USIsrael

Tehran, Iran – Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have expanded their mutual defence pact to add Turkiye, raising questions about the emergence of a new security architecture at a time when the United States and Iran have yet to reach a final deal to end their war.

Under the agreement signed in Mecca on Friday, any external armed attack on either of the three countries will now be considered an attack on all.

The trilateral pact was announced more than five months after the US and Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran, triggering a conflict that quickly spread to the Gulf and disrupted maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, however, have been careful not to antagonise any regional or international actors while finalising what they said was the result of years of hard work and negotiations. They have stressed the pact, which does not identify a specific threat, is not targeted against any country – particularly Iran – and does not abrogate or replace any existing agreements with others.

In Tehran, the reaction has largely been subdued, with officials mostly focusing on aspects of regional and Muslim cooperation and what they perceive as a declining role for the US.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that when Muslims stand together, “we can face every challenge by malicious outsiders head-on”.

“Time to rely only on ourselves and embrace true brotherhood,” he wrote on X, without directly mentioning the trilateral agreement signed hours earlier.

But Iran certainly sees some reasons to be concerned in the long run, according to Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher and analyst on Iran and Middle Eastern geopolitical dynamics.

The associate at Clingendael Institute told Al Jazeera that the timing is important, since the agreement comes after months of a war in which Saudi Arabia has faced attacks from the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen and armed groups in neighbouring Iraq.

“From Tehran’s perspective, the concern is therefore not only that the pact could strengthen Saudi deterrence, but that it could eventually facilitate coordinated pressure on Iran in Yemen, Iraq, and even economically through Turkiye and Pakistan,” he said.

On Sunday, the Houthis claimed another successful drone strike on the Saudi Aramco refinery in Jizan. Saudi Arabia confirmed a fire was extinguished without inflicting casualties, but did not mention the cause.

Separately in Yemen, Houthi missiles and drones struck the Saudi-backed and internationally recognised government’s Red Sea port of al-Makha, with officials reporting at least seven people killed, 15 wounded and severe infrastructure damage. The Yemeni group, which has also been hitting or turning back Saudi-linked ships in the Red Sea over recent weeks, said it targeted weapons depots.

‘A strong bloc’

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not released a formal statement about the Pakistan-Saudi-Turkiye deal, but a senior official outlined Tehran’s diplomatic thinking in an interview with local media on Saturday.

Hossein Noushabadi, a director general for parliamentary and legal affairs, told the state-linked ISNA news service that the ministry predominantly regards the agreement within the context of a diminishing direct US presence in the region.

The pact “is being viewed as the beginning of the collapse of US security hegemony in West Asia and the Persian Gulf”, said Noushabadi.

“It appears that, in the not-too-distant future, a new regional security order based on cooperation among regional states will replace the power structures imposed by extra-regional actors, heralding the end of the prevailing security and geopolitical paradigm and West Asia’s departure from the sphere of vital US interests,” added the official, who is a former Iranian envoy to Oman.

Political scientist Vali Nasr said he does not believe the pact is currently a threat to Tehran.

“For now, these are all elements of a post-American security order in the Middle East,” the professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University told Al Jazeera.

“This is also as much a balance to the Abraham Accords as a direct challenge to Tehran,” he added, in reference to the US-pushed regional normalisation effort with Israel, which US President Donald Trump last month tied with a civil nuclear deal sought by Saudi Arabia.

Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University of Qatar, also agreed that decision-makers in Iran do not immediately feel threatened by the pact, especially since they have maintained cordial relations with both Pakistan and Turkiye even under trying circumstances.

“Ultimately, this pact is not that new, nor is it something that, at present at least, has a great deal of substance beyond its symbolic significance. For example, neither Turkiye nor Pakistan would be willing to get involved in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen despite recent Houthi attacks on the kingdom,” Kamrava told Al Jazeera.

Not all inside Iran are content with the pact, however, with some hardline lawmakers and media arguing that it could ultimately be directed against the “resistance front” of Tehran-backed armed forces across the region, and degrade Pakistan’s credibility as a main mediator between Iran and the US and others.

“It’s clear that Arab states finally understand security cannot be imported; it must be built within the region. However, a roadmap is still missing,” Ebrahim Azizi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said in a more hawkish viewing of the pact.

“Warning: Miscalculation is a historical mistake. Iran has proven that every error comes at a cost. Balance is the only way forward,” he wrote on X.

Ebrahim Rezaei, another member of the commission, also wrote on X that “a paper agreement with Turkiye and Pakistan” will not bring Saudi Arabia security, “just as years of one-sided dependence on the Americans did not bring them security”.

Is Iran missing out?

Clingendael Institute’s Azizi said Tehran’s priority will likely be to avoid turning the pact into an explicitly anti-Iranian coalition amid a war with regional repercussions, and that would mean preserving individual relations with each of the three countries.

He said Tehran can also continue to emphasise its long-standing argument that regional security should ultimately be organised by regional states rather than external powers.

“If those states come to see the pact as providing meaningful protection against Iran or Iran-aligned groups, that would make Iranian membership even more difficult,” said Azizi. “Over the longer term, however, if the arrangement evolves from a balancing coalition into a broader regional security architecture, the question of Iranian participation could look quite different.”

Experts also said it could be a possibility that Iran itself would be seeking potential membership in the pact in a distant future, but that would mean a sustainable end to attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and across the region, while expansion to other regional Arab states seems more plausible in the near term. Egypt has already been floated as a candidate, but that could be a complex decision for Cairo to make.

Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North African Programme at Chatham House, said the trilateral pact reflects both short- and long-term security concerns and opportunities for Riyadh, Islamabad and Ankara.

“They are driven together to forge greater diplomatic and defence cooperation in reaction to US unreliability, Israeli revisionism and Iranian retaliation,” she told Al Jazeera.

Iran says the Strait of Hormuz will remain restricted unless the US meets a series of demands. The UAE accuses Tehran of targeting an oil tanker, while Yemen’s Houthis claim an attack on a Saudi refinery. Al Jazeera’s Nour Hegazy reports.

IRGC sets terms to reopen Hormuz as US seeks commitments to end attacks on ships in the waterway.

Gulf and Arab governments condemn Iran over missile strike on Emirati tanker.

The United Arab Emirates has accused Iran of striking a tanker owned by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) with a missile as it crossed the Strait of Hormuz, drawing swift condemnation from Gulf and Arab governments.

The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Saturday that the vessel was hit in the early hours of the morning while transiting the strategic waterway, a chokepoint for a large share of the world’s seaborne oil.

Abu Dhabi described the strike as an act of piracy by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and called on Tehran to halt the attacks and reopen the strait fully and unconditionally.

ADNOC confirmed one of its ships had been targeted by a missile while crossing the strait, according to the state news agency WAM. ADNOC did not provide details on any damage to the vessel or its exact location at the time of the attack.

The UAE ministry said using the waterway as a tool for pressure or economic blackmail threatened regional stability and global energy security.

The IRGC have previously threatened action against any vessels transiting the strait if they are linked to Tehran’s adversaries, or if they fail to comply with Iranian directives.

ADNOC said on Friday that it had been significantly affected by what it described as unprovoked attacks on its personnel and assets, while continuing to meet customer requirements in an “exceptionally challenging environment.”

The company said 15 of its vessels had been attacked by missiles and drones while transiting the strait since the start of the conflict, including three this week, killing one crew member and injuring 20 others. ADNOC did not identify those responsible for the attacks in its Friday statement.

Regional governments condemn attack

Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary-General Jassim Mohammed al-Budaiwi condemned the latest attack as a “dangerous and unacceptable escalation”, calling for international action to protect maritime navigation and reaffirming the bloc’s solidarity with the UAE.

Qatar also condemned the attack and rejected the use of the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip, calling for the waterway to be reopened without conditions. Doha’s foreign ministry warned that its continued closure threatened the interests of regional states and the global economy.

Saudi Arabia condemned the targeting of the tanker “in the strongest terms,” saying Iran’s continued attacks constituted a grave breach of international law and Resolution 2817. Riyadh held Tehran responsible for the consequences and demanded an immediate halt to the strikes.

Jordan also condemned the attack as a flagrant violation of international law, affirming its full support for the UAE.

The reported attack marks a sharp escalation in tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, where the UAE and its Gulf neighbours have pressed for the passage to remain open to international shipping.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s authorities are weighing a finalised arrangement with Oman over the Strait of Hormuz, but top officials maintain that the strategic waterway’s full reopening will hinge on concessions from the United States.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Saturday said the agreement with Oman was “very close”, but cautioned that a full reopening of the strait would depend on the US staying true to commitments given as part of a June memorandum of understanding (MoU) that were violated.

Iran has previously slammed the US for backing a southern Omani route in the waterway without coordination with Tehran, not halting Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, and refusing to unfreeze any of Iran’s money blocked abroad due to sanctions.

Separately on Saturday, Hossein Mohebbi, spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), told state media the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz “has its own specific mechanism and has nothing to do with the negotiations between Iran and Oman”.

He added the US will have no choice but to accede to “conditions” set by the Islamic republic to reopen the strategic strait, which Mohebbi said the IRGC views as not just an economic waterway, but a source of power tied to Iran’s geographical position that it intends to leverage.

The IRGC spokesman urged the administration of US President Donald Trump not to “interfere” in the talks with Oman, “which have nearly reached their conclusion”.

On Friday, the spokesperson for the national security commission of Iran’s hardline-dominated parliament also confirmed that the framework of an arrangement with Oman over the strait had been agreed upon, and a deal could be expected soon.

Hassan Qashqavi said the decision was pending a green light from “higher levels”.

In a televised interview, President Masoud Pezeshkian said he would “strongly defend” the MoU signed with the US in June and once again rejected speculation that he would abandon his office, despite claims by hardliners that he has used the threat of resignation as a way of combatting opponents who are against a diplomatic resolution with the US.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said earlier that a joint statement could be expected with Oman if a deal is reached to bring back some traffic to the strait, which has been mostly disrupted since the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.

Iran and Oman have agreed on the coordinates of routes to be taken by vessels through the waterway as part of the arrangement. Inbound traffic is to pass through a northern lane through Iranian territorial waters, while outbound traffic will go through a southern lane in Omani waters, coordinated with Iran.

US media have said the interim agreement is envisaged for 60 days and can be extended. They have also reported on discussions concerning naval mine clearance from a central corridor that could be utilised in the future, the passage of military vessels and a potential coordinated fee system for passing vessels.

There are questions over what will happen with a US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports and a drawback of US military assets, which Iran has said will be necessary on the way to fully reopening the strait, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil passes in peacetime.

Even more ambiguous are prospects of a broader long-term resolution that will also address the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, as well as years of harsh US sanctions over nuclear enrichment that have exacerbated economic shockwaves imposed against 90 million Iranians.

In the meantime, while military activity has significantly dropped across the region to give space to the Oman talks, tensions remain high and maritime security continues to dominate discussions.

The United Arab Emirates said a vessel belonging to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) was targeted by a missile while crossing the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, but that there were no casualties.

In a statement, the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said targeting commercial shipping and using the strait “as a tool of economic coercion or blackmail represents acts of piracy” by the IRGC “and constitutes a direct threat to the stability of the region, its peoples, and global energy security”.

The Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen also continue to face off against Saudi Arabia and create disruptions for Saudi-linked vessels in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

On Friday, the Houthis launched a deadly attack on an area of Marib controlled by the Saudi-backed, internationally recognised Yemeni government, with the government announcing a military response on several fronts on Saturday.

The Yemeni group also struck southwestern Saudi Arabia’s Najran on Thursday, a day after claiming two separate attacks on Saudi oil tankers.

Traffic in both the Bab al-Mandeb and Hormuz straits was down to just a handful of vessels on Wednesday on the back of the latest escalations, but has relatively rebounded while still far from unobstructed pre-war levels. Some ships have resorted to turning off their transponders to avoid being detected.

Global energy markets have once again welcomed the increasing prospects of a diplomatic agreement that could positively affect the Strait of Hormuz, with Brent crude standing at about $83 per barrel at Friday’s close.

Markets inside Iran also reacted positively on Saturday, the first day of the working week in Iran, with the national currency strengthening to 1.85 million rials against the US dollar, slightly recovering from all-time lows of about 1.94 million reached last week.

The main index of the Tehran Stock Exchange also climbed by 112,000 points or just over 2 percent to reach 5.52 million, near an all-time high.

The Saudi, Pakistan, Turkiye defence pact faces mixed reactions, with some Iranian officials doubting its security guarantees. Iran and Oman agree on a Hormuz framework, while fighting in Yemen escalates between government forces and Houthis.
Al Jazeera’s @Mohammadfff_ reports.

A new mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan has raised questions about the shifting geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, where fallout from the US-Israel war on Iran has prompted some countries to seek new arrangements to safeguard their security.

The pact, termed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, was signed in the Saudi city of Mecca on Friday.

“The agreement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression, and stipulates that any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all,” a statement from the meeting reads.

“It further provides for the enhancement of all aspects of defence cooperation among the three states.”

While it is not yet clear what such an agreement might look like in practice, analysts say the pact points to growing questions about the durability of US security guarantees.

“Regional states have harbored growing doubts about the reliability of the US security partnership for more than a decade,” Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, told Al Jazeera over email.

“Both the decision to begin military operations against Iran and the subsequent conduct of the war and the on-off attempts to resolve it have only intensified those concerns and accelerated efforts to diversify security and defence relations.”

But, Ulrichsen added, building new defence pacts is likely not intended “to replace or supplant the US, but to provide additional strategic and policy options”.

Uncertainty over US role

While the administration of US President Donald Trump has yet to weigh in on the pact, analysts say the agreement is an effort by the three countries to reorient themselves after the turmoil of the Iran war.

“This is one of the first major geopolitical signs that the regional order is being reshaped by the US-Israeli war on Iran,” Sina Toossi, an analyst at the Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera.

“The significance is less about a formal military alliance than about what it says regarding how regional states are reassessing security.”

Toossi pointed to the long-running alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia. For decades, the two countries have enjoyed a strong relationship, hinged on shared security interests. But the pact could be a sign that Saudi Arabia is looking to expand its security alliances.

“Rather than relying primarily on Washington, Saudi Arabia appears to be broadening its security partnerships and laying the groundwork for more intra-regional security arrangements,” Toossi explained. “That is arguably the most important takeaway.”

Media reports have also indicated that US partners in the Middle East were frustrated that the Trump administration had launched February’s war against Iran with little apparent thought to the impact on allies in the region.

Iranian forces have launched waves of missile and drone strikes against US military facilities in the Middle East, causing bystander casualties. Iran has also targeted civilian infrastructure, including energy and desalination plants.

Tehran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key conduit for the region’s energy exports, has also imposed a steep cost on local economies.

Despite heavy strikes by the US and Israel, Iran has largely maintained its ability to restrict traffic through the strait, and Washington has struggled to provide partners with sufficient air defence munitions, many of which went to Israel.

‘Normative deterrence’

Under the circumstances created by the war, the longstanding reliance on Washington for security in the region has become more strained.

“It’s a fluid, tabula rasa era in the Middle East,” Brett McGurk, a key architect of Middle East policy under former US President Joe Biden, wrote in a social media post.

But analysts note that Friday’s security pact is best understood as an effort to supplement regional security cooperation with other countries and deter Iran.

“These countries are all US partners, and they recognise that there is no framework that can replace the United States,” Yasmine Farouk, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

Farouk added that it would also be a mistake to see the pact as a step towards greater confrontation with Iran.

She noted that all three countries involved have generally called for mediation and de-escalation since the US and Israel first launched their attacks on Iran in late February.

“What these countries have in common is that they are not seeking regional escalation,” she said, underscoring that the importance of the agreement might be something closer to “normative deterrence”.

Iran, she explained, has emerged from the war hardened and more confident in its ability to use force to advance its goals.

“There is a long-term perspective here on strategic cooperation, not just a deterrent effect.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – facing a crucial election later this year – has hinted that he may be considering taking unilateral action to prolong a costly war with Iran, even as Washington and Tehran appear to be close to an interim deal to open the Strait of Hormuz.

“We heard today the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmad Vahidi, declare that Iran intends to continue developing a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu claimed in an assertion, even though no official statement from Vahidi on the matter has been released by the Iranian government or official media.

Still, Netanyahu saw the opportunity to once again frame Iran’s nuclear threat as existential.

“As Israel’s prime minister, I am determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu told attendees at a state ceremony in West Jerusalem.

Describing the United States as “Israel’s greatest ally”, Netanyahu nevertheless added that he was prepared to do “whatever is necessary” to guarantee Israel’s security.

Israel has officially struck Iran only once since April’s initial ceasefire between the US and Iran took effect, even after it later broke down and the two sides resumed hostilities in the US-Israel war on Iran.

But observers – including US President Donald Trump – believe that Netanyahu wants to keep the US engaged in the fight against Iran, which began in late February with a joint US-Israeli attack that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Addressing reports that Netanyahu planned to bring fresh intelligence to Washington alleging that Iran was stockpiling uranium at its Pickaxe Mountain facility near Natanz in central Iran, Trump told reporters: “I don’t need Bibi to tell me that. Bibi is telling me that because he wants me to stay involved.”

He then sharpened his criticism of the Israeli prime minister, adding: “Why don’t you just tell it to me? Why do you have to announce it to the world?”

Fight alone

With the US and Israel unable so far to topple the Iranian state or force concessions on the Strait of Hormuz, many analysts believe that the war has been unsuccessful.

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz – formerly a free waterway – has paralysed much of the world’s economy.

Global oil prices have increased, with shortages in the supplies of liquified gas, fertiliser exports, sulphur supplies, and petrochemical feedstocks all threatening to ripple through international supply lines.

“The war against Iran is a strategic catastrophe,” said Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow in the Department for War Studies at King’s College London. “None of the original aims has been achieved… Trump is desperate for an exit. Almost at any price. He only cares about opening the [strait].”

But in Israel, the focus is less on the world’s economy, and more on the perceived danger posed by Iran and its allied groups across the region.

Netanyahu has consistently pursued a hawkish line on Iran, a power he has repeatedly claimed is on the brink of crossing the threshold to nuclear weapons capability.

He is also thought to have been among the loudest voices that pushed for Trump to withdraw in 2018 from a nuclear deal agreed to by previous US President Barack Obama.

“Israel’s strategy is clear,” said Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at Israel’s Misgav Institute for National Security. “Iran remains close to achieving nuclear capacity and has shown it’s able to continue producing ballistic missiles and supplying its proxy forces in the region.”

The war on Iran was currently a fiasco from Israel’s perspective, Michael added, with both the US and Iran insisting that they had won.

Michael, however, framed the current negotiations as “useless”, and unlikely to produce lasting security in the region, reflecting the sentiment in the Israeli security establishment.

Israel, Michael said, was prepared to fight alone if necessary.

“Israel can only have one strategy,” Michael said, “to strike directly at the head of the octopus that threatens global civilisation and to do that alone, if necessary.”

That might inflame tensions with the US, Michael added, concluding, “I can’t see any other option.”

Inconceivable

However, while some in Israel were confident of the country’s ability to strike unilaterally at Iran in defiance of US wishes, others expressed caution, suggesting that Netanyahu’s talk of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon might simply be little more than rhetoric ahead of an election that could conceivably jeopardise both his legacy and, as a result of his long-running corruption trial, his personal freedom.

The US relationship is important to the Israeli electorate, but relations between Netanyahu and Trump appear to be frostier than normal.

Beyond friction over Israel’s reluctance to accept terms apparently imposed on it in Gaza by the Trump-sponsored Board of Peace, there have also been widespread reports of tensions over Israeli strikes in Lebanon that have repeatedly threatened to derail US negotiations with Iran. Those attacks, however, have stopped far short of the unilateral strikes on Iran hinted at by Netanyahu on Wednesday.

“Israel launching unilateral action against Iran is inconceivable,” the US author and former diplomat Aaron David Miller said. “Something like that might be possible if Iran or Hezbollah struck Israel directly, but talk of Israel striking Iran now, when US negotiations are so close to a conclusion, is impossible.”

Relations between the two allies were entering a unique phase, he said. While the US had never cooperated so closely with an ally militarily since its relationship with the United Kingdom during World War II, diplomatic ties had rarely been so fraught.

“Trump’s leaked, expletive-laden criticism of Netanyahu; his direct negotiations with Hamas over Gaza; his lifting of sanctions on Syria despite Israel’s objections; and his negotiations with Iran without Israel’s involvement all point to a changing relationship,” Miller said. “What that might mean for future US military assistance to Israel – including defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, research and development, and diplomatic support in international forums – remains to be seen.”

However, he added: “Let me be clear. Netanyahu had a hell of a role in how this war started. He’s not going to have a role in how it shifts to its next phase.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed back on reports of shortages of both offensive and defensive weapons.

United States President Donald Trump has vowed to hunt down “leakers” after several news reports detailing a dangerous depletion of munitions stockpiles amid the US-Israeli war on Iran.

While several reports had previously documented munitions depletions since the war began on February 28, the latest reports painted a more dire picture.

Reuters news agency and CBS News reported that the military had burned through nearly all of its offensive Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMSs) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs), which experts said could require relying on more perilous close-range and aerial attacks in the event of a renewed escalation.

A CNN report showing low levels of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors has caused greater concern, with experts noting there is no viable short-term alternative to the air defence missiles. Replenishments of pre-war stockpiles are expected to take years.

Still, Trump on Thursday again denied that the US faced any strategic disadvantage when it came to weapons stores after five months of war.

“The US has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

He added that “large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed” and that defence contractors are “building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history”.

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long-term jail sentences will be sought!”

The US president did not provide further details on the claims, although experts have warned that even with an influx of funding, it will likely take at least three years to restore Patriot and THAAD interceptors to pre-war levels.

Only Japan and Germany currently have licences to produce Patriot interceptors. No other country produces THAAD interceptors.

CNN’s report, released on Tuesday, said that the US military had depleted 80 percent of the THAAD interceptors it had prior to the war and about half of its Patriot interceptors. Sources described the levels as “dangerously low”.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described the information as “not true”.

Separately, the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on July 27 calculated that, as of that date, the military had just more than a third of its Patriot interceptors left and about half of its THAAD interceptors.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Wednesday, one of the authors of that analysis, retired US Marine Corps colonel Mark Cancian, said current levels of interceptors are already hurting US deterrence capabilities against military powers like China.

A shortage of interceptors has also reportedly led to the military taking a more judicious approach to missile interceptions, increasing the likelihood of miscalculations, he noted. The killing of three US soldiers in an Iranian strike on a military base in Jordan on July 17 has further underscored those concerns.

“We don’t have that many left, and there are no good substitutes,” Cancian said of the interceptors. “If we run out of Patriots, then the missiles get through.”

Despite the latest rhetoric, the Washington Post on Thursday reported that Trump confronted Hegseth during a cabinet meeting at Camp David last week, accusing the Pentagon chief of misleading him on munitions shortages.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed the report as “100 percent fake news”.

Iran says talks with Oman are proceeding ‘positively’ as US officials say a deal could be possible soon.

A funeral was held for the victims of last week’s US strike on Iran’s Qeshm Island, where a couple and their two-year-old child were killed. Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, vowed the US would “pay the price” for their deaths.

Just over one month into the war on Iran, US President Donald Trump made an apocalyptic threat that raised the alarm in Washington and Middle Eastern capitals alike, attached to a tight deadline.

If Iran didn’t immediately reopen the critical Strait of Hormuz, Trump warned on April 7, “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”.

Tehran didn’t blink. And with two hours to the deadline, Trump walked back the threat and instead announced a two-week ceasefire, brokered by Islamabad.

Since then, the US president has repeated this pattern multiple times. It goes like this: Trump ups the ante, shaking up the markets, and then dials it back down at the 11th hour, apparently hoping this strategy will influence negotiations.

On Monday, Trump again insisted that negotiations were close to ending the war – and, yet again, gave “duplicitous” Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer catastrophic strikes.

For its part, Tehran denies any ongoing talks with the US, saying it is only talking to Oman about how to manage the Hormuz strait, the closure of which has caused oil prices to soar amid havoc in energy markets around the world.

The war is now in its 23rd week, with no end to hostilities in sight, and both Washington and Tehran are more entangled than before, with additional variables in the conflict that could determine its direction.

So, how many times has Trump given Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer the consequences, before walking his threat back? And how many times have we heard from the US president that a deal is just around the corner?

The times Trump threatened heavy attacks – before backing down

There have been several times since February 28, when the US and Israel launched their first joint attacks on Iran, that Trump has threatened an attack but did not follow through.

March

Less than a month into the war, Trump threatened Tehran over its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, saying the US would strike Iran’s power plants if the critical waterway was not reopened. Two days later, he postponed the strikes for five days, citing “progress” in talks.

As the delayed deadline neared on March 26, Trump delayed the strikes again, this time for 10 days, claiming that Tehran requested it.

April

Then came the April 7 threat that a whole “civilisation will die”, before Trump called off those strikes and announced a two-week ceasefire, to give Iran a chance to reach a peace deal.

No deal emerged. And then, after threatening to strike Iran “harder”, and in the final hours of the ceasefire, on April 21, Trump announced an indefinite ceasefire, saying Pakistani mediators had asked him to do so.

May

With those talks making no progress, Trump returned to his threats to strike Iran on May 17, saying “nothing will be left” of Iran if Tehran did not make a deal with the US.

But the next day, Trump again told reporters that he had decided to “put it off for a little while, hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little while, because we’ve had very big discussions with Iran”.

By May 27, US strikes were back on after negotiations faltered, once again.

June

On June 11, after two days of back-and-forth strikes, Trump threatened the US would take “total control” of Iran’s oil and gas industries. But then, a few hours later, he posted on social media, claiming there had been a breakthrough in negotiations and called off the attacks.

On June 17, the US and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), announcing a ceasefire and a 60-day period to complete negotiations for a lasting peace. Within days, that had fallen apart over the glaring gaps in the two sides’ positions over the contents of the MoU, triggered mainly by who had control of the Strait of Hormuz – and both sides returned to tit-for-tat, widening strikes.

July-August

On July 27, Trump halted the strikes, claiming the “perimeters of a deal” had been agreed to, but noting that Washington “is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II”.

On Monday this week, Trump told reporters again that negotiations were close to ending the war and that this was Iran’s “last chance before decapitation”. The US has not followed up on this latest threat yet.

Iran denies it is talking to the US, although it may be holding indirect talks via mediators, analysts say.

The times Trump said Iran peace deal was imminent

Trump has insisted that Iran is “desperate” to cut a deal, or that a deal is imminent, multiple times since the start of the war.

March

Two days after launching the first attacks on Tehran on February 28, which the US initially appeared to believe would be a quick operation, Trump seemingly conceded it might take a bit longer when he said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks [to end Iran war], but we can go far longer than that.”

The US president changed tack again on March 9, when he told CBS that “the war is very complete, pretty much”, and that the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Later the same day, he shifted his stance again, saying the war is “both complete and just beginning”. And later that day again, he said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough.”

On March 23, Trump told reporters outside Air Force One that “major points of agreement, I would say – almost all points of agreement” had been reached with Iran. Tehran was denying that it was party to negotiations at this point.

Two days after that, Trump repeated that Iran wanted to “make a deal so badly”. The next day, he also told a cabinet meeting that Iran was “begging to make a deal”.

April

On April 7, Trump said, again, that Washington was “very close to a deal” with Iran, before threatening to blow up a “whole civilisation”, but then walked back on that to announce a ceasefire the next day.

Over the following days, throughout April, Trump reiterated that the war was, in fact, pretty much over. But it continued.

Trump repeatedly claimed on separate occasions that Iran had “agreed to everything”, that “I think we will get a deal in the next day or two”, and that “I don’t think there’s too many significant differences” between the US and Iranian positions.

May

On May 23, Trump said the administration was “getting a lot closer” to a deal, which was “largely negotiated, [and] subject to finalisation”.

June

On June 8, Trump called for “total victory” in the next two weeks and claimed Iran was “willing to give us everything”. Still, no peace deal has materialised and the conflict began again in July.

August

On Monday this week, Trump again told reporters that Iran was “desperate” for a deal and warned Tehran it had “one last chance” before “decapitation” to make an agreement. Iran denies it is even holding talks with the US, saying that it is only speaking with Oman about management of the Strait of Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump says an agreement with Iran is imminent, with negotiations set to begin on Monday.

Iran’s foreign minister says negotiations with Oman on the Strait of Hormuz are entering their “final stages”, as Tehran insists the vital waterway will never return to its pre-war status.

In a post on Telegram on Sunday, Abbas Araghchi said that in a report he presented to the cabinet, he described the negotiations between Tehran and Muscat as “on the way to being finalised”.

Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, said that Tehran and Muscat were close to reaching a deal on a new maritime route through Hormuz, separate from existing corridors.

“We are now going to reach an understanding on a route acceptable to both sides – neither the northern route nor the southern route – but one that respects the sovereign rights of both sides and safeguards our national interests and security,” Baghaei said in an interview with state television.

Muscat did not immediately comment on the matter.

Both Iran’s and Oman’s territorial waters border the Strait of Hormuz, the key waterway through which about 20 percent of global oil consumption is normally shipped.

Details of the new route were not immediately clear, but Iran has effectively maintained control over the strait since the outbreak of war. On February 28 , the US and Israel launched strikes aimed at destroying Iran’s missile programme, preventing a nuclear weapon and cutting off support for allied armed groups.

A June ceasefire collapsed within weeks in a dispute over shipping routes through Hormuz and fighting reignited in July.

Baghaei earlier said “an understanding between Iran and Oman on a new route has nothing to do with whether the Strait of Hormuz is reopened or remains closed”. He blamed the US for the closure and accused Washington of breaching its commitments, according to Iran’s Fars news outlet.

“The strait was closed because of the United States’ breach of its commitments, its naval blockade of Iran and all the hostile measures that the United States has taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran during this period,” he said.

Hassam Ghashghavi, spokesman for the Iranian parliament’s national security commission, said on Sunday that mediators were trying to revive the June memorandum of understanding with the US, and were aware that Hormuz remained the central issue, Iranian news outlet SNN reported.

Ghashghavi said it was possible that an Iranian delegation would travel to Muscat again as part of ongoing diplomacy. “This is the nature of diplomacy and this exchange of views continues regularly,” he said.

Two-sided messaging

The comments come after US President Donald Trump said early on Sunday that the US and Israel had agreed to halt new attacks on Iran, provided a deal to end the months-long conflict is reached “rapidly”.

Trump posted on Truth Social that the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, but Tehran and other Middle Eastern countries asked him to hold off on new attacks.

“Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL.”

Trump said the deal “would include the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat”.

“The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, and get it DONE,” he wrote.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, (MBS) spoke to Trump by phone on Saturday, urging him to “prioritise dialogue” and “reduce escalation”, the Saudi Press Agency reported.

US news website Axios reported that MBS expressed concern over Trump’s plans for large, new attacks against Iran and reportedly urged him to refrain.

“We know that, in a larger context, Iran is habituated to dancing to the same old tune, as it is receiving this oscillating rhetoric from the US president about the possibility of another round of confrontation on the one hand, [while also hearing] statements about these talks going well and that a potential deal is within reach,” said Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran.

“In that regard, we know that the Iranian side, at the same time, is responding with the same two-sided message, saying that the road for diplomacy is open on the one hand, [while also maintaining] full preparation for another round,” he added.

A 10-foot-tall golden trophy mocking US President Donald Trump for his ‘enthusiastic involvement in the Iran war’ appeared in New York’s Foley Square. The statue was created by anonymous art collective Secret Handshake.

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince spoke to Donald Trump about the deepening crisis between Washington and Tehran, urging a renewed push for dialogue over further military escalation, hours before the United States president halted his latest attacks on Iran.

The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Sunday that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) spoke to Trump by phone and “stressed the need to prioritise dialogue to reduce escalation and the importance of making every possible effort to achieve calm that paves the way for diplomatic solutions”.

MBS also highlighted the need to preserve the Gulf’s security and stability and prevent a wider conflict “whose repercussions would affect regional and international security and stability”, SPA added.

Trump announced on his Truth Social platform early on Sunday that he would hold off on new strikes against Iran, citing the outline of a deal to end five months of war.

On Saturday, he had struck a very different note, declaring the US “locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, at levels of force not seen “since World War II”.

The reversal capped a day of dramatic swings in tone from Washington, after weeks in which the conflict has repeatedly threatened to widen into a broader Gulf confrontation.

Trump said he was calling off the planned attack only because Iran and other Middle Eastern governments had asked Washington to hold back, insisting “the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to”.

That deal, he wrote, would involve reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending Iran’s “nuclear threat,” with Israel joining the US “in this commitment”.

Iranian state media quoted military officials dismissing Trump’s claim that Tehran had sought a pause as “nothing but a new lie”, insisting Iranian forces remained on high alert.

‘Keep the dialogue going’

The Saudi crown prince’s intervention, according to a person familiar with the call cited by US media, centred on concern that a major US strike on Iran’s energy infrastructure could trigger Iranian retaliation against Gulf oil and gas facilities.

The kingdom has already faced direct attacks in recent weeks, intercepting drones aimed at its eastern oil facilities and at Riyadh, while Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen have separately struck Saudi crude infrastructure and threatened a Red Sea naval blockade.

The war began on February 28, when the US and Israel launched strikes aimed at destroying Iran’s missile programme, preventing a nuclear weapon and cutting off support for allied armed groups.

A June ceasefire collapsed within weeks in a dispute over shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas exports, reigniting the fighting in July.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US strikes had destroyed much of Iran’s navy, air force and missile defences, leaving it without the “conventional shield” it once relied on. “That’s changed the whole dynamic,” he told Fox News, arguing that the US was now approaching negotiations with Iran “from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness.”

Marlin Hardinger, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, said direct Saudi involvement in mediation, alongside Qatar, Pakistan and Oman, appeared to have pushed Trump to reconsider, “letting some of the senior leaders in the region step forward and take charge of this”, as he put it.

Diplomats’ central task now, Hardinger told Al Jazeera, was simply to “keep the dialogue going”.

Mediators in Islamabad and Doha say they are cautiously optimistic that stalled talks could resume within days.

The war in Iran has taken a significant turn even as the memorandum of understanding to stop the fighting is supposed to be in progress.

Saudi Arabia, in coordination with the US, has carried out strikes inside Iraq against armed groups with ties to Iran.

Riyadh accused the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) of attacking its oil facilities.

The strikes have ignited fears of an escalation.

Now, the PMF is promising to retaliate.

And one of its factions has given the Iraqi government a week to respond to the Saudi attacks.

What could happen if it does not?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Ahmed Rushdi – President of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation, a policy think tank and research organisation

Ahmed al-Maimouni – Head of research at the Rasanah International Institute of Iranian Studies

Muhanad Seloom – Assistant professor in critical security studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies

The US has bombed multiple cities across southern Iran, including Ahvaz and Abadan, in what Central Command described as a ‘heavy wave of strikes’. Earlier, US President Donald Trump said the US would hit Iran ‘very hard’ in retaliation for an attack on US forces in Jordan.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains in effect halted.
Tankers are now avoiding another critical waterway – Bab al-Mandeb – as Yemen’s Houthi forces threaten Saudi-linked vessels. Ukrainian strikes have hit Russian export infrastructure.
Three major routes are now disrupted at once: the Gulf, the Red Sea and the Black Sea.

Together, they threaten trade flows equivalent to nearly a quarter of global oil supplies just as reserves sit at multiyear lows.
Goldman Sachs says oil could rise above $120 a barrel by the fourth quarter if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz alone persist.
Economies worldwide are bracing for another energy shock.

The US and Saudi Arabia launched joint air strikes on Iraq, targeting ‘Iran-aligned’ groups after drone attacks targeted US forces in the region and Saudi oil facilities. Saudi Arabia says it acted in self-defence, while Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces reported at least 20 killed.

The US military says it has successfully intercepted a barrage of missiles fired by Iran at its troops in Jordan. The sudden attack coincides with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House and comes after a five-day pause in the war. Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar reports from Tehran.

Oman’s proposal is based on the Strait of Malacca in East Asia, a model whereby ships that use the strait provide voluntary fees.

Iran and Oman have exchanged proposals regarding the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, as points of contention continue to exist between the two nations whose territorial waters border the strategic waterway.

Oman presented a proposal to Iran ⁠for ⁠a joint regional mechanism to manage the Strait of Hormuz with “voluntary fees”, Reuters reported on Tuesday. Under the Omani proposal, which reportedly has regional backing, Iran would not exercise sole control ⁠of the strait, an unnamed Gulf source and Western diplomat ⁠told the news agency.

Oman’s proposal is reportedly based on the Strait of Malacca, which connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans. There, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore ask ships that use the strait to voluntarily contribute to fund navigation, environmental protection, and ‌search-and-rescue operations.

This proposal aims to contribute to ending the global disruption to trade caused by the strait’s closure in the US-Israeli war on Iran. Tehran, however, says the strait ⁠cannot go back to its pre-war status where shipping flowed freely,

In comments to Iranian state media on Tuesday, Kazem Gharibabadi, the country’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, said Tehran rejects an Omani proposal for an equal division of transit routes between the two countries, as such a plan does not address Tehran’s security concerns.

Gharibabadi said that Tehran proposed to Oman that Iran would manage shipping through its side of ‌the strait and Muscat would manage part but not all of the opposite lane.

He added that Tehran has “no plans to negotiate with the US”, but affirmed talks are proceeding “step by step” with Oman, warning that Tehran will consider “any action” to maintain control over the strait, including the resumption of war.

“The Omanis are now suggesting three lines for the maritime traffic: one that runs through Iran’s territorial waters, an international one, and one through Omani territorial waters,” said Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran. “Despite public statements, our sources tell us Iran is demonstrating some flexibility.”

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, also reporting from Tehran, said there remain many “points of contention” between Oman and Iran on Hormuz. These include the trajectory of the ships, the fees, the question of who will define the arrangements, and mine clearances – which will reportedly be Iran’s responsibility.

Paul Musgrave, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Oman’s proposal to Iran to get the Strait of Hormuz running again is positive, but it remains to be seen if hardliners in Iran will go for it.

Musgrave noted that under the Strait of Malacca model, voluntary contributions raise about $70m annually, far from the $1m per ship that’s reportedly been proposed by Tehran as a “service fee” in the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers met via video call on Tuesday to discuss the latest developments in the conflict, including ways to improve cooperation on issues surrounding freedom and navigation through the waterway, a statement from the Qatari Foreign Ministry said.

The United States suspended a nearly two-week-long campaign of air strikes against Iran over the weekend after pressure from regional mediators to find a diplomatic solution and to return to the memorandum of understanding signed in June, which would allow shipping to resume in the Strait of Hormuz. The strait carried one-fifth of global energy supplies before ⁠the February 28 start of the US-Israel war on Iran.