US President Donald Trump predicted Wednesday that the war with Iran would end soon, but Tehran rejected nuclear concessions and threatened US bases as far away as Europe, while Washington intensified economic pressure and tensions persisted in the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaking at a Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, Trump declared that US forces had already defeated Iran militarily and suggested Washington could decide when to end the conflict.
“We won. It’s just a question of when we end it,” Trump said.
“I want to make sure we have a total victory, not a 93 percent victory,” he added, predicting that the conflict would end soon.
Tehran, however, showed little willingness to accept Washington's terms. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Iran was determined to end its prolonged state between war and peace through military deterrence, potentially without negotiations.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Ghalibaf said Washington had not formally responded to Tehran's seven conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and resuming talks. He insisted that those conditions must be fully implemented before either could proceed.
His remarks followed comments by President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had ordered an end to the country's “no war, no peace” situation. Pezeshkian said Iran could resolve the dispute through negotiations but would not yield to pressure.
The impasse extends to Iran's nuclear program, one of the central disputes between the two countries.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran would not transfer any of its enriched nuclear material abroad, rejecting a possible arrangement involving Russia.
“We have informed our Russian friends that the enriched material will remain in Iran, and we will use it ourselves,” Rezaei told Lebanon's pro-Hezbollah Al Mayadeen television.
Russia's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that its offer to receive the material remained available, while emphasizing that Tehran alone would decide what happened to its stockpile.
The disagreement highlights the obstacles facing any diplomatic settlement, even as Pakistan continues efforts to mediate between Washington and Tehran.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who met Pezeshkian on the sidelines of the COP31 climate summit in Turkey, called for restraint and sustained diplomacy, saying negotiations offered the only path to lasting peace.
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that US Vice President JD Vance was considering face-to-face talks with Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei, citing US and Middle Eastern officials and people familiar with the negotiations.
Trump has authorized Vance to negotiate with Iran, according to the report. Vance sent Rezaei a letter in October requesting a meeting, but no date has been set, with Doha under consideration as a possible venue.
But prospects for direct talks appeared uncertain. Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Ghalibaf, said Tehran had rejected a request from US Vice President JD Vance for direct negotiations before Washington delivered its final response to Iran's proposal.
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, reported that Trump had privately questioned whether a Pakistan-brokered agreement reached in June had allowed Tehran to regroup before the United States imposed its naval blockade.
With negotiations stalled, Washington is seeking to intensify the economic pressure already imposed through maritime restrictions and sanctions.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that US officials had spent weeks unsuccessfully pressing Iran's neighbors, particularly Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan, to restrict trade across their land borders.
The effort gained a new dimension with the establishment of Task Force Iron Gate, a US Central Command initiative aimed at disrupting the movement of weapons, sanctioned goods and illicit revenue across Iran's land borders and the Caspian Sea.
But neighboring governments have resisted measures that could damage their own economies and provoke unrest in communities dependent on cross-border trade.
According to the Times, Iraq rejected a US request to close all but two crossings with Iran, while Turkey has largely declined to change its border policies.
The Group of Seven foreign ministers pledged Wednesday to maintain economic and political pressure if diplomacy failed to address Iran's nuclear program and regional security concerns.
Iran's response has combined diplomatic resistance with increasingly expansive military threats.
Rezaei warned Wednesday that any US military base involved in a renewed war against Iran could be targeted, including facilities in Europe.
“NO SAFE DISTANCE. NO SAFE HAVEN. NO IMMUNITY,” he wrote on X.
Other senior Iranian military figures issued similar warnings. Deputy armed forces chief Keyoumars Heydari said Iran had prepared an expanded list of potential targets beyond the Middle East, while Revolutionary Guards adviser Mohammadreza Naghdi said the armed forces had authorization to retaliate without geographical restrictions.
Mohammadi, the adviser to Ghalibaf, also warned that Iran could consider preemptive military action if Washington continued tightening economic pressure. He claimed the United States was preparing for a limited strike, although there was no independent confirmation of such a plan.
An adviser to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei also warned that countries helping enforce a blockade against Iran could be treated as participants in an act of war.
Those threats came as the Strait of Hormuz remained a flashpoint, complicating efforts to restore commercial shipping and energy exports from the Persian Gulf.
Reuters reported Wednesday, citing three sources familiar with the matter, that Iran had attacked navigation infrastructure on Oman's Didamar island used to support shipping through the waterway. The extent of any damage was unclear.
Iran's navy also said a tanker had caught fire after striking a mine east of the strait, describing the area as unsafe and restricted and urging shipowners to coordinate passage with Iranian forces.
Tehran's rhetoric toward Washington is hardening, with senior Iranian officials threatening US military bases in Europe and commentators on state television calling for a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz to force American concessions.
The increasingly confrontational language comes as Iran faces a continuing US naval blockade and uncertainty over whether the two countries can reach an agreement to end the war.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, warned Wednesday that Tehran could target US military bases in Europe and on distant islands if Washington attacked Iran again.
During a November 10 discussion on the state broadcaster's nightly talk show Be Vaght-e Iran, three analysts argued that Iran should use the Strait of Hormuz to drive up oil prices, deter further US attacks and pressure Washington to accept Tehran's terms for ending the war.
Nima Akbarkhani, a political and military analyst and regular panelist, argued that the United States would launch another war only after bringing oil prices down as far as possible, allowing it to contain the resulting increase once hostilities began.
He rejected the argument that a tighter closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or an Iranian attempt to break the US naval blockade, could prompt President Donald Trump to launch a full-scale war.
“We must definitely go after the blockade militarily. We must recognize that a blockade is a military action and demands a military response,” Akbarkhani said.
“Americans are monitoring the situation, and if it serves their interests, war will happen. We must do something to make it work against their interests.”
He argued that Washington had limited its military response even after US personnel were killed during the earlier war over Hormuz.
Yousef Azizi, an international relations and Middle East analyst, said Iran should keep oil prices high by closing the strait to deter another US attack.
Azizi also urged Iran's diplomatic apparatus to avoid releasing information that could drive oil prices down, including reports of possible meetings with officials from Iraq and Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
His remarks followed a denial by Rezaei of reports about a possible meeting with US Vice President JD Vance in Qatar and claims that negotiations with Washington were continuing.
In an interview with Al Mayadeen on Tuesday, Rezaei called the reports “completely false and a lie,” arguing that American claims about ongoing negotiations were intended to “reduce economic pressure and bring down oil prices.”
Azizi said Washington appeared to have concluded that it could not achieve its objectives through war. He considered a cycle of limited clashes, temporary ceasefires and interim understandings more likely than either side accepting all the other's demands.
Vahid Khazab, another regular analyst on Be Vaght-e Iran, said the costs of war could push the US and global economies into a deep recession and damage Trump's legacy.
An agreement, however, would require Washington to accept Iran's preconditions for ending the war and beginning nuclear negotiations, he said.
“More precisely, there is no unity, consensus or even a majority within the ruling camp in the United States in favor of making such concessions,” Khazab said.
Of three possible scenarios — war, an agreement ending the conflict, or continued economic pressure and a naval blockade — Khazab considered the third the most likely because it was the least costly option for Washington.
He argued that Iran should therefore close the Strait of Hormuz completely, denying Washington the option of maintaining economic pressure while some energy supplies continued to pass through.
Rather than focusing solely on raising oil prices, Khazab said Tehran should seek to influence market expectations about future supplies. A complete closure would prevent Trump from signaling that the strait might soon reopen, encouraging expectations of a return to normal traffic.
“Of course, this will also be reflected in prices, albeit with some delay,” he added.
He also argued that a tighter closure would prompt regional countries to pressure Washington to reach a resolution favorable to Tehran, without Iran having to attack their infrastructure.
Khazab said Tehran should present Washington with a stark choice: “Your only option is to reach an agreement with me and accept my seven conditions. If we want to get to this point, the way to do it is to close the strait.”
Iran would strike US bases in Europe and on distant islands if the United States attacks again, the country’s top security official said, warning countries that host American forces that any base involved in an attack would become a target.
“If the Americans make a mistake and attack us, we will not limit ourselves to nearby bases,” Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, told the Beirut-based channel Al Mayadeen, which is aligned with Hezbollah and Tehran.
“We may even target some American military bases in European countries.”
Iran might also hit “some islands they think our missiles cannot reach,” he said, and he advised every country that hosts US forces not to cooperate with an attack. “Wherever American planes take off from, we will regard it as a threat against us.”
Rezaei also said Vladimir Putin had told him, when they met in the Kremlin, that he had informed the Americans that the Islamic Republic “is not a system that can be toppled.”
The threat marks another step up in what Tehran says it is prepared to hit. In the 12-day war of June 2025, Rezaei said, Iran limited its strikes to Israel. In the war that began on February 28 it fired on US bases across the region. Now its officials name Europe.
Last month, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei ordered the armed forces to prepare for retaliation without geographic limits, according to a statement attributed to him. The army’s spokesman said a new war could spread “beyond West Asia,” and the hardline daily Kayhan listed US and NATO facilities in Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Albania, Italy and Britain, and the joint US-British base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Whether Iran can reach them is less clear. The Center for Strategic and International Studies lists Iran’s main ballistic missiles with ranges of about 2,000 kilometers, with some variants reaching perhaps 3,000. Britain’s Royal United Services Institute has said a strike as far as the UK is theoretically possible, with smaller and less accurate warheads flying through defended airspace.
The warning comes days after the US military moved tankers and aircraft out of RAF Mildenhall in eastern England over a threat from Iran, and weeks after it withdrew bombers from RAF Fairford following a suspected Iran-linked plot.
Rezaei denied that Tehran was talking to Washington, contradicting reports this week of progress in Qatari mediation.
“We are not negotiating with the Americans at present, and there are no negotiations between us and the United States,” he said.
Reports of a meeting in Qatar, or of plans for him to meet Vice President JD Vance, were “lies,” he said, meant to ease economic pressure and bring down oil prices. Asked directly about a meeting with Vance, he said: “Absolutely not.”
Iran has set seven conditions, he said, and the Strait of Hormuz will stay closed until they are met. Washington’s first reply had been “deceptive.” The first condition is an end to the war on all fronts, especially Lebanon.
He said the nuclear issue was not on the table, and that “not even a particle” of Iran’s enriched uranium would leave the country. Tehran had told Moscow the same, he said, adding that Iran was designing nuclear-powered ships and submarines and might build small modular reactors, and needed the material for them.
Rezaei also said both sides had signed an agreement during an earlier round of talks in Islamabad, and that Trump had torn it up within a month. Washington has not confirmed that account.
Rezaei said Iran had recently taken control of US drones in flight through electronic warfare and brought seven down intact, and had captured two underwater craft able to dive to 6,000 meters. He gave no details, and none of the claims could be independently verified.
Asked about the health of Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not appeared in public since succeeding his father in March, Rezaei did not answer directly.
He said that when they last met, and he prayed behind him, he found him better informed about the country “even than me,” and that he issues instructions to military commanders.
Rezaei said he had carried a message from Mojtaba Khamenei to Putin, mostly on continuing cooperation, and that they had discussed the North-South trade corridor and piping Russian gas, no longer sold to Europe, into Iran for its own use and resale to its neighbors.
US President Donald Trump says the Iran war is effectively over militarily, but his plan to maintain a naval blockade raises questions about how long the standoff can last and whether it serves the interests of the Arab neighbors he says support it.
“Most importantly, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and others would prefer the status quo, that we remain as is,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday after meeting Qatar’s prime minister.
He described that approach as continuing the US naval blockade, while keeping American forces ready for renewed military action.
Speaking to reporters in Paris after meetings with G7 counterparts on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US sanctions and the naval blockade were inflicting growing economic damage on Iran, reducing the need for further major combat operations.
Regional analysts disagree over whether that policy offers Arab states across the Persian Gulf their safest option or prolongs a confrontation that threatens their security and economies.
Pressure without stability
Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute and former executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine, offered the opposite assessment to Trump’s. Regional governments want a weaker Islamic Republic, he said, but that does not mean they favor an indefinite blockade.
“They would like to see the regime weakened, but they don't believe that the blockade serves their interests,” he told Iran International.
Even where oil continues to flow, insurance costs and the risk of further attacks weigh on regional economies. Prolonged uncertainty also threatens the stability underpinning investment, tourism, finance and logistics, he said.
“No war, no peace equals uncertainty, equals instability,” al-Omari said.
He argued that Arab governments across the Persian Gulf doubt Washington’s willingness to sustain the policy.Trump’s midterm setback has intensified concerns that domestic pressure could prompt an abrupt change, leaving neighboring countries to manage the consequences.
Without an agreement reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the conflict, some governments could seek separate arrangements with Tehran to reduce their exposure, he said.
Between a rock and a hard place
Dalia Ziada of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) described the Arab states of the Persian Gulf as caught “between a rock and a hard place”: fearful of a resurgent Islamic Republic, yet harmed by the instability of a prolonged standoff.
“They don't want the Iranian regime to get strong again,” she told Iran International.
But continued insecurity carries its own economic consequences, threatening the region’s appeal to investors and confidence in its future.
“The biggest loss for the wealthy Gulf states is the lack of stability,” Ziada said.
She argued that differences among regional governments, combined with doubts about the reliability of American protection, complicate their choices. Their concerns cannot be reduced to a simple preference for war or continued restraint, she said.
One incident could break the standoff
Mohamed Fahmy, a journalist and Middle East political analyst, also sees significant differences among Iran’s Arab neighbors.
“There is no unified Gulf position on how long the blockade should continue,” he told Iran International.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE see value in maintaining American pressure until Tehran makes meaningful concessions, Fahmy said, while Qatar and Oman place greater emphasis on mediation.
Their shared interest in reducing the Iranian military threat does not eliminate the costs of prolonged confrontation.
“The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have invested heavily in presenting themselves as stable international hubs for business, tourism, finance and logistics. Prolonged confrontation threatens those ambitions,” he said.
Those concerns reflect damage already sustained. An October 15 Reuters investigation documented at least 135 missile and drone attacks by Iran and allied groups against at least 84 infrastructure sites across seven Arab countries since US-Israeli attacks on Iran began on February 28. The tally covered infrastructure attacks, rather than every launch or attempted strike.
Fahmy said the standoff could continue for some time because Washington and Tehran both appear to believe waiting will improve their negotiating positions. But an attack killing American personnel or seriously damaging Persian Gulf energy infrastructure could trigger renewed military action.
“It takes only one serious incident involving American forces, a commercial tanker or a Gulf energy installation to undermine the current restraint,” he said.
Growing pressure in Washington over financial costs, military commitments and the absence of a clear exit strategy could instead encourage a negotiated settlement, he argued.
The case for staying the course
Saad bin Tefla Al-Ajmi, Kuwait’s former information minister, argues that maintaining the status quo remains the least harmful choice.
“The solution is to keep the status quo as is. That’s the best solution,” he told Iran International, referring to an article he supplied outlining his position.
Renewed war could bring further Iranian attacks on neighboring countries, he argues, while American withdrawal could leave them exposed.
“The third option is the safest and best for us, for the region and for the beleaguered peoples of Iran,” he wrote in the article.
Al-Ajmi advocates sustained naval and economic pressure alongside efforts to constrain Tehran’s regional armed allies. He predicts that pressure could eventually bring down the regime, although that outcome remains uncertain.
He acknowledges the costs to neighboring states.
“The Gulf states are indeed paying a price under this scenario. Their trade is disrupted, tensions persist in their airspace and their projects are delayed,” he wrote.
His support for maintaining that pressure rests on the judgment that the alternatives would be worse. The question is whether Washington and its regional partners can sustain it without an escalation that forces them back into war.
A discussion on Iranian state television signaled cautious openness to future nuclear talks with Washington, with a commentator describing flexibility over preliminary exchanges while insisting Tehran’s conditions for ending the war must first be met.
Vahid Khazab, introduced as a military and political analyst, said on the state broadcaster’s Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time) talk show on Monday night that a significant development amid mediation efforts was Tehran’s willingness to discuss its nuclear program through intermediaries.
His account suggested room for diplomacy, but did not amount to an official announcement of a change in Iran’s negotiating position.
Iran has insisted that Washington accept its seven demands and end the war before nuclear negotiations begin. Khazab described preliminary discussions through intermediaries as a sign of “flexibility.”
However, he said, those discussions were limited to determining the issues that could be addressed in future nuclear negotiations, once Iran’s initial conditions had been accepted and the war ended.
Proposed nuclear compromise
According to Khazab, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has raised the possibility of allowing Iran to continue uranium enrichment at 3.67%. His account did not establish whether Washington had accepted that provision.
In exchange, the proposals include diluting Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, which Khazab put at 400 kilograms, or converting it into fuel rods for nuclear reactors.
The proposed arrangement would also include the release of part of Iran’s frozen assets, the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and ultimately the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Khazab said.
Tehran would likely regard any US acceptance of enrichment inside Iran as a major concession, he said. However, it would seek to negotiate how its highly enriched uranium stockpile is diluted and how much nuclear material remains inside the country.
He added that some Iranian experts had suggested gradual dilution to preserve part of the country’s nuclear capabilities for the “future, post-Trump era.”
Parallel mediation efforts
Pakistan, China, Iraq, Turkey and Qatar have been pursuing diplomatic initiatives amid concerns about renewed US military strikes against Iran.
Nima Akbarkhani, also introduced as a military expert on the program, said people with what he described as “greater access” had told him that the scale of mediation efforts in recent days was unprecedented compared with previous initiatives.
China has been among the countries involved. Ali Bagheri-Kani, a deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, traveled to China in early November and met with Beijing’s special envoy for Middle Eastern affairs, Zhai Jun.
Zhai subsequently traveled to Iran on November 8. According to Khazab, he met not only with Iranian Foreign Ministry officials but also with Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf.
Iraq has also been involved. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaydi traveled to Iran late last week on an unannounced visit.
Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, reported that al-Zaydi met with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf. However, the agency said he had not obtained what it described as “a result satisfactory to the United States.”
Turkey has also been seeking to facilitate an agreement through political contacts with Washington and Tehran.
According to remarks attributed to Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke with Trump and expressed concern about renewed military attacks against Iran, urging him to refrain from further strikes.
Qatar, which has served as one of the main channels of communication between Tehran and Washington in recent months, is also attempting to bring the two sides back to negotiations.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani traveled to Washington on Monday and met with Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
Former Qatari prime minister and foreign minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani has also emphasized the need to resolve regional disputes.
Khazab interpreted his recent emphasis on cooperation to end Iran’s blockade as a possible shift in Qatar’s calculations under wartime conditions.
Iran denies plans for Vance-Rezaei meeting
Khazab also addressed reports that Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, could meet Vance in Qatar next week.
The discussion followed reports on Monday citing Kalin as saying Qatar would host the US vice president and Iran’s security chief the following week. Türkiye newspaper carried the Turkish intelligence chief’s remarks.
In his Monday night comments, Khazab suggested that reports of a possible meeting were not necessarily false, interpreting Iranian denials as a rejection of the existence of a specific arrangement.
According to the analyst, whether a meeting could take place would depend on Washington announcing its acceptance of Iran’s seven initial conditions for ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed reports of the meeting as “speculation and media fabrication” and described them as “baseless from the outset.”
“There are no plans for such a meeting,” he said.
Rezaei subsequently told Lebanon-based Al Mayadeen television in an interview on Tuesday that “the Americans’ claims about the continuation of negotiations or the holding of a meeting in Qatar are outright lies.”
He said the claims were being circulated solely to ease economic pressure and drive down oil prices.
Khazab’s argument for conditional engagement rested on Tehran’s distrust of Washington. He accused the United States of violating its commitments after an earlier agreement and memorandum of understanding, leading to renewed hostilities.
For that reason, he said, Iran did not want to enter another round of negotiations that might produce a temporary agreement followed by a return to war.
“We have no objection to negotiations, no objection to talking. But it must be done in a way that genuinely removes the threat of war,” Khazab said.
The US military moved tankers and tiltrotor aircraft out of RAF Mildenhall in eastern England on Monday over a threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported, the second British base it has thinned out since a suspected Iran-linked plot at RAF Fairford in September.
Flight-tracking data showed nine KC-135 refueling tankers and three V-22 Ospreys leaving Mildenhall in Suffolk on Monday afternoon and evening, Sky News reported. Most of the tankers went to bases in Germany and Spain and one to Prestwick in Scotland. The Ospreys moved to nearby RAF Lakenheath.
The exact nature of the threat was still under discussion among US officials, the Journal said. Washington raised the security level at Mildenhall and Lakenheath to FPCON Charlie, the second-highest on the Pentagon’s scale, which applies when intelligence indicates that some form of terrorist action is likely.
US European Command said aircraft move between locations “for a variety of reasons” and that it could not discuss force protection measures.
Britain’s Ministry of Defense said it did not comment on other nations’ activity. “We’re constantly keeping the security of our bases under review,” cabinet minister Lucy Powell told Sky News, “and as we’ve seen with other cases recently, we take firm and quick action where we need to.”
The move comes six weeks after police arrested five men in the early hours of September 27 near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, which US bombers used to strike Iran during the war, after a local farmer reported three white vans and a group of men, some with their faces covered. The United States pulled all 12 of its B-1B bombers from Fairford on October 4.
Two men were charged last month under the National Security Act. Prosecutors said one, a British-Iranian dual national, had arranged for the men to drive to the base on the instructions of a man known only as “Ali,” and accused him of assisting a foreign intelligence service; police said they believed that country to be Iran. Six others remain on bail. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the plot was “almost certainly” directed by the Revolutionary Guards.
Iran’s ambassador in London has denied any involvement. The Revolutionary Guards warned Britain in July that Fairford and any other base used to attack Iran would be a legitimate target.