Iran International
A visit to Tehran by senior Saudi, Turkish and Pakistani officials has exposed divisions among Iranian commentators, with some hailing it as recognition of Iran's influence and others warning that the visitors may be seeking concessions over Yemen and in talks with Washington.
The four-way meeting ended with a cautious statement committing the participants to continued dialogue on regional peace and security, without announcing specific agreements on the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel, the Strait of Hormuz or Iran's nuclear program.
Reuters reported, citing a Pakistani official, that Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, had presented Tehran with a proposal to end hostilities that had the approval of US President Donald Trump.
According to the official cited by Reuters, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar would act as guarantors if Iran accepted the proposal.
The prospect of regional powers helping broker an agreement has raised a question among Iranian commentators: whether the visitors came to offer Tehran a way out of the confrontation or to press it into concessions.
Recognition or pressure?
The state-run Iran newspaper chose the headline "Without Iran, Never" for its Tuesday report on the meeting, arguing that the presence of senior officials from three major regional powers demonstrated that no regional security order could be established without Tehran.
Abdollah Ganji, a hardline commentator and former editor of the IRGC-affiliated Javan newspaper, went further, describing Iran as the center of an emerging regional security arrangement.
"Iran is the axis of security creation in West Asia," he wrote on X, adding that a new "anti-Zionist bloc" was taking shape.
Former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif proposed a broader West Asian security network based on non-aggression, confidence-building and shared prosperity.
"Regional security cannot be imported; it must be built together by the people of this region," he wrote.
But many hardliners were considerably less enthusiastic.
"It is far too early to judge the results of this meeting, but it does not seem that trust has replaced mistrust or cooperation has replaced competition," hardline commentator Mostafa Najafi wrote on X.
"In today's Middle East, meetings are more about managing crises and tensions, or avoiding their consequences, than resolving them."
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a former chairman of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, argued that Yemen remained a more immediate concern for the visiting countries than Iran's confrontation with Washington.
"As long as the Yemen issue remains unresolved, the Iran issue will not be put on the agenda," he told Khabar Online.
Yemen at the heart of the mistrust
The Houthis' attacks on Saudi Arabia and regional shipping have made Yemen a major security concern for Riyadh. But Tehran's relationship with the group is also regarded by hardliners as an important source of Iranian influence.
Hossein Shariatmadari, managing editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, questioned the purpose of the meeting in a commentary titled "Tehran Summit: Water or Mirage?"
He warned that cooperation with countries involved in the Mecca defense pact could lead to pressure on Iran to distance itself from the Houthis, insisting that Tehran would not abandon the group.
Hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian portrayed Saudi Arabia's difficulties in confronting the Houthis as a reason for Riyadh's participation in the talks.
"Let the Saudis know that as long as the unjust blockade against the oppressed people of Yemen continues, Ansar Allah's attacks will continue, and assistance from other countries will be of no benefit to them," he wrote on X, using the Houthis' official name.
Hardline journalist Fereshteh Sadeghi was equally suspicious, interpreting the visit as an attempt to warn Tehran over Yemen.
"Iran would have to be foolish to accept their words and warnings," she wrote, arguing that the Houthis would continue acting independently even if Tehran came under pressure.
The disagreement illustrates a central obstacle to regional diplomacy: measures Saudi Arabia might seek to protect itself from Houthi attacks could be viewed by Iranian hardliners as concessions that undermine Tehran's regional influence.
Can regional powers guarantee a deal?
Beyond Yemen, the meeting has also prompted debate over whether Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Qatar could help provide assurances against another US or Israeli attack on Iran.
Tehran has sought guarantees that any agreement with Washington would prevent renewed hostilities, an issue that has become central to discussions about reviving diplomacy.
Maryam Salari, diplomatic editor of the state-run Iran newspaper, argued that the possibility of regional guarantees showed that the principal issue was no longer simply what Iran might concede over its nuclear program.
"The question is not whether Iran should make concessions on the nuclear issue now," she wrote. "It is what guarantee there is that war will not break out again if it makes concessions."
She suggested that the visiting officials had come to Tehran to address that concern.
Reformist journalist Farid Modarresi also saw an opportunity for diplomacy, arguing that Saudi Arabia and Turkey could bring greater regional influence to mediation efforts previously led by Pakistan and Qatar.
But the contrasting reactions among Iranian hardliners show how difficult that effort could prove.
For some Iranian hardliners, the visit signals recognition of Tehran's regional influence. For others, it raises the prospect of being asked to surrender some of that influence in exchange for peace.
Ammar al-Hakim’s warning that Baghdad must protect Iraq from US sanctions despite its solidarity with Iran has sparked a sharp backlash on Persian-language social media, with some hardliners calling for retaliation against Iraq.
An excerpt from an interview al-Hakim gave to Iraqiya TV on September 29 has gone viral in recent days.
Al-Hakim, head of Iraq’s National Wisdom Movement and a former head of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, said Washington had explicitly warned Baghdad to comply with US sanctions against Iran or risk sanctions itself.
He said Iran was justified in feeling it had been treated unfairly under what he described as a US siege, but argued that countries could not be governed by emotions and aspirations alone.
Iraq, he said, stood in solidarity with the Iranian people while also having a responsibility to shield its own population from the consequences of sanctions.
‘Honour vs dishonour’
Hardline Iranian social media users accused al-Hakim of betraying Iran and showing ingratitude for its support, with some calling for retaliatory measures against Iraq.
Ehsan Salehi, an adviser to former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, accused al-Hakim on X of bowing to Washington, justifying that stance and moving closer to Arab Gulf rulers.
Hardline commentator Alireza Taghavinia interpreted al-Hakim’s comments as an admission that Iraq had little choice but to comply with Washington.
“When Ammar al-Hakim, a Shiite whose position he owes to Iran, says this, what can we expect from [Pakistan’s Prime Minister] Shehbaz Sharif?” he wrote.
Filmmaker Ali Zarnegar wrote: “This is precisely the line between honor and dishonor, and unfortunately, you chose to be dishonorable.”
Another user sarcastically called for Iran to prevent Iraqi oil from passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
“Our feelings are with Iraq, too, but what can we do? We have to attack tankers associated with them,” the user wrote. “Since they are so afraid that America will freeze their oil money, we will make things easier for them and prevent even a drop of their oil from being exported through the Strait of Hormuz.”
National interest first
Other users defended al-Hakim, arguing that his remarks reflected the Iraqi government's responsibility to protect its national interests and criticizing Iran’s leaders for putting ideology ahead of Iran's own welfare.
Mohsen Salehikhah, a journalist and documentary filmmaker associated with reformists, praised the Iraqi politician.
“Ammar al-Hakim said something absolutely right,” he wrote. “If the Islamic Republic also understood that it should prioritize Iran’s interests rather than sacrifice our national interests at the altar of ideological delusions and aspirations, perhaps the situation would be different today.”
Another user pointed out that al-Hakim leads one of the Iraqi political movements closest to Iran, suggesting that other Iraqi groups could hardly be expected to put Iranian interests first.
“Some people spent years selling the public the illusion that sanctions did not matter because we could maintain relations with our neighbors instead of America,” the user wrote. “Well, this is our closest neighbor.”
‘Teach others a lesson’
The backlash comes amid a separate dispute over Iraq’s closure of the al-Shaib/Chazabeh border crossing with Iran.
An adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaidi has said the crossing was closed to prevent the smuggling of narcotics and counterfeit money from Iran, while Iran’s Interior Ministry complained that Baghdad had not informed Tehran in advance.
The closure has prompted calls from some Iranian hardliners for retaliation against Iraq.
Iranian businessman Babak Zanjani called for greater restrictions on Iraq’s access through the Strait of Hormuz, saying Baghdad should be made to understand “the real meaning of a blockade and its consequences.”
He went further, arguing that Iraq should be brought closer to collapse over what he described as a strategic mistake “so that others learn a lesson.”
Hardliners in Tehran are hailing a surge in global oil prices as evidence that pressure on shipping is paying off, even as moderates warn that the same confrontation is inflicting mounting damage on Iran's economy and strengthening the case for a deal with Washington.
Crude prices rose above $116 a barrel on October 24 following reports of two attacks involving supertankers near Oman, prompting hardline newspaper Kayhan to portray the increase as vindication of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy's strategy of asymmetric pressure around the Strait of Hormuz.
Under the headline “Minefields near Musandam Prove Diplomacy Is Obsolete,” Kayhan argued that disruption to shipping and the resulting pressure on global energy markets had strengthened Iran's bargaining position rather than demonstrated the need for compromise.
The newspaper accused moderates and more pragmatic conservatives of “begging for an agreement,” singling out the centrist Sazandegi newspaper, which supports reaching a deal with the United States.
But the same confrontation is taking a growing toll on Iran's economy.
Moderate daily Shargh warned that higher crude prices offer little relief to private-sector manufacturers facing bankruptcy and argued that keeping negotiations with Washington alive is essential to Iran's economic survival.
The economic daily Donya-ye Eghtesad has also highlighted pressure on factories in industrial centers including Isfahan, Tabriz and Arak, reporting an unprecedented wave of corporate bankruptcies as the maritime blockade continues.
The competing assessments expose an increasingly important argument in Tehran: whether the economic disruption caused by the confrontation is leverage to be exploited or damage Iran can no longer afford.
Signs of diplomatic movement
The debate comes as signs of diplomatic movement feed cautious optimism among some Iranian political figures that an agreement with the United States may be becoming more likely than another round of war.
Former deputy parliamentary speaker Ali Motahari gave voice to that view on Monday, saying that for the first time in several weeks, the prospects of an agreement with Washington appeared greater than the likelihood of renewed conflict.
Speaking to reporters in Tehran, Motahari argued that war was becoming less likely because the United States was facing multiple problems and might therefore be prepared to accept some of Iran’s conditions.
Monday’s high-level talks with regional powers have added to that sense. Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, Pakistani army chief Asim Munir and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin are in Tehran to meet national security chief Mohsen Rezaei and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
According to Iranian state outlets, Tehran has reiterated its proposal for reducing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. Following technical discussions in Doha, it resubmitted a plan to restore shipping through the waterway in stages over seven days.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that Iranian technical negotiators were examining US counterproposals on procedures for lifting the naval blockade.
Tehran insists the seven-day window will not begin until $24 billion in foreign reserves becomes fully accessible and restrictions on container clearance at Bandar Abbas are lifted.
Iran has also insisted that its seven-point de-escalation plan, based on the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, remain separate from negotiations over uranium enrichment, International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and regional missile defense arrangements.
It remains unclear whether Washington accepts that separation. Tehran's position suggests it is seeking immediate economic relief while avoiding concessions on broader strategic issues.
The divide leaves Tehran confronting an awkward calculation. The disruption around Hormuz may be imposing higher costs on Iran's adversaries just as hardliners intended, but it is also increasing the economic pressure driving others in Tehran toward a deal.
Escalating war rhetoric from Iran, the United States and Israel, coupled with military movements across the region, has heightened fears of another conflict, as Iranians debate online whether war could bring political change or deepen the country's crises.
Iranian social media users are closely following statements by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as diplomatic and military movements across the region.
Many view the developments as possible signs of an impending US-Israeli attack.
A central debate is whether another war could bring down the Islamic Republic or simply inflict further damage on Iran.
Those supporting military action describe war as a necessary evil to end the political system, arguing that previous attempts to bring about change have failed.
Opponents warn that another conflict could destroy energy infrastructure and refineries, deepen economic hardship and leave Iranian society in an even worse position.
“We are inside Iran and face all kinds of financial, security and social problems, but we are willing to pay the price to end this nightmare,” one user wrote.
Another user wrote: “This uncertainty is really a thousand times worse than war. We cannot even plan a trip, let alone make decisions about work, education or running a business.”
Others strongly rejected that view.
“War brings destruction, chaos, disease and so many other problems,” one user wrote. “The outcome will not necessarily be what you imagine. It could be much worse than things are now.”
Another highlighted the vulnerability of people without secure salaries, who could lose their livelihoods if fighting disrupted economic activity.
One user summed up the conflicting attitudes they had encountered.
“I have seen many people in Iran waiting for an attack so that things can finally be settled… and others who wanted an agreement to be reached,” the user wrote. “Feelings differ, but everyone is tired of this situation.”
Some are urging others to stock up on water, food and medicine and keep cash on hand. Others warn people living near military or government facilities to consider leaving.
Users have also expressed concern for elderly people, those with illnesses and people living alone.
Hardliners push for confrontation
Ultra-hardline voices have also expressed enthusiasm for military confrontation, but for very different reasons.
They argue that negotiations with Washington have merely given Iran's adversaries time to regroup and prepare for a stronger attack.
Some have sharply criticized officials who pursued diplomacy and called for Iran to launch a pre-emptive strike if war appears imminent.
“Why shouldn't Iran start the war this time instead of always waiting to be caught off guard?” one user wrote.
Another argued that Iran did not need nuclear weapons to inflict serious damage on its adversaries.
“We don't even need an atomic bomb to retaliate,” the user wrote, arguing instead for strikes on nuclear power plants in Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
The calls for confrontation reflect a very different political outlook from anti-government users hoping outside military action could bring down the Islamic Republic.
But both illustrate how repeated rounds of fighting and failed diplomacy have led some on opposing sides of Iran's political divide to see another war as preferable to the current uncertainty.
Parents prepare for the worst
Parents' concerns about children's safety have intensified following the deaths of more than 100 schoolchildren in a US attack on Minab at the beginning of the recent war.
Some are urging families to keep children home from school if the likelihood of an attack increases. Others are discussing plans to collect children from schools and move them to safer locations as quickly as possible if fighting resumes.
An Instagram post featuring a firefighter has attracted particular attention. The firefighter said that while inspecting safety arrangements at a girls' high school, a school official told them instructions had been issued to prepare identification tags for students.
On Friday, an Education Ministry spokesperson denied that such measures were being implemented and accused “enemies or ignorant individuals” of spreading fear.
One user said they had checked with relatives in Tehran and concluded that the reports were accurate, claiming families they contacted had requested identification tags and were awaiting their delivery.
Fear of another internet blackout
The prospect of another shutdown of international internet access is adding to the anxiety.
Users fear authorities could cut international connectivity immediately if hostilities resume. The prospect is particularly troubling after previous shutdowns made it difficult to contact relatives and access reliable information.
One user recalled that during the war in June last year, the internet was cut several days after fighting began. When war broke out again at the end of February, the shutdown came within hours.
“Now, instead of checking the news in the morning, I open Google's domain to see whether it loads,” the user wrote, “so I can find out whether the war has started.”
Border closures and transit disruptions involving Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey are raising fears that Iran’s remaining trade routes could be further restricted, deepening the impact of US maritime and air restrictions.
Although Washington has not declared a land blockade of Iran, the closure of crossings with Pakistan and Iraq and continued disruption to freight traffic at the Turkish border have raised alarm in Tehran.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, acknowledged in an interview with Drop Site published Thursday that Iran would suffer from a prolonged blockade.
“Anyone who says otherwise is not being realistic. Families will pay the price, investment will suffer, and maintaining some sectors of the economy will become more difficult,” he said.
But Rezaei argued that economic pain did not amount to strategic defeat and that Washington was wrong to believe worsening conditions would force Tehran to accept US demands.
Agence France-Presse reported Wednesday that the United States was pressing Iran’s neighbors to close border crossings, following a maritime blockade in southern Iran and air restrictions that have grounded most Iranian flights.
President Masoud Pezeshkian has said the maritime blockade has halted trade through southern sea routes, which previously accounted for 75% to 80% of Iran’s trade.
Pakistan: transit disputes
Iran has responded cautiously to Pakistan, which has been mediating between Tehran and Washington.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei attributed the suspension of operations at border crossings to “technical problems” on the Pakistani side and said the two countries were discussing reopening them.
After the US maritime blockade took effect, Iranian traders increasingly used Pakistani ports as alternative routes.
But tighter requirements for electronic bills of lading and difficulties transferring money have complicated trade, according to Peyman Sanandaji, a senior official at the Tehran Chamber of Commerce.
Pakistan closed the Rimdan–Gabd and Taftan crossings on Tuesday during a visit to Tehran by Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir, citing security concerns and efforts to prevent smuggling.
Iranian officials said Munir ordered the crossings reopened during his visit, but the latest reports indicated Pakistan was allowing only Iranian gas tankers and perishable fruit and vegetable shipments to pass.
Fada-Hossein Maleki, head of the Iran-Pakistan parliamentary friendship group, warned Thursday that Iran could close its border if Islamabad continued preventing trucks from crossing.
Such a move could also hurt Pakistan, which uses Iranian territory to move some exports toward Turkey, Central Asia and the Caucasus and receives millions of liters of Iranian gasoline and diesel through official trade and smuggling.
Iraq: conflicting signals
Iraq has not announced a general closure of its border with Iran. But Al Jazeera reported that the Chazabeh–Al-Shaib crossing was closed Wednesday on the direct orders of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi and that further crossings were expected to shut.
Abdul Amir Taiban, an adviser to Iraq’s prime minister, said Thursday that Chazabeh had been closed to prevent the entry of drugs and counterfeit dollars and dinars.
He accused Iran of undermining Iraq’s economy, smuggling drugs and violating Iraqi sovereignty.
Iran and Iraq have 13 official border crossings, several of them major routes for exports and commercial traffic, particularly with central and southern Iraq.
Iraq temporarily closed its crossings with Iran a month earlier after a drone attack on Saudi Arabia’s east-west pipeline from Iraqi territory was attributed to Iran-aligned groups. The crossings reopened several days later.
Iran has reacted more openly to Iraq’s latest move than to Pakistan’s restrictions.
Deputy Interior Minister Ahmad Zeynivand said Thursday Tehran had sent Baghdad an official note seeking clarification, while claiming trade in essential goods through maritime routes and northern borders continued without disruption.
Turkey: long delays
Turkey is Iran’s third-largest trading partner, with formal and informal bilateral trade estimated at between $23 billion and $30 billion.
The Bazargan crossing in West Azerbaijan province is Iran’s most important land gateway for trade with Turkey and access to European markets.
Iranian media have reported delays of as long as 20 days at Bazargan in recent months. Although Turkey has capacity to receive 1,000 Iranian trucks daily, it has reportedly allowed only 200 to 300 through, while around 600 Turkish trucks enter Iran each day.
The bottleneck threatens a crucial alternative to Iran’s restricted maritime routes even without a formal closure of the Turkish border.
Alternatives remain limited
Iran shares land borders with seven countries, but the remaining routes offer only limited alternatives to its major trade corridors.
Crossings with Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia remain open, providing routes toward Central Asia, Russia and the Caucasus. Afghanistan also remains open, but inadequate infrastructure and chronic congestion limit its usefulness as an alternative transit corridor.
Iran had increasingly looked to road and rail links through Central Asia after restrictions on maritime and air transport. Further border closures would therefore leave Tehran with progressively fewer ways of moving goods.
The disruptions have prompted some hard-line government supporters to call for retaliation against neighboring countries, including restrictions on Iranian electricity exports and internet transit to Iraq.
But several land routes remain open, and there is no declared land blockade. Limited capacity and existing bottlenecks mean those routes cannot readily replace maritime trade, leaving further closures capable of intensifying pressure on an economy already struggling with the effects of the US blockade.
Repeated economic and political crises are eroding Iranians' belief that their lives can improve, with official figures showing declining social capital, widespread perceptions of injustice and deepening distrust of the government.
Sara, a 40-year-old graphic designer, says she was satisfied with her personal life and optimistic about the future until a year or two ago. But losing her job after the 12-day war in June 2025, followed by January crackdown and another round of war have left her deeply pessimistic.
“Thinking about the future and planning for it causes severe anxiety not only for me but also for many people I know,” she said. “There is no hope because everything is extremely unstable, and any good news can be denied moments later.”
The sense of despair is also reflected in public commentary. Sociologist Amin Parvin wrote on X that repeatedly seeing expectations go unmet had replaced “the pleasure of being hopeful” with “living in despair.”
Economic uncertainty has become a persistent feature of everyday life. People with savings or assets worry about losing their value, while others struggle with the rising cost of food, rent and services.
Foreign currency exchange rates, gold and car prices—cars being widely regarded as investment assets in Iran—frequently rank among the most-read topics on Iranian news websites, sometimes attracting more attention than reports about war and negotiations.
Food prices, which fluctuate alongside exchange rates, are another major focus.
Inequality grows
At a recent seminar on social hope in Iran, Mehdi Malmir, a sociology professor at Shahid Beheshti University, presented figures indicating a substantial decline in public satisfaction over the past two decades.
According to Malmir, social satisfaction stood at about 76% in 2000, while 15% expressed absolute dissatisfaction. By 2023, satisfaction had fallen to 49.8%, while dissatisfaction had risen to nearly 40%.
Indicators relating to welfare, the economy and what he described as the moral condition of society had also declined, he said.
Malmir warned that growing poverty and inequality could further undermine hope. People need to see their circumstances improving and believe upward mobility remains possible, he said, adding that available statistics offered little evidence this was happening.
At the same meeting, sociologist Ensieh Jalalvand pointed to repeated protests, declining electoral participation and the spread of emigration across increasingly broad sections of society.
People need to see that their concerns are heard and can lead to tangible change, she said. “The issue is establishing a genuine mechanism through which people can be heard and acknowledged.”
The reformist newspaper Shargh similarly argued that hope depends on people seeing the future as at least partly predictable, believing rules apply equally and trusting that their efforts today can improve their lives tomorrow.
Official figures
The 2025 National Social Capital Report, prepared by the Interior Ministry's Social Affairs Organization and published in June, found that Iran's social capital index fell from 43.5% in 2015 to 36.6% in 2025.
The report found that 75% of respondents were dissatisfied with what they perceived as a lack of justice in society. Three-quarters felt they lived amid discrimination, inequality and the preferential distribution of opportunities through patronage.
The survey covered the period from early 2025 until the outbreak of the 12-day war in June of that year.
Sixty percent of respondents said they had no hope that conditions would improve, while the same proportion said they could no longer tolerate additional economic pressure, according to the findings cited by the Rouydad24 news website.
Rouydad24 said the consequences included the mass emigration of skilled workers, capital flight and a shift from productive activity toward short-term speculation.
The report also pointed to widespread dissatisfaction with the country's political direction. Seventy percent of respondents said changes to the country's overarching policies were necessary to improve their satisfaction.
Mohammad Bat’haei, a deputy interior minister and head of the Social Affairs Organization, described the findings as a serious warning.
The decline in social capital at the national level, reflecting citizens' trust in the country's governing system and institutions, was more pronounced than declines at intermediate and local levels, Bat’haei said.
For Sara, such questions are less abstract. Having once expected her life to improve, she now finds planning for the future itself a source of anxiety.