Iran International
Divisions within Iran's political establishment over how to end the country's prolonged state of neither war nor peace are coming into sharper focus as mediators race to secure an agreement with Washington amid preparations for possible renewed US-Israeli strikes.
Qatari mediators held talks in Tehran for at least 12 hours on Friday while maintaining contact with the White House, Axios reported. The diplomatic push comes amid reports that Washington and Israel are preparing for possible military action after next week's US midterm elections.
The competing approaches have emerged in the wake of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's call to end the impasse.
According to an official account of a meeting with Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei, reportedly held on October 27, Khamenei called for an end to the war and the current uncertainty, while insisting that Iran's conditions for an agreement be met.
Advocates of diplomacy have seized on his remarks to press for renewed negotiations with Washington, while conservatives emphasise military deterrence, economic resilience and maintaining Tehran's demands. The disagreement is less about whether to negotiate than the terms on which Iran should do so.
President Masoud Pezeshkian, who has repeatedly warned about the economic consequences of prolonged uncertainty, pledged a day after the account was published to fulfil Khamenei's instructions.
"You cannot plan in a state of indecision," Pezeshkian said on October 24, recalling that the late supreme leader Ali Khamenei had also called for an end to the impasse.
"But I still believe we should go [to negotiations] and move beyond the neither-war-nor-peace situation," he added.
Reformist and moderate politicians have argued that prolonged uncertainty is discouraging investment, delaying economic decisions and deepening public anxiety.
Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice-president under Mohammad Khatami, has advocated "dignified negotiations", while former lawmaker Mansour Haghighatpour, a moderate conservative close to Ali Larijani, said Iran faced a choice between renewed war and an agreement.
"National interests dictate that we choose a path through which we can achieve our objectives with the least possible cost and damage," Haghighatpour told Donya-e Eqtesad, urging Washington to return to negotiations in Islamabad.
Javad Youneszadeh, a member of Pezeshkian's media team, went further, arguing that negotiations were compatible with the supreme leader's emphasis on resistance rather than a retreat from it.
In a commentary published on the president's website, he said both Ali Khamenei and his successor had authorised talks with Washington despite what he described as repeated American breaches of commitments.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran still wants to return to the Islamabad memorandum of understanding, even assuming that the enemy has disrupted everything," he wrote.
Former Iranian diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi also urged de-escalation, warning that refusing to show flexibility could lead to renewed fighting, a prolonged naval blockade and further economic pressure.
Conservatives and hardliners, meanwhile, have interpreted Khamenei's remarks as a call to strengthen Iran's position rather than soften its demands, arguing that ending the uncertainty requires military preparedness and economic resilience alongside diplomacy.
Fada-Hossein Maleki, a hardline member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the newspaper Iran that resolving the impasse required a new strategic framework involving the government, parliament and armed forces.
He said the framework should strengthen Iran's defence capabilities, address economic problems and prepare the country for both negotiations and military confrontation.
Maleki stressed that Khamenei's call should not be taken as a signal that Tehran was moving towards war or was prepared to accept peace at any price.
Conservative political activist Alireza Khojastehpour similarly told IRNA that stronger military deterrence could help translate Iran's battlefield achievements into diplomatic gains while reducing the economic costs of prolonged uncertainty.
The Mehr news agency also called for preparations to withstand sustained external pressure, citing warnings from Pezeshkian and Rezaei about the economic consequences of a prolonged blockade.
"From these statements, it can be understood that the country's decision-makers are planning economically and militarily to resist external pressure," Mehr wrote, while acknowledging the costs imposed on Iranian households.
The competing interpretations suggest that Khamenei's call to end the impasse has done little to resolve the underlying disagreement over how to achieve it. While advocates of diplomacy see negotiations as a way to ease economic pressure, conservatives emphasise deterrence and resistance, leaving unanswered the question of what Tehran is prepared to concede, if anything, to secure an agreement.
Qatari mediators returned to Tehran on Friday, barely a day after leaving the Iranian capital following the reported rejection of their latest peace proposal, as Washington and Tehran remained divided over which side should make the first concessions.
The delegation's swift return suggested that diplomatic efforts were continuing despite reports by Iranian news agencies that senior officials had rejected key provisions of the Qatari-mediated proposal.
On Friday, as the Qatari delegation, led by a senior adviser to Qatar's prime minister, held talks with Iranian diplomats headed by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Tehran's Friday prayer leader, Mohsen Haj Ali Akbari, poured cold water on the prospect of a breakthrough with Washington.
He said past experience showed Washington's offers of talks could coincide with more serious threats than its public military warnings suggested.
More notably, he lent weight to calls for a revision of Iran's nuclear doctrine, arguing that they were neither a fringe position nor merely an emotional reaction.
On Thursday, Araghchi said Tehran remained committed to the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as the basis for further negotiations.
He rejected proposals requiring Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as a unilateral confidence-building measure before the verified lifting of naval restrictions and the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets.
‘War is certain’
The disagreement over which side should act first remains a central obstacle to negotiations, even as regional mediators continue efforts to prevent another round of fighting.
A separate diplomatic initiative by US Vice President JD Vance has also yet to produce a formal Iranian response.
Iranian media have confirmed receipt of a letter from Vance to security chief Mohsen Rezaei, but officials have not commented on its contents, insisting instead that Tehran's conditions for an agreement remain unchanged.
Former parliamentary national security committee chairman Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh offered a far more pessimistic assessment of the renewed mediation efforts.
"The mediators' visits to Tehran are a sign that war is certain, not that diplomacy is being revived," he wrote on X on Friday, arguing that only a regional agreement involving the United States and China could now prevent a fourth war.
Economic costs
In an article published Thursday, the reformist newspaper Shargh also expressed grave concern about the diplomatic deadlock..
It warned that celebrating mine attacks and escalating regional tensions while Iran's economy faced severe shortages of essential inputs could prove a potentially fatal mistake.
The conservative newspaper Khorasan offered a more measured assessment of the diplomatic difficulties, while supporting Araghchi's rejection of proposals requiring Iran to de-escalate before Washington lifted restrictions on shipping.
While some commentators warn that prolonged confrontation is deepening Iran's economic problems and increasing the danger of war, others argue that making concessions under military and economic pressure would weaken Tehran's position in any eventual agreement.
Who moves first?
The discussions appear to be focused on establishing a framework for renewed negotiations rather than resolving every outstanding issue in a comprehensive peace agreement.
Vance's letter, according to US media reports, sought to restart talks with Iran's nuclear program included from the outset. Tehran, meanwhile, insists that steps to ease the naval blockade and release frozen assets must precede substantive nuclear negotiations.
The disagreement is reflected in a proposed seven-day framework. Washington wants nuclear discussions to begin on the first day, while Tehran insists they should begin on the seventh, after other measures have been implemented.
Although the proposed timetable separates the two positions by six days, the dispute is about more than timing. Each side wants the other to demonstrate its commitment before taking what it considers a significant political risk.
The stakes remain high. US officials have warned of possible renewed military operations after the November 3 midterm elections, while Tehran continues to reject proposals it regards as requiring unilateral concessions.
For now, the return of the Qatari mediators shows that diplomatic contacts remain active. Whether those contacts can prevent another round of fighting depends on finding a sequence of steps that both Washington and Tehran are prepared to accept.
A small boat attached two explosive devices to a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, causing an engine-room fire and temporarily disabling the vessel, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said on Friday, providing new details about an attack the previous day.
The incident occurred on Thursday about 25 nautical miles (46 km) northeast of Khasab, Oman. UKMTO said the boat approached the tanker's port side and attached the explosives to its hull above the waterline.
The agency said the fire had been extinguished, all crew members were safe and there was no environmental damage. The vessel was continuing to its next port of call.
Three maritime security sources identified the tanker as the Panama-flagged Louise 1 and said the devices were limpet mines, Reuters reported.
Iran says it destroyed US unmanned vessel
In a separate development on Friday, Iran's navy said it had destroyed a US unmanned vessel in the eastern Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian state media.
There was no immediate confirmation from the US military.
The report came amid continued maritime tensions between Washington and Tehran, with commercial shipping facing repeated attacks and disruptions since the US war with Iran began in February.
First successful limpet mine attack since war began
The attack on the Louise 1 marked the first known successful use of limpet mines against a tanker in the area since the war began, according to two maritime security sources cited by Reuters.
The sources said a similar attempt in September had failed when the devices did not detonate.
Limpet mines are explosive devices attached directly to a ship's hull. They differ from sea mines placed in the water, which can detonate when vessels pass over or near them.
"The apparent ability of a small craft to approach a transiting tanker, deploy explosive devices and withdraw presents a significant security concern, particularly in the Strait's congested shipping lanes," Greece-based maritime risk management company Marisks said on Friday.
Marisks said such explosives were inexpensive and could be deployed using small boats. It said limpet mines had been used against tankers in the region in previous years.
Iran reports three tankers struck sea mines
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Thursday that three tankers had struck sea mines, exploded and caught fire while attempting to leave the Strait of Hormuz through a southern route it described as unauthorized.
The IRGC navy said the vessels had switched off their radar and navigation systems and ignored warnings from Iranian forces. It said the tankers were left along the strait's southern coast.
The UKMTO advisory described an attack involving explosives attached directly to a tanker's hull. It remains unclear whether the Louise 1 was among the three vessels mentioned by the IRGC.
The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and is a critical route for international oil and gas shipments.
Tanker previously targeted in Black Sea
The Louise 1 was previously struck by Ukrainian naval drones in the Black Sea in July, according to Reuters.
Ukraine's SBU security service said the tanker was targeted over its alleged role in transporting Russian oil as part of Moscow's so-called shadow fleet, a network of vessels used to maintain oil exports despite Western sanctions.
The tanker's Panama-based operator, Aquarius Maritime Ventures, could not immediately be reached for comment, Reuters reported.
US Vice President JD Vance has offered to meet Iran's top security official Mohsen Rezaei to discuss ending the war, the Washington Post reported, as Qatari mediators returned to Tehran on Friday to pursue a deal.
Vance sent a letter last week to Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), outlining the interests of both countries in possible negotiations, the newspaper reported on Thursday, citing a US official familiar with the discussions.
The letter stressed that Washington's main objective was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while recognizing Tehran's interests in rebuilding its economy and preserving its national sovereignty.
The vice president also told Iran it needed to appoint representatives authorized to negotiate over its nuclear program, according to the report.
Istanbul or Doha could host a meeting between Vance and Rezaei if the two sides agree to direct talks, the official said.
The Washington Post reported that US officials regarded Rezaei as an important contact because of his influence within Iran's security establishment and his access to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.
Qatar returns to Tehran for new talks
Qatari mediators returned to Tehran on Friday to advance efforts toward an agreement between Iran and the United States, Reuters reported, citing an official briefed on the negotiations.
The mediators have been coordinating their efforts with Washington as they seek to narrow differences over the nuclear program and the economic restrictions imposed on Iran.
The two sides remain divided over the order of steps needed to reach an agreement. Washington wants nuclear issues addressed from the outset, while Tehran insists that the US first end its naval blockade and lift restrictions on Iranian oil exports.
Qatar presented Iran with a draft peace plan on Sunday, but a senior Iranian official subsequently described the ideas as unacceptable and said Tehran would not change its position on the nuclear issue.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Wednesday that Tehran was consulting closely with intermediaries on ideas for implementing its own seven-day proposal to end the war.
The Washington Post reported that Qatari representatives have maintained regular contact with Rezaei and other senior Iranian officials.
According to the newspaper, Iranian leaders regarded Vance's direct letter as a sign of respect, although there was no indication they had changed their nuclear position.
Washington sees Rezaei as central to negotiations
The Trump administration believes Rezaei could help secure support within Iran's leadership for a nuclear agreement, the Washington Post reported, citing the US official.
US intelligence officials believe Rezaei has maintained regular contact with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, including discussions in recent days after receiving Vance's letter.
Rezaei, a former commander of the IRGC, has gained influence within Iran's political and security establishment and maintains connections with officials overseeing the economy, according to the report.
The newspaper said US officials viewed him as someone capable of securing agreement among Iranian leaders on sensitive nuclear issues.
Vance previously led US negotiations with Iran, including an April meeting in Islamabad with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Those discussions involved possible sanctions relief and economic cooperation in exchange for a nuclear agreement, but they failed to produce a lasting settlement.
The Washington Post reported that US officials believe the opportunity to reach an agreement without further military action could be narrowing.
Trump says contact focused on medical supplies
US President Donald Trump confirmed Wednesday that he had approved Vance's outreach to Iran but said the contact concerned medical supplies rather than instructions to restart peace negotiations.
"They need help with medical supplies and various things. He asked me what I thought. I said, 'if you want to do that, that's OK,'" Trump told reporters.
"Basically, it's getting supplies in to help people that are not well," he added.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the letter to Rezaei, saying the contact was intended to explore whether Washington and Tehran could agree on a framework for negotiations.
Axios separately reported that Vance stressed the need for any renewed negotiations to address Iran's nuclear program.
The discussions come as Trump considers possible renewed strikes against Iran after the November 3 US midterm elections, according to reports by US media outlets.
Vance says Trump will not allow prolonged Iran war
Speaking at a Fox News town hall in Fort Worth, Texas, on Thursday, Vance said Trump would not allow the conflict with Iran to become a prolonged US military engagement.
"We've been involved in Iran in some form for seven months. The United States has been dealing with Iran for 47 years, and I promise you that Donald Trump is not going to let Iran become a forever war," Vance said.
He said opposing lengthy military interventions did not mean ruling out the use of force.
"I think there's a difference between criticizing foreign military misadventures and saying that you can never ever use the American military," he said.
"He's going to accomplish America's objectives, and then we're going to focus on the other things that we're doing," Vance added.
His comments came as US military officials prepared options for possible further strikes against Iran, with Trump yet to announce a decision.
Iranian media have highlighted Benjamin Netanyahu's weakened position following Israel's election, but analysts in Tehran say his departure would be unlikely to change Israel's approach to Iran, even if it weakened its ability to pursue the confrontation.
Reports by the Tasnim and Fars news agencies, both affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), as well as state radio and television, have focused on the failure of either of Israel's two main electoral blocs to secure a governing majority, raising the prospect of prolonged political deadlock.
These outlets have also devoted considerable attention to gains by Arab parties and the possibility that their increased representation could help bring about Netanyahu's removal as prime minister.
They have largely avoided discussing whether the election outcome could increase or reduce the risk of further escalation in the war with Iran.
Senior Iranian officials have yet to comment on the result. Before the vote, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran did not care who led Israel, stressing that Iran was at war and would not hesitate to defend itself.
Netanyahu or Eisenkot?
Iranian analysts have generally argued that the election outcome could affect the timing, scope or objectives of potential Israeli military action, but would not fundamentally change Israel's approach to Iran's nuclear and missile programs or its regional influence.
Masoud Asadollahi, a Middle East expert and university professor, told Nour News, an outlet close to Iran's Supreme National Security Council: “From a military and security perspective, one cannot simply conclude that the mutual threats or strategic differences between Iran and Israel will disappear because a prime minister leaves office.”
He said Netanyahu's opponents differed from him mainly in how they would manage the war and make strategic decisions, rather than in their fundamental approach to Iran.
The conservative Khorasan newspaper addressed the question in a Thursday article titled “Which Is Better for Iran: Netanyahu or Eisenkot?”
It argued that Netanyahu's removal should not be equated with the end of the Israeli threat to Iran. Gadi Eisenkot, it said, was neither an outsider to Israel's political establishment nor opposed to confrontation with the Islamic Republic.
“The experience of coalition governments and political disagreements in Israel has shown that diversity within the cabinet can increase the costs of decision-making,” the newspaper wrote.
Khorasan argued that Netanyahu's departure could benefit Iran by weakening the political and diplomatic capacity he had accumulated during the confrontation, even if his successor pursued similar policies.
But it also acknowledged that internal political rivalries could produce more aggressive policies.
“Sometimes removing one player does not end the game, but it can make the game more difficult for the other side,” the newspaper wrote.
Other analysts warned that political uncertainty could itself increase the risk of military escalation.
Morteza Makki, an international affairs analyst, told the Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA) that delays in forming Israel's next government could work to Netanyahu's advantage by giving him a potential window to attack Iran.
Makki said the uncertainty could also affect the prospects for coordination with the United States in any such operation.
“Overall, the likelihood of war is high, and one cannot judge whether war will or will not occur solely on the basis of which political camp wins the election, because both camps are inclined toward war,” foreign policy analyst Alireza Komeili told the conservative Nameh News website.
Hardliner claims Iran drove Israeli turnout
Ali Akbar Raefipour, an ultra-hardline political figure, claimed in a social media post that concerns about Iran were behind the high turnout in Israel's election.
“The highest voter turnout in Israel's elections in the past 28 years has been recorded so far. And the main reason for it is Iran alone. Yes, Iran,” he wrote on X.
His claim drew responses from Iranian social media users who contrasted Israeli participation with low turnout in Iranian elections.
“We have influence over elections all over the world, and the results of elections everywhere in the world affect our lives, except for the results of our own elections,” one user wrote.
The prospect of another US-Iran war has fuelled debate over whether Washington is preparing for a prolonged campaign of military and economic pressure or whether diplomacy can still avert a wider conflict.
The debate comes amid continuing attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, warnings from Tehran that it is better prepared for another confrontation, and fresh revelations about Iran's efforts to circumvent sanctions and the US naval blockade to import military equipment.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Thursday that three tankers had struck naval mines in the strait over the previous 24 hours. Vice President Mohammadreza Aref said Tehran was managing the strategic waterway and that its defensive readiness had improved since the 12-day and 40-day wars.
Analyses published in Iranian newspapers in recent days offer differing assessments of the likelihood of another confrontation and the prospects for a negotiated settlement.
The economic daily Donya-ye Eghtesad said war was not inevitable, pointing to continuing backchannel contacts despite deep disagreements between the two sides.
Political analyst Rahman Ghahramanpour told the paper that another conflict would be unlikely to end after only a few days, warning that even limited US military action could become part of a sustained campaign combining strikes and sanctions.
Ghahramanpour described a possible eight-to-twelve-month strategy aimed at weakening Iran's ability to resist US demands.
War: disastrous but not inevitable
Reuters investigation published Thursday revealed how Iran has used a network of more than 5,000 military-linked agencies to import at least $2 billion worth of equipment, explosives and heavy-duty trucks since January 2025, circumventing Western sanctions and the US naval blockade.
The findings shed light on Tehran's efforts to sustain its military capabilities despite the pressure campaign.
Former diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi challenged predictions that another war was imminent, arguing that the remaining disagreements between Tehran and Washington might not be substantial enough to justify the costs of a new conflict.
Writing in the reformist daily Shargh, Ahmadi said President Donald Trump's statements should not be treated as evidence that he had decided to attack Iran, while warning that another war could have devastating consequences.
He identified three broad options available to Washington: pursue a diplomatic settlement, continue economic and military pressure to weaken Iran, or undertake another military operation.
Diplomacy remained possible, Ahmadi argued, because the dispute concerned the sequencing of concessions more than fundamentally incompatible objectives.
Cost of stalemate
The moderate news website Fararu examined the damage already being inflicted by the prolonged stalemate.
Former diplomat Fereydoun Majlesi argued that Iran's state of “neither war nor peace” was itself becoming a major economic burden, with uncertainty prompting businesses to hold on to cash and avoid investment.
Such decisions weaken production, employment and economic growth over time, he said, even without another military confrontation.
Both sides, Majlesi said, continued to define an acceptable agreement primarily in terms of their own interests while resisting the concessions necessary to bridge the gap.
He warned that prolonged uncertainty could make an eventual settlement more difficult as economic pressure and mutual distrust intensified.
For Ghahramanpour, the question was not simply whether Washington might strike again, but whether military pressure could secure political concessions without triggering a wider war.