative routes.

Saudi Arabia, in particular, has increasingly relied on pipelines and Red Sea shipping to bypass Hormuz altogether, making the Bab al-Mandeb strait one of the last major arteries still open to Gulf oil reaching global markets.

Control of the strait has been contested for years, as Yemen’s government, Houthi rebels and, at times, forces in the region have held stretches of its coastline at different points since the war in Yemen began in 2015.

The significance of the strait has been hit dramatically in the past few weeks, when the Iran-backed Houthi movement launched a rapid offensive that brought the entirety of Yemen’s western Red Sea coast under its control, including several strategically located islands.

The advance has given the Houthis effectively unrestricted access to the waterway, a development seen as a major setback for international shipping, given the group’s history of attacking vessels it associates with the US or its allies in the region.

The US and the European Union have already carried out military operations aimed at better protecting merchant ships from Houthi attacks in the area, though those efforts have struggled to fully secure the route as fighting in Yemen has escalated.

Report says ‘reasonable grounds’ US was behind the deadly strike against a school in Minab in February.

The mission also said Iranian authorities committed crimes against humanity during their crackdown on protests in late 2025 and early this year.

The United States likely committed “war crimes” in Iran when it launched a pair of air strikes that killed at least 178 civilians, including women and children, a United Nations fact-finding mission has found.

The report by the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran on Thursday also accused Iran of human rights violations and crimes against humanity during protests last year and in early 2026.

The mission referred to the US attack on Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, which killed over 150 people – including approximately 120 children – on February 28, when the US and Israel launched their war against Iran.

The mission also referred to the US air strike on a “clearly identifiable” sports complex and residential area in Lamerd the same day, where precision strike missiles dispersed clouds of tungsten pellets, killing 22 civilian men and women.

The findings, to be submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, examined the US’s conduct during the Iran war and the Iranian government’s response to nationwide unrest that began in late December.

US air strikes against civilians

The attack on the school in Minab was conducted with the use of Tomahawk missiles.

“The Mission concluded that when identifying and directing its attack against the primary school in Minab, whose civilian nature is apparent, the US failed in its obligation to do everything feasible to verify that it was a military objective,” the report stated.

The report’s authors said that photographs and videos depicting the school before and after the strike showed “readily identifiable features” that it was associated with an educational facility for young children.

“These included child-oriented murals painted on exterior walls, school signage, and playground areas,” said the UN report.

“According to public reporting, satellite imagery of the school before the strike also appears to show human figures, readily identifiable as children, gathered in its courtyard.”

Following the strike, state-affiliated media showed widespread destruction at the site, including parents holding the body parts of their children, and bloodied backpacks and schoolbooks.

“Several families lost more than one child, reflecting the devastating impact of the attack on families and the wider community,” the report said.

In June, US President Donald Trump said that “nobody” purposefully attacked a girls’ school in Iran in February, citing an investigation into the incident, for which the Pentagon has not yet published any findings.

Regarding the strike in Lamerd, the mission similarly found that the sports centre attacked was “visibly separate” from an adjacent compound belonging to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The US Central Command said in a statement in March that US forces did not launch any strikes into the city of Lamerd on that day.

Iran protests

The UN mission additionally accused Iran of repressing demonstrators during the country’s 2025-2026 protests through an internet shutdown, unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and severe restrictions on freedom of expression.

It also stated that the number of deaths and injuries by state forces is much higher than the government’s reported toll – which says 3,038 people were killed and 25,000 people injured – but could not verify exact numbers.

Tehran claims the majority of deaths occurred due to “rioters” during the protests backed by exiled opponents and the US and Israel.

The UN fact-finding mission urged Iran and the US to immediately end hostilities, provide reparations to victims, and seek permanent peace through diplomatic means.

Iran’s missiles and drones have downed dozens of US aircraft, damaged or destroyed hundreds of the United States’ buildings at its bases in the Middle East, and drained its inventories of military equipment worth billions of dollars, the Pentagon conceded earlier this week.

On Wednesday, Tehran unleashed another unlikely weapon in its war against the US: a maths equation.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has also been a lead negotiator during talks between Tehran and Washington at different stages during the past six months, typed out a version of the Taylor equation, a formula used by central banks to determine interest rates, in a post on X loaded with a wartime message.

“Let’s see if a hike could open SOH or produce a single barrel,” he wrote, referring to interest rate hikes and the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway Iran has effectively blocked for global shipping.

“You can’t 25bp [basis points] a chokepoint,” he added, seemingly again referring to the strait. “It’s SOH risk premium, and We set it.”

Hours after Ghalibaf’s post, the US Federal Reserve did raise the benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points.

Early in the war, which was launched by the US and Israel against Iran on February 28, Ghalibaf frequently used financial arguments to mock how the conflict was being conducted by the administration of US President Donald Trump, to point to Iran’s ability to hurt Washington economically unless it changed its approach.

Now he’s turned to maths.

“This is a spectacular bit of agitprop from Iran, a country which, if nothing else in 2026, has demonstrated an impressive ability to needle its US opponent,” Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group, told Al Jazeera.

But what exactly is Ghalibaf trying to say? What is the Taylor equation, has the Iran war influenced the US interest rate, and does Tehran “set it”, as the parliament speaker has suggested?

What is the Taylor equation that Ghalibaf cited?

The rule is a formula economists use to estimate where a central bank should set interest rates based on inflation and the strength of the economy.

Developed by economist John Taylor in the early 1990s, the rule links the US federal funds rate to inflation and the “output gap” – the difference between actual economic output and its potential.

In its simplest form, the formula is:

Interest rate = inflation + 0.5(output gap) + 0.5(inflation − 2%) + 2%.

This means the recommended interest rate rises when inflation moves above the 2 percent target or when economic output exceeds its potential. It falls when inflation weakens or the economy operates below potential.

However, the equation is a benchmark, not a set rule that is strictly followed. Policymakers at the US Federal Reserve weigh other economic factors when setting interest rates.

Is the Iran war a factor in the US interest rate hike?

Trump’s tariffs, the energy shock following the US-Israeli war with Iran, and heavy investment associated with the artificial intelligence boom, taken together, have kept inflationary pressures strong, experts say.

On Wednesday, when the US Federal Reserve raised interest rates by 25bp, it was the first increase in three years.

Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh, in his speech following the rate hike, said renewed fighting between the US and Iran, which has pushed up petrol prices, helped convince Fed officials to support higher rates.

“There’s no hiding from hot spots around the world,” Warsh said.

IG Group’s Beauchamp said, “The Iran war, indirectly, is a huge driver of last night’s hike, though no one wants to admit it.”

“The energy spike has combined with the rise in yields to drive the Fed into a corner with no way out,” he said.

Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at the Wealth Club, said there is “no denying” that Iran’s retaliatory action against the US and its allies across the Gulf region has “intensified concerns about energy supplies and led to hotter inflation forecasts”.

“The ongoing geopolitical turmoil and elevated crude prices certainly were key issues behind the Fed’s decision to hike rates,” she said.

Is Iran ‘setting’ the US interest rate?

In short, no.

Wealth Club’s Streeter cautioned that while the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices were certainly an element in the Fed’s decision, they weren’t the “only factors at play”.

“The spending might of AI hyperscalers has also pulsed through the veins of the economy, with strong capital investment and resilient domestic demand adding to inflationary pressures, so policymakers will have been looking at the whole picture,” she noted.

“So, while Tehran has arguably had an influence on some of the forces feeding into US monetary policy, particularly through the impact of the conflict on oil supplies and prices, it is not ‘setting’ US interest rates.”

Streeter said the US Federal Reserve was responding to a much broader set of economic conditions.

“Iran’s actions have affected the inflation outlook, but the decision on where to set interest rates ultimately rests with the Federal Reserve, and there are plenty of other data points policymakers use,” she noted.

What’s behind Ghalibaf’s maths mocking?

In March, Iran’s parliamentary speaker had repeatedly used social media to comment on markets and energy prices, including mocking efforts by the Trump administration to influence oil futures and arguing that financial manoeuvring could not create “actual fuel” at petrol stations.

Last month, Ghalibaf posted a graphic bearing the phrase “Make America Hungry Again” – a play on Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” – together with statistics on food insecurity and hunger in the US.

“You can’t cover up defeats with false claims,” he said.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The 25 basis-point hike is the first raise in three years and comes ahead of critical midterm elections in the United States.

The United States Federal Reserve has said it will raise interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point as inflation, driven by soaring fuel prices amid the US-Iran war, continues to weigh on the economy.

The Fed, which is the central bank of the US, said on Wednesday that it will hike interest rates by 25 basis points to 3.75 percent to 4 percent.

It is the first hike in more than three years and comes just weeks before the US midterm elections, despite repeated demands from US President Donald Trump to lower rates.

“Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace. While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient,” the Fed said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Inflation remains elevated. Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal. The Committee will deliver price stability.”

After Wednesday’s hike, Fed officials expect one more rate increase this year, according to their quarterly projections.

CME FedWatch, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, forecast a 92.3 percent chance of the Fed increasing rates to 3.75 to 4 percent. A week ago, that forecast was a 40 percent chance of a quarter-percent rate increase.

But in the days since, a slew of data shifted those expectations.

For one, consumer prices jumped in August by 0.4 percent, the highest increase in four months. On an annual basis, prices rose 3.4 percent, matching the increase recorded in July, while the job market remains healthy.

Since then, benchmark crude oil prices have continued to soar as strikes in the US-Israel war on Iran have intensified. Brent crude hovered near $109 per barrel on Tuesday.

The average price for a gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol is $4.36, up 14 cents in the past week, and up from $4.06 in the last month, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices.

Diesel, on the other hand, was at $6.31, the highest recorded average and roughly double from a year ago. That, in turn, is expected to further stoke prices as diesel is used in trucks to haul everything from fruits and vegetables to steel and cement.

At the same time, the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield broke above the psychologically important 5 percent threshold on Tuesday, hitting 5.02 percent, its highest level in 19 years. The yield serves as a benchmark for borrowing costs, including car loans and home mortgages, and is a bellwether for inflation.

“The economy is in an unusual place,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at Tufts University’s Fletcher School and executive editor of EconoFact, a nonpartisan economic and social policy publication, as unemployment remains at a comfortable level while higher prices continue to stick, sending inflation beyond the Fed’s target of 2 percent.

“There [has been] a lot of pressure on Chairman Warsh to raise interest rates because of inflation coming in high, and that has been compounded by concerns about Trump’s pressure” as the president has continued to demand that interest rates be lowered, Klein said.

“Higher interest rates tend to weaken the economy… but if the market believes that there’s going to be a rate increase, it’s priced in already as prices move on news, so this won’t be news,” Klein said, adding that should help steady yields.

Tehran, Iran – Another attempt to clinch a deal between Iran and Oman to restore some traffic to the Strait of Hormuz has been set back by a lack of regional consensus on the future of the waterway.

Officials from Iran, Iraq and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations – minus objecting Bahrain – were scheduled to meet in Oman’s port city of Salalah on Monday to confer on new temporary routes in the Strait of Hormuz amid Tehran’s ongoing hot-and-cold war with the United States.

On Sunday night, the region’s officials announced the postponement of the meeting, without giving a new date. None of the stakeholders gave any indication that the postponement was directly linked to recent Houthi and Iraqi militia attacks on Saudi Arabia.

However, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Saudi objection was the reason for the postponement, without providing further details.

US media outlets Axios and CNN reported that Saudi Arabia had submitted amendments to the Iran-Oman proposal for Hormuz because it had concerns that the wording would establish a new status quo which would be unacceptable to Riyadh.

It comes days after Saudi Arabia shut down its critical East-West oil pipeline – the kingdom’s key route for energy exports – after drone attacks in the area originating from Iraq. US President Donald Trump said these attacks were likely conducted at Tehran’s behest.

Saudi Arabia has also faced repeated attacks by the Houthis, who took control of Yemen’s Red Sea coast over the weekend.

Hours after the Salalah meeting was postponed, the Saudi civil defence issued alerts for Abha, Khamis Mushait, Jazan and Najran in southern and western parts of the kingdom. The Houthis claimed to have fired dozens of ballistic missiles and drones at military facilities in Khamis Mushait, in retaliation for air strikes across Yemen, which it blames on Saudi Arabia.

What comes next?

Iran has said it will engage with the US on the future of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war only if there are tangible moves to lift Washington’s naval blockade on the country and return to the June memorandum of understanding.

With continued disruptions to the passage of vessels through the strait, Iran has signalled that it intends to continue pursuing the bilateral agreement with Oman over Hormuz, which it said was finalised last month.

“In consultation with Oman, in the next step, we will make a decision on how to announce or register the agreement,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters during a weekly news conference on Monday.

When the two countries initially advanced the bilateral deal, Trump threatened to bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of US talks with Iran.

Ali Vaez, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Tehran wants to use its leverage over Hormuz for regional legitimacy – and ultimately to pressure the US.

“The broader the regional buy-in, the harder it becomes for the US to dismiss the arrangement as an Iranian diktat,” he told Al Jazeera.

GCC states, suffering from a sharp decrease in energy receipts, want ships moving and their economies insulated from a war they neither started nor can end. But Vaez said Washington is unlikely to lift the blockade on Iran even if the region blesses the arrangement between Muscat and Tehran.

“[The US] will find it much harder to sustain a policy that its own partners increasingly see as perpetuating the crisis,” Vaez said

Temporary entry and exit

The Omani-Iranian planned agreement envisions temporary entry and exit routes for commercial vessels in the strait, with Tehran repeatedly stating that this would not mean that the Strait of Hormuz has reopened.

Iran and Oman are the only two countries with territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz. The proposed inbound corridor reportedly goes through Iranian waters, while the outbound corridor mostly passes through Omani waters, with small parts still in Iranian territory.

During Monday’s scheduled meeting, Iran and Oman were supposed to share precise maps and discuss the details of the routes with GCC members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait, and Iraq, which is outside the bloc. The deal could reportedly include voluntary tolls to fund navigation, environmental protection and search-and-rescue operations.

Bahrain, which has borne the brunt of Iranian attacks since the US-Israel war on Iran started at the end of February, said it would not participate in the forum since it would amount to “appeasement”. The Tasnim news outlet, affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed Israel pushed Bahrain to refuse participation.

How does Yemen fit in this picture?

The latest diplomatic movement comes after days of explosive developments in Yemen, when the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah, essentially took control of the Bab al-Mandeb strait and the Red Sea after a lightning offensive against government forces.

Thomas Juneau, assistant professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, said the Houthi advances represent a significant gain for Iran. Its Yemeni allies’ position in the Red Sea offers Iran an important new bargaining chip in future negotiations with the US.

“The Houthis are not a simple arm of Iranian foreign policy. They operate largely based on their own interests, and do not take and execute Iranian commands,” he told Al Jazeera. “But Houthi and Iranian interests are largely, if not always fully, aligned. They cooperate closely on the basis of those shared interests.”

Juneau sees the ability for Iran and the Houthis to potentially partially block traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb – two of the world’s most crucial maritime bottlenecks – would give them tremendous influence over the global economy, and thus the US.

The Houthis are trying to seize the opportunity to “institutionalise the de facto reality of their veto on maritime traffic” in the southern Red Sea and replicate partial Iranian success in doing the same in the Strait of Hormuz, Juneau said.

Iran has stressed that their allies’ gains in the Red Sea cannot be separated from the Saudi-led blockade and attacks on Houthi areas in Yemen since 2015.

“We know very well that continued war between Islamic countries in the region only has one winner, and that winner is no one but the Zionist regime, which is after persisting tensions and conflict in our region and between Islamic countries,” Iranian spokesperson Baghaei said.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei says Iran does not interfere in Yemeni affairs.

Iran says a planned meeting with officials from Gulf states to discuss the Strait of Hormuz has been postponed due to “events unfolding in Yemen”.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, addressing a news conference on Monday, said Oman and Iran “have taken a joint decision aimed at arriving at a responsible” approach to the management of the strait.

He said the meeting, scheduled to take place in Oman, would have been an “opportunity to demonstrate the significance of these decisions”.

“Had this meeting took place, it would have been a very suitable opportunity [to discuss the new policy]. I do not believe any responsible country would accept in any shape, way, or form to be dictated to or be subjected to pressure from any outside forces,” he said.

The Strait of Hormuz, which falls in Iran and Oman’s territorial waters, has been effectively blocked by Tehran amid the US-Israel war on the country.

Baghaei said Iran has “no relations whatsoever with what is unfolding in Yemen”, adding Tehran does not interfere in its affairs. He added that Saudi Arabia requested the postponement of the meeting.

Tensions between Saudi Arabia and Yemen have escalated since July, when Houthis, who control large parts of Yemen, declared a naval blockade on their northwestern neighbour. Clashes escalated last week as Houthis seized the port of Mocha, tightening their control over the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

Attacks on shipping

Meanwhile, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Monday that its forces had intercepted and destroyed an advanced MQ-1 drone over the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement carried by the semi-official Tasnim news agency, the IRGC said it intercepted the drone using a new aerospace defence system.

Regarding an attack on an Iranian commercial vessel on Sunday that killed one person, Baghaei said two Pakistani citizens working on board were also injured.

The United States and Israel “continue to target security” in the Gulf, he added.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have captured Mocha port and now threaten to control the main waterway of the Bab al-Mandeb strait. They have also attacked several cities in Saudi Arabia, wounding about 70 people, including women and children.

The repeated attacks against Saudi energy, civil, and defence facilities, combined with the maritime blockage by Iran and its Yemeni partner the Houthis, directly raise the question of the Mecca Pact’s operationalisation between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and Pakistan.

The Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia can activate the mutual defence agreement. If that happens, what could a Pakistani and Turkish intervention look like?

The answer to this question necessitates some crucial background first.

The US – the main security partner of the Gulf states – has signalled for a while now that it expects regional countries to take primary responsibility for their own defence and deterrence, with US help remaining critical but limited.

That posture is already visible on the ground. Since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran, the US has not been able to provide comprehensive defence for its regional partners. On several occasions, it has even failed to stop attacks on its own bases in the Gulf.

With US presence receding and Washington emphasising regional burden-sharing, Gulf states have had to look into a new defence architecture. In September 2025, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed their first mutual defence agreement, which expanded in August this year to include Turkiye and became the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement.

The three countries have since established a joint secretariat, with its headquarters in Riyadh, with Pakistan taking the chairmanship for an initial three-year term.

The pact remains in a gestation period. It does not publicly identify the thresholds or scenarios under which a member would move to direct military intervention. Its organisational and institutional structure, including rules of engagement, mechanisms of consultation, and collective defence and deterrence, are yet to be formally developed.

Now, back to the question of how the pact will be operational if a member state is attacked.

Earlier this week, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said that an unprovoked aggression against Saudi Arabia, or a spillover of the Yemen conflict into the kingdom, would make the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement operational, adding that “there should be no doubt in this.”

Asif, however, did not share specific details on what shape that operationalisation would take. Last month, Turkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan clarified that the Mecca Pact would work the same way as NATO: If a member state is attacked, it must actively request and define the specific type of help it needs.

NATO’s Article 4 allows for a member to call alliance consultations and exchange of information. Article 5 requires mutual assistance from allies, but it leaves each state to decide the nature of that assistance.

In 2012, after Syria shot down a Turkish warplane, Ankara invoked Article 4 for consultation and requested specific defence assistance. Instead of demanding direct military intervention, the Turkish government explicitly asked for Patriot missile defence batteries. NATO approved the request and deployed the systems to protect Turkish airspace.

In this context, if the Mecca Pact is to be operationalised, it would have to be Saudi Arabia that defines the type of military assistance and involvement that it needs. If, for example, Riyadh makes an actual request for Pakistani direct military intervention, beyond materiel and intelligence support, Islamabad would be obliged to comply. But the request, and the scale of the response, would still likely need to be defined and agreed in a consultation meeting.

For now, none of this has been tested as Riyadh has not invoked the pact with either Pakistan or Turkiye.

In the meantime, diplomatic efforts have intensified, with Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud talking to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Islamabad has also publicly urged Iran to rein in the Houthis from attacking Saudi Arabia and threatening the Bab al-Mandeb, and has reminded Tehran of Pakistan’s commitment to Riyadh’s defence through the pact. Ankara would likely play its own part in diplomatically restraining the Houthis and Iran.

If diplomacy fails and Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia or the Bab al-Mandeb continue, Turkiye and Pakistan would likely expand the air and technological support they already provide. Islamabad already has an air squadron of about 16 JF-17 Thunder multirole aircraft, defence systems, and thousands of troops deployed in Saudi Arabia.

But a direct military operation by Pakistani forces inside Yemen remains unlikely at the moment. Given the disastrous and lasting impacts of its participation in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union on behalf of the US, Pakistan would be far more wary of joining a war against Iran and its allies, for fear of spillover into its western border provinces’ economy, domestic security, sectarian balance, and societal harmony. Pakistani leaders would find it hard to build domestic consensus for direct attacks on the Houthis or a fight with Iran.

The likely scenario is that Pakistan would increase joint diplomatic pressure on Iran to restrain the Houthis, further augment its support for Saudi defence, and push for a multinational naval coalition to secure the Bab al-Mandeb. Adopting this restraint would still keep the essence of the Mecca Pact intact, while putting more weight behind regional de-escalation.

The new security architecture that agreements like the Mecca Pact are setting up will take years to mature. Until the mechanisms and rules of collective response develop, Pakistan’s existing bilateral defence relationships with Saudi Arabia and other Arab partners will continue to focus on defence needs.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

A quarter-century after the attacks on September 11, 2001, officials across the United States have taken part in tributes and memorials to honour the 2,977 victims and those who risked their lives as part of the rescue efforts.

The incident is considered the deadliest “terrorist” attack in US history.

Four planes were hijacked. Two crashed into the World Trade Center, causing its Twin Towers to collapse. A third struck the Pentagon outside Washington, DC. And the fourth plummeted into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers and crew rose against their attackers.

Through social media messages, public speeches and appearances at ceremonies, US leaders on Friday took different approaches to remembering the lives of the thousands who perished on the fateful day.

Here’s what they said:

US President Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump chose to stay in Washington, DC, to observe the 25th anniversary.

During the attacks, 184 people died near the capital when American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, the headquarters of the US military.

Trump opted not to attend a Friday ceremony at the World Trade Center site in New York, where all his living presidential predecessors were in attendance.

His vice president, JD Vance, travelled to New York instead. The ceremony at the World Trade Center has a policy of not allowing political speeches.

In his remarks at the Pentagon, Trump described what happened as “true evil”. He also paid tribute to those who died in the attacks.

“We will honour their lives, we will cherish their beautiful memories, and we will protect this country and its freedoms for every future generation,” Trump said.

The president also praised US troops as he appeared to link the 9/11 attacks with his administration’s war against Iran.

“We will never, ever forget. That’s why we fight today. We don’t have a choice. There can only be victory,” Trump said.

“We salute the service members working right now to ensure the world’s number one sponsor of terror – the Islamic Republic of Iran – will never, ever have a nuclear weapon,” he later added.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also spoke at the Pentagon, delivering his remarks shortly before Trump’s.

He warned the audience to practice “eternal vigilance” against what he called continued threats.

“There are still enemies who hate us. Every day, enemies plot to curb our power and kill our citizens, including from Islamic terrorists abroad and at home,” he said.

He proceeded to seemingly use the 9/11 attacks as justification for the US-Israeli war against Iran, which started on February 28.

“Over the past six months, we have laid waste to the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism,” Hegseth said, referring to Iran. “Our warriors have fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for nearly half a century, that cheered on 9/11.”

He went on to claim that the US military has destroyed Iran’s defences and that the US controls the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for international trade.

Iran has stopped commercial traffic through the strait since the start of the war.

“We’re still sending terrorists where they belong, to hell, and tankers to the bottom of the ocean where they belong,” Hegseth said. “And we’re ensuring that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. The economic pressure tightens every day. We control the strait. We will finish this fight.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani attended the New York memorial service, alongside the city’s former mayor, Rudy Giuliani, who led the city through the attacks.

Before the event started, Giuliani shook hands with the mayor, despite previously calling on Mamdani not to attend the event.

Mamdani, the city’s first Muslim mayor, had recently come under fire from some conservative politicians and victims’ family members who said his presence at the memorial would offend them.

A Change.org petition garnered more than 100,000 signatures from those who wished to express concern about Mamdani’s participation.

Like all politicians attending the service at the National September 11 Memorial, Mamdani was not permitted to speak.

Instead, the mayor released a video on social media remembering those who were killed and challenging the public to honour their memory by doing good works.

“Twenty-five years later, we have a sacred obligation to those who were stolen from us. To care for one another as they cared for strangers. To live lives worthy of the sacrifices they made. And to build a city worthy of their courage. A city where we run toward one another,” Mamdani said.

“That is how we’ll remember.”

On Tuesday, Mamdani also released a trove of previously undisclosed documents suggesting city officials tried to downplay – or even mislead – first residents about the dangerous air quality following the attacks.

US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed

Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed took to the social media platform X to honour the lives lost during what he described as a “cruel act of terror”.

El-Sayed is locked in a tight midterm race in Michigan against his Republican opponent, former US Representative Mike Rogers.

Michigan’s open Senate seat is considered a must-win seat for Democrats, if they hope to take back control of the US Senate.

Rogers has sought to create controversy over El-Sayed’s past comments about the September 11 attacks. He has pointed to audio of El-Sayed reportedly saying, “9/11 scarred our country in profound ways, but what we did after 9/11 scarred millions of other people.”

During the Republican Party’s first-ever midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, on Thursday, Rogers blasted El-Sayed, who is Muslim, for being sympathetic to terrorists. He also sought to highlight El-Sayed’s links to left-wing internet commentator Hasan Piker.

“I never imagined that, 25 years after 9/11, I would be running against somebody who campaigns with Hasan Piker, who thinks America deserved it,” Rogers said. “Yep, but here we are.”

On Friday, however, El-Sayed used his social media post to push back against Rogers’s attacks.

“Nothing can justify the murder of innocent civilians. Nothing,” El-Sayed wrote.

He also called on Americans to help build a country that was “more inclusive, more empowering, more just” in tribute to the lives lost.

“They didn’t just attack America that day. They attacked the idea of America,” El-Sayed said of the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers who participated in the attacks.

“The notion of a nation brought together by ideals where it doesn’t matter how you pray or if you pray at all. A place where freedom and commitment to justice bind us, even if at times we struggle to fully realise it.”

Prices spiked as attacks on oil tankers escalated in the Middle East.

Oil prices have increased by four percent, with benchmark Brent crude hitting $105 a barrel after the biggest rise in attacks on shipping since the Iran war began spurred trader concerns about further supply disruptions.

Brent crude futures were up $4.05, or four percent, at $105.26 a barrel by 1215 GMT on Thursday. United States oil topped $100 a barrel for the first time since May, as West Texas Intermediate crude futures CLc1 rose $3.99, or 4.15 percent, to $100.04.

Brent prices have surged by more than 30 percent from lows touched in early August, as a permanent agreement between the US and Iran to cease attacks never materialised and fighting resumed.

Iran-aligned Houthis seized control of Yemen’s port of Mocha on Thursday, further threatening Red Sea traffic, while Gulf traffic remains restricted through the Strait of Hormuz as tanker attacks in the region have intensified in recent days.

“The recent run-up in prices lays bare the market’s approach: this conflict will last longer than anticipated even a month ago, let alone at the beginning of the summer. If oil supply and exports are diminished, the oil balance remains tight and prices remain elevated,” PVM analyst John Evans said.

Iran said it had attacked 10 ships near the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, after the US hit five Iranian oil tankers. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it would escalate its response to any further attacks.

While fears of prolonged and more severe supply disruptions in the Gulf have lifted Brent above $100, analysts say the durability of the rally will hinge on China.

Chinese demand

China, the world’s largest crude importer, has stepped up purchases in recent weeks after months of subdued demand, boosting physical crude markets, ING analysts said in a note.

If Chinese buying continues to recover, it could amplify the impact of any supply disruptions and drive prices higher, while a pullback in imports could temper market gains, ING said.

“For months, the bearish case rested on soft Chinese demand,” said David Jorbenaze, global oil market lead at commodities information provider, ICIS.

Rising oil prices have worsened worries about inflation and cranked up pressure within the bond market, helping to lower stocks again on Wall Street.

The S&P 500 fell 0.6 percent and is on track for a fourth straight loss.

The increase in oil prices has pushed the price for a gallon of regular petrol to an average of nearly $4.28 across the US, according to the American Automobile Association. That is not only costing more at the pump but also through higher prices for all kinds of products that move by truck to store shelves.

Following Thursday’s reports, traders are betting on a close to 70 percent chance the Fed will raise the federal funds rate at its meeting next week. That’s up from the 61 percent probability seen the day before, according to data from CME Group. That’s also despite President Donald Trump’s consistent lobbying for interest rates to go lower rather than higher.

Sanaa, Yemen – The United Nations-recognised Yemeni government and the Houthi group have been using warplanes, missiles, drones and other weapons as they engage in intense fighting on multiple fronts in the country’s north, west and central regions.

At least 194 people have been killed and 880 others wounded in the past two weeks of fighting in parts of Taiz, the western coast, al-Jawf, Marib and Dhalea, according to aid agencies.

Iran-backed Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (supporters of God), have intensified attacks on the coastal district of al-Makha (Mocha) located on the western coast, among others, to gain a foothold in the Red Sea – a vital shipping lane.

On the other hand, government forces have been battling to expand in Taiz and boost their control of Marib, an oil-producing region in the north.

Fighting has also been raging in the al-Jawf governorate bordering Saudi Arabia and Dhalea, which connects the Houthi-controlled north to the country’s south under the internationally recognised government.

Experts say gains or losses on any of these strategically important fronts could have significant consequences for either side.

Taiz and western coast fronts

“The hills and mountainous areas of Taiz and the western coast are key targets for the Houthis, who have repeatedly attempted to advance there,” Yazeed al-Jeddawy, the research manager at the Sanaa Center for Strategic Studies, said.

“The Houthis are trying to seize commanding terrains, cut supply routes between the coastal Mocha district and Taiz, and prevent government troops on the western coast from linking up with the Taiz Military Axis,” said al-Jeddawy.

In Taiz and along the western coast, al-Jeddawy says, the immediate contest is over the heights and roads connecting Taiz to al-Makha.

Situated roughly 60km (37 miles) from the Bab al-Mandeb strait, al-Makha enjoys a highly strategic position on the Red Sea. For a month now, the Houthis have launched missile and drone attacks on the city, causing massive damage to its port facilities and killing and injuring several civilians.

Recently, the group has also attempted to extend its ground operations towards al-Makha city.

“The Houthis seem intent on tightening their hold around [al-Makha] and moving closer to the Dhubab–Bab al-Mandeb area. A substantial advance would strengthen their position near the southern entrance to the Red Sea and give them greater leverage over international shipping,” he added.

Fuad Mussed, a Yemeni political analyst and author, told Al Jazeera that the strategic importance of the western coast and Taiz fronts stems from their proximity to Bab al-Mandeb, a chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

“The Houthis seek to move closer to this vital waterway to threaten maritime traffic. Such a move aims to keep the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb under the influence of Iran and use them as leverage against regional and international powers. This is a strategy Tehran has been pursuing for years,” Mussed said.

Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, a global oil chokepoint, to use it as leverage in the war against the United States. It has also warned that its allies could shut shipping via Bab al-Mandeb. Iran also attacked Saudi Arabia’s pipeline used to export oil from the Red Sea.

In July, the Houthis declared a blockade against Saudi vessels transiting through the Red Sea – an alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.

Marib and al-Jawf fronts

Over the past few weeks, pro-government forces have attacked Houthi-held territories in Marib and al-Jawf, facing further retaliation from the Houthis.

Saddam al-Huraibi, a Yemeni political commentator, said the Marib front is fateful for both sides.

“Marib is a government stronghold in north Yemen. So, a Houthi expansion in Marib would threaten government presence and weaken its leverage in the north. That is why pro-government troops are ready to fight tooth and nail on this front line,” al-Huraibi told Al Jazeera.

For the Houthis, the takeover of Marib will deepen the group’s authority and step towards controlling the oil and gas infrastructure. The Iran-backed group captured vast swaths of northern Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa, in 2014, but Marib has remained in government hands since.

“Dominating Marib’s oil and gas resources has been a Houthi goal for over a decade. Without facing a crushing defeat in Marib, they would keep fighting to achieve that goal,” al-Huraibi said.

Adjacent to Marib, al-Jawf is also a hub of tense fighting between the Houthis and government forces. A government gain there would lay the groundwork for further advances, while a strong Houthi defence could undermine government forces’ morale and prompt them to retreat.

“Government-aligned forces have lately focused much of their offensive effort on al-Jawf. Government gains in al-Jawf would ease the threat to Marib while requiring the Houthis to defend a much broader area,” al-Huraibi said.

Al-Jeddawy said government gains could open routes towards the north – Saada, Amran or Houthi positions north of Marib.

The Houthis have carried out attacks in Saudi Arabia, including energy facilities in the country’s south. They have also accused Saudi Arabia of launching multiple attacks in al-Jawf, al-Bayda, Marib and Taiz provinces in support of government forces.

The Dhalea front

Fighting on the Dhalea front, a strategic gateway between Houthi-held territory and the southern governorates, has intensified in recent weeks.

Fighting there did not fully stop during the relative calm, which began in April 2022 following the UN-brokered ceasefire.

A Houthi advance there could open a route for their fighters to reach other southern territories. On the other hand, a Houthi setback would encourage government forces to push towards Ibb, controlled by the group.

“[Houthi] advances in Dhalea could expose the southern hinterland, while [government advances] could threaten Houthi positions and supply routes towards Ibb, al-Bayda and, farther north, Sanaa,” al-Jeddawy noted.

With the escalating fighting, the Houthis face pressure on several fronts, but the group has been readying for a range of scenarios, Khaled Ghorab, a pro-Houthi general, said.

“The [Houthi] Yemeni armed forces were never caught off guard by the prospect of escalation; rather, they worked to build and develop their own military capabilities based on tactical combat plans designed to counter a comprehensive, sustained attack launched simultaneously from land, sea and air,” he said.

Ghorab noted that this state of readiness enables the Houthi forces to carry out a direct response to sources of the threat – whether deep within enemy territory or at sea – targeting military bases or aircraft carriers as far as the Horn of Africa.

While the warring parties compete to seize strategic positions on several front lines, the latest escalation is also closely related to the wider regional confrontation.

“Iran has an interest in keeping Yemen and the Red Sea active as sources of leverage, while parts of the government camp believe the Houthis are under growing strain and that this is an opportunity to weaken them,” al-Jeddawy, the Sanaa-based researcher, said.

“The escalation still reflects domestic military and political aims, but its timing and direction cannot be separated from the regional war,” he told Al Jazeera.

Dallas, Texas – The Republican midterm convention has represented a gambit for the party: centring US President Donald Trump in the final stretch of the midterm elections, even as the first two years of his second term have cast a polarising political shadow.

That has been particularly true when it comes to the war on Iran, which Trump launched alongside Israel on February 28, and the knock-on effects on affordability in the United States, a key issue for many voters.

As Trump prepared to deliver a keynote address on Wednesday in Dallas, prices for Brent Crude, the global benchmark, rose above $100 a barrel for the first time since July, a reminder of the conflict’s continued fallout for global markets.

Nevertheless, supporters who spoke to Al Jazeera still saw the president as the man to rally Americans to vote Republican in November, as the party fights to hold onto control of the House of Representatives and Senate.

But some voiced concern – or confusion – over the impact of the war.

“This really is a Trump-a-palooza, as people have been saying,” said Carter Eisinger, a 27-year-old electrician who travelled from Fargo, North Dakota.

“I think some people say that in a derogatory way, but I think it’s very much a complimentary phrase,” he added. “The reality of it is we are in a Trump Republican Party.”

Still, Eisinger struggled to see how the war fit into Trump’s “America First” vision.

“In my opinion, I don’t really see the connection of how a war in Iran helps us here in the country,” he said. “If the Iran war is justified, I’m willing to pay the gas prices, but I haven’t seen that justification.”

He felt a similar confusion about the close relationship between the US and Israel.

“At the end of the day, I’m going to come right back to whatever is best for families, young people, anyone in America,” he said. “If it’s helping Israel in a way that helps us, then great… but it needs to help us first.”

Others were more charitable towards Trump’s approach to the Middle East, even if they saw the war on Iran as a misstep.

Bijay Dixit, a 59-year-old photographer from Houston, Texas, gave Trump high marks on his approach to immigration. He also believed Republicans were the party to steward the economy in the years ahead.

But on Iran, he said there had been a “miscalculation”, even if he agreed with the Trump administration’s position that the war was ultimately a necessary response to the totality of Iran’s actions in the 47 years since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

“Iran needed to be stopped at some point,” he said. “When I say miscalculation, what I mean is underestimation of the capacity of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps].”

Helen Vennett, a 65-year-old small business owner from Maryland and the chairman of her county’s Republican Party, likened the convention to a high-school pep rally.

“All of us need to have cheerleaders in our life… It just gets you fired up again. You kind of need to know that you’re not alone, that there are believers,” she added.

But while she said she broadly supported the Trump administration’s justification for the war, she acknowledged the potential political fallout.

“It’s a tough one,” she said.

Polls have regularly suggested widespread disapproval among US citizens of the war on Iran, with independents in particular expressing disapproval. Many, in turn, rank affordability as their top issue heading into the midterm vote.

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested that only a quarter of Americans think the war is worthwhile.

For its part, the Trump administration has downplayed the prospect of ending the war, focusing instead on efforts to open shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz, over which Iran continues to assert its influence.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday as he departed for the convention, Trump sought to temper expectations that the war would end before November’s pivotal vote.

“I think it’s going to take a little bit longer than the midterm,” he said, accusing Iran of intentionally holding out until November.

“They’re desperate to try and affect the election so that we can get a nice weak group of people in there and leave them alone and let them have their nuclear weapons,” he said.

He predicted the war would end swiftly after the final votes have been cast.

“They can’t hold out any longer,” he said.

John Russell, 55, from Rockford, Illinois, who regularly travels to Trump rallies as part of the “Front Row Joe’s” group, said he believed voters would still view the first two years of Trump’s second term as a net positive.

“It’s been a small bump with the gas going up,” he told Al Jazeera from the convention.

“But it had to be done. We can’t allow [Iran] to have a nuclear bomb,” he said, referring to one of the administration’s main justifications for the war.

Tehran has long denied seeking a nuclear weapon, with military analysts generally agreeing that destroying its nuclear programme would require a major military escalation, involving boots on the ground.

Russell predicted that the Republican Party’s bet would pay off at the polls.

“It’s going to fire up the base,” he said of the convention. “It’s going to switch some independents to vote for the Trump-backed candidates, and they will win.”

US military says it struck the five Iranian tankers after IRGC targeted a US warship twice in two days.

The United States has claimed attacks on five Iranian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and near Kharg Island after accusing Iran of launching ballistic missiles at a US warship twice in two days.

Iran responded to the attacks on Tuesday by firing missiles at US forces stationed at the Al Azraq base in Jordan. Amman said its air defences intercepted and destroyed 18 of 20 Iranian missiles, while the rest fell in open areas.

The exchange of fire comes amid escalating tensions in the Gulf, six months into the US and Israel’s war on Iran, with Tehran maintaining the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ports.

The hostilities briefly drove oil prices to $99.46 earlier on Tuesday.

In a statement, the US Central Command said Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had targeted a US warship twice over the past two days. The warship “successfully evaded the attempted Iranian attacks” and “no American personnel were harmed”, it said.

The Central Command said it retaliated by destroying the Iranian oil carriers, M/T Kaviz, M/T Charminar, M/T Horizon 1, and M/T Riesco in the Gulf of Oman as well as M/T Derya near Kharg Island.

“American forces directed the crews to abandon ship before the vessels were struck and rendered inoperable,” the Central Command added.

Iran’s IRIB state broadcaster confirmed the attack near Kharg Island in the Gulf, which handled some 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports before the war. It reported that the crew was evacuated and said a second tanker was hit near the southern port of Jask on the Gulf of Oman.

The IRGC also said “several” Iranian commercial ships were hit, and said it retaliated by subjecting Al Azraq base in Jordan to “fierce missile strikes”. It claimed hangars used by US fighter jets were destroyed in the ballistic missile attacks.

It went on to claim ballistic missile attacks on the US Navy DDG-119 and DDG-53 destroyers, saying “significant damage was caused to these vessels”.

The IRGC also threatened to target oil tankers in Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports, warning crews there to evacuate immediately.

“We warn all the crews of oil tankers in the Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports… to immediately abandon their vessels, whether at anchor or at the ports, because they will be targeted,” it said.

Jordan’s Armed Forces, meanwhile, said its air defences engaged 20 ballistic missiles, “successfully intercepting and destroying 18 of them”. Two missiles “fell in unpopulated areas,” it said in a statement.

The attacks did not cause any casualties and specialised teams “have begun securing the locations where debris and shrapnel fell,” it added.

Earlier, the chief of staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, Ali Abdollahi, had warned that Tehran would strike US military installations across the region if Iranian tankers were targeted.

“The US aggressor army has given Iranian oil tankers an evacuation warning to hit them, so I announce that any attack on Iranian oil tankers will result in the targeting of US bases in the region by the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Abdollahi said on state TV.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, said Washington would continue to strike Iranian ships.

“Iran continues to try to hit US naval ships, and for every time they do that or try to do that, they’re going to lose tankers,” Rubio told reporters on a visit to Colombia.

Tehran has threatened “serious consequences” for South Korea if it interferes in the US-Israel war on Iran.

The warning comes amid reports that Seoul is mulling contributing to the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz passage, which has hampered Iran’s oil exports.

In a statement posted on X on Monday, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran and South Korea had more than 64 years of diplomatic relations based on mutual respect and that Tehran values that friendship.

However, if South Korea joins the United States in its military actions against Iran at a time when the country is defending itself from what he called US aggression and “war crimes against women and children”, then there will be consequences, he warned.

Baghaei threatened that Iran would regard any military presence or participation in operations by another country in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz “would inevitably be regarded as direct support for the aggressor and would have serious consequences”.

“No sovereign and responsible country should succumb to US pressure and intimidation and become complicit in acts of aggression and horrific crimes against the great Iranian nation,” he added.

Seoul did not respond directly, but a Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement on Monday said it is communicating with the international community over the situation in the passageway.

Here’s what we know about how South Korea is getting roped in:

Why is South Korea involved?

Seoul, a close ally of Washington, has been under pressure from US President Donald Trump.

The issues began in mid-August, when Trump revealed in an interview, and later online, that he had spoken to South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and asked that Seoul give “a little hand” in the war on Iran.

According to media reports, the two leaders had spoken over the phone on May 17.

Seoul said, “No, thanks!”, according to Trump’s message on social media.

However, as South Korea now knows, saying no to Trump has repercussions.

On August 16, Trump announced that the US would significantly scale back joint military drills it holds annually with South Korea – the evening before they were scheduled to begin.

The Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) exercises are meant to sharpen Seoul’s readiness in case of a North Korean attack. They usually last for more than 11 days but were reduced to five.

In a post on his Truth Social site, Trump claimed the drills were “costly” and that they send a “hostile” signal to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with whom he is trying to build a relationship. South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said in parliament there was no warning from the US.

Trump also questioned why South Korea would refuse his request when thousands of US soldiers are stationed on the Korean Peninsula.

The US also cancelled another military exercise scheduled for September, although South Korea’s military revealed it received a notification much earlier in June, with Washington citing constraints due to the war on Iran.

How has South Korea responded?

President Lee, a liberal who pushes for a dialled-down defence posture, has opted to negotiate. His office earlier released statements saying it hopes for “meaningful dialogue” with Trump.

South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported on Monday that Washington has, however, “ratcheted up pressure” on Seoul.

On Friday, a South Korean presidential official told Yonhap that Seoul could consider a military contribution to international measures seeking to free up navigation in the passageway as long as it does not affect the country’s defence readiness.

South Korea is looking at various options, the official said, including possible cooperation with France, the United Kingdom and other allies on sending noncombat and search-and-rescue forces.

The South Korean military has also started reviewing assets and troops that could be deployed, including maritime patrol aircraft, explosive ordnance disposal teams and unmanned mine detection and clearing systems, he added.

Such a move would be unpopular. The opposition has spoken out against a possible deployment, as have some within Lee’s ruling Democratic Party. Many South Koreans have also protested against the US-Israel war on Iran.

What is the history of US-South Korea relations?

South Korea became one of the US’s closest allies after Washington backed Seoul against Pyongyang in the Korean War of 1950.

The US supported Seoul’s economic and military growth in the years after. Under a treaty, some 29,000 US soldiers have been stationed permanently on the Korean Peninsula since the end of the war. Seoul has also relied on US defence might to deter nuclear-armed North Korea.

In return, South Korea supported several US wars, including the Iraq War, and is designated an important non-NATO ally.

In 2025, however, Washington imposed a 25 percent tariff on the country, testing relations. Seoul opted to negotiate rather than retaliate, leading the US to lower tariffs to 15 percent.

Many South Koreans were also alarmed after hundreds of South Koreans were arrested in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on a Hyundai plant in Georgia in September 2025.

Last October, Trump travelled to Seoul in a historic state visit, and earlier this year, President Lee visited the US. Lee is also trying to resume dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang.

How is South Korea being affected by the US-Israel war on Iran?

South Korea is facing an economic crisis. The country relies on the Gulf supplies via the Strait of Hormuz for 60 to 70 percent of crude imports, meaning supply is being severely hit. The war has led to soaring inflation, causing the Korean won to fall to a 17-year low.

Seoul therefore has an interest in freeing up the strait. However, under Korean law, the government will require parliament’s approval before a military deployment, although some governing party members could oppose it.