Middle East
Relations over the last 20 years
The appointment of two prominent and seasoned Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers with close ties to the Taliban as the new Ambassador and Deputy Ambassador of Iran in Afghanistan, and the handing over of the Afghan Embassy in Tehran to the Taliban, have been met with surprise, frustration and indignation by Afghan citizens and politicians who, under the spell of cultural, linguistic and religious affinities and sensibilities, used to think of the Islamic Republic of Iran as “a friend in need”, and whose feelings of affinity bordering on infatuation were corroborated by Iran’s cooperation with the Afghanistan’s resistance movement in the past. Inter-national relations, however, should be based on national interests in a specific temporal context, not on sentimental friendships and enmities.
Considering the current situation in the region and the standpoints of regional players, while keeping in mind their divergent views on matters of religion, the rapprochement between the two religious autocracies can only be understood in terms of their respective interests and the inevitable facts on the ground, namely the three-way hostilities between Iran/Taliban, the US and ISIS-K, each party’s ambitions regarding their sphere of influence, alternative alliances, the need for evading sanctions and the ongoing disputes regarding access to the waters of Hirmand.
Before having a closer look at each of the above-mentioned five elements, and in order to have a better understanding of the various factors at work behind this rapprochement, it is necessary to have a quick look at the history of relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, over the last two decades, after which we can move on to the current situation and the challenges facing the region today.
The History of Relations Over the Last 20 Years
In 1998 the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif was the scene of a bloody attack that resulted in the assassination of ten Iranian diplomats and an Iranian journalist. The rising tensions between Iran and the Taliban following these events prompted Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban at the time, to take a stance. In response to these events, Mullah Omar stated that Iran and the Taliban are “brothers in Islam” and tried to shift the spotlight onto the US as their common enemy. Not only did Mullah Omar’s statements fail to improve relations between Iran and the Taliban, but they actually incentivised the Islamic Republic to play a critical role in the arming and funding of forces fighting against the Taliban.
In the wake of 9/11 and the fall of the first Taliban regime, following the invasion of Afghanistan by the US and their allies, most members of the Taliban residing in the Western and Southwestern provinces of Afghanistan once again relocated to the refugee camps in Iran and joined their families there. It was reported that a number of Al-Qaeda commanders and members also escaped to Iran under the guise of Taliban refugees. Subsequently, a number of them were imprisoned in Iran or were put under surveillance.
Notwithstanding their disputes with the US, the Islamic Republic of Iran initially played a constructive role in Afghanistan. They felt at ease as their allies were appointed to critical positions in the cabinet of the newly established Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. But at the same time, Iran had become a safe haven for members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and their families.
In the following years, as the Taliban gradually increased their military activities in the provinces neighbouring Afghanistan, the Iranian government allowed them to establish unofficial headquarters in Zahedan and Mashhad that served as bases for recruiting combatants from among Afghan immigrants in the country. Iran saw this as a tactical opportunity to create some sort of counterbalance against the International Coalition in Iran’s backyard, i.e. Afghanistan. The Iranian regime even facilitated Taliban offensives against US military bases, such as Shindand Air Base, and several construction projects such as Salma Dam in Herat, Bakhsh-Abad Dam in Farah, and Kamal Khan Dam in Nimrouz.
In 2011 and 2012, the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Taliban entered a new phase. The Taliban sent a delegation to Tehran led by Syed Tayyib Agha, the former Head of the Political Bureau of the Taliban, requesting the establishment of an official headquarters in the capital. In that same year, the years-long armed conflict between the Shiite Turi and Bangash ethnicities and other Sunni groups in Kurram district and Parachinar in Pakistan was brought to an end with the intervention of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the IRGC acting through the Iranian Consulate in Peshawar. This development paved the way for the re-opening of the shortest transit route connecting Waziristan and Kurram Agency in Pakistan, and Paktia, Khost, Logar and Nangarhar in Afghanistan. With the re-opening of this strategic transit route, the Taliban and the Haqqani Network succeeded in amping up their offensives against the International Coalition and Afghan security forces in the above-mentioned provinces, as well as Kabul and Maidan Wardak.
Tensions between Iran and the US reached their peak during those years. The Quds Force no longer felt a need to hide their support of the Taliban. At the same time, the Afghan government’s efforts to create a balance in their foreign relations with Iran as a neighbouring country on the one hand, and the US as a strategic ally on the other, meant little to the Iranian regime. The Director of National Security presented the National Security Council and the President with undeniable well-documented evidence of the efforts of the Quds Force to arm the Taliban, their funding of the Taliban, and other hostile activities by the extraterritorial branch of the IRGC. But the policy of the Afghan government at the time was to avoid tensions with both a neighbour and an ally at all costs. They preferred to keep Iran’s interference in their internal affairs a secret and tried to resolve these issues through diplomatic channels. Due to their disputes with the US, the Islamic Republic of Iran ignored the efforts of the Afghan government. On one occasion, in a total breach of diplomatic protocols, Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, the former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, told Hamid Karzai in a threatening tone: “Those of your fellow citizens who live near American military bases should evacuate their homes to be safe from possible Iranian strikes.” Some sources suggest it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that first laid the ground for establishing contact between Moscow and the leaders of the Taliban, eventually leading to the exchange of messages of good faith between Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the former leader of the Taliban, and the Russian government.
Intelligence gathered at the time suggest that the Quds Force had simultaneously created a corridor for smuggling drugs (heroin) across the border between Iran and Afghanistan. The profits of that deadly trade were used to fund the Taliban. Furthermore, the Quds Force used those profits to fund their proxy wars in the region, and later on, also for the establishment of the Fatimid Brigade (a.k.a the Fatemiyoun Division). Another measure for funding the Taliban the Islamic Republic of Iran used was to invite a number of Taliban leaders to have a share in Afghanistan’s oil exports.
After Osama bin Laden was assassinated in Pakistan in 2011 and Ayman Al-Zawahiri became the leader of Al-Qaeda—a leader who was “in favour of” forging an alliance between the Shia and the Sunni against their common enemy—Al-Qaeda developed deeper relations with the IRGC. With the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and the ensuing clash between the Al-Nusrah/Al-Qaeda Front and ISIS in Syria in 2014, members of Al-Qaeda came to increasingly rely on Iran for travelling between Syria and Waziristan (in Pakistan). It is reported that in 2015 five key members of Al-Qaeda were released from prison in Iran in exchange for the release of Nour-Ahmad Nikbakht, an Iranian diplomat who had been taken captive in Yemen. Three of them went to Syria. The other two, Saif al-Adl and Abu Muhammad Al-Masri, remained in Tehran. Al-Masri was ultimately assassinated in Tehran in 2020.
Following the signing of a security agreement between Afghanistan and the US, and with the increased activity of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and the emergence of ISIS-K in the region, particularly in Helmand province under the leadership of Abdul Rauf Khadim in 2015, the relations between Iran and the Taliban entered a new phase. In 2015, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the leader of the Taliban at the time, travelled to Tehran. Subsequently, the Taliban started visiting Iran more frequently and their offices in Tehran, Mashhad and Zahedan expanded their operations. Before long, the Taliban were routinely meeting with representatives of the Russian Intelligence services in Tehran. These developments and the ambitions of Mullah Akhtar Mansour were not welcomed by everyone in the region. Akhtar Mansour was assassinated in 2016 in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, not long after crossing the Iranian border. According to the ISI, he was killed in a US strike. But the assassination of Akhtar Mansour did little to damage the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Taliban.
In 2018 the US started negotiating with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, on condition that the Taliban sever all ties with Al-Qaeda. With the start of the negotiations, members of Al-Qaeda were relocated from Waziristan to Iran, and from Iran to Syria, with an increased speed by Yahya Haqqani, one of the senior leaders of the Haqqani Network, in charge of their coordinating committee for foreign terrorists, who was operating with a Pakistani identity under the alias of Sajid Walad Mir Saeed Khan. These relocations continued until the conclusion of the Doha Agreement and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021.
The Inevitable Facts behind the Rapprochement between the Islamic Republic, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: A Common Hatred for the US
The withdrawal of NATO and US forces from Afghanistan and the return of the Taliban in 2021 were described by most political analysts, diplomats and US veterans as the second “embarrassing defeat” of the US after their failure in Iraq. Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran, in addition to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, undoubtedly believe they all have a claim to this victory. But over time, as the Taliban reneged on most of the commitments they had made to countries in the region and beyond in the course of the Doha negotiations, the optimism and the high hopes held by those countries gave way to disappointment, concern and uncertainty in the intelligence communities of the US and countries in the region. Most of the countries who had a stake in Afghanistan have since stated their efforts to counter any potential threats to their national interests coming from Afghanistan by all means.
For a long time, the US has been accusing Iran of supporting proxy groups fighting against the US and their allies in the region, including in Afghanistan. The US have cited this as the reason for the assassination of Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour in Pakistan after his departure from Iran, the assassination of Ghassem Soleimani in Baghdad, and the assassination of Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, better known as Abu Muhammad Al-Masri, Al-Qaeda’s number two man in Iran.
Recently, the US and their allies published a list of the threatening activities and provocations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Included on this list is Iran’s support for Russia in the war against Ukraine, the alleged presence of the new leader of Al-Qaeda in Iran (although this was no secret and years ago intelligence experts suggested that Saif Al-Adl would succeed Ayman Al-Zawahiri as the leader of Al-Qaeda), Uranium enrichment up to 84% in Iran (which, along with a few other issues, created tensions between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran and is one of the subjects of their discussions), the close relations between Iran and the extremist leaders of the Taliban in Kandahar, and the potential role of Iran and Al-Qaeda in the radical decisions of Taliban leaders and the isolation of the Kabul circle of the participants of Doha negotiations who are in favour of improving relations with the international community and the US and even went so far as to help them find and kill Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
Only time will tell whether the US will continue to see the activities of the Iranian regime as ‘potential’ threats that can be used to advance their policy of deterrence through maximum pressure or they will come to be seen as ‘actual’ threats and Iran will once again be treated as the driving force behind an “axis of evil” as George W. Bush put it years ago.
Challenges and Opportunities Facing the Iran-Taliban-Al-Qaeda Trio
“The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.” So goes the famous saying. And so we see the three incongruent sides of this trio coming together in a three-sided alliance against the US due to the challenges they face and their affiliations, mutual interests and complementary capabilities. The Islamic Republic of Iran is currently struggling with a host of difficult challenges: the threat of regime change posed by “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests both inside and outside the country; the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister in Israel, who is one of the harshest opponents of a nuclear Iran; the activities of ISIS-K in Afghanistan; crushing sanctions which have led the Iranian economy to the brink of destruction; the reluctance of Russia and China as allies of the Islamic Republic to stand in direct confrontation with the US on account of Iran; drought; the active presence of armed militias such as Jundallah, the Ansar Movement (a.k.a Harakat Ansar), Jaish ul-Adl, Ansar al-Furghan and the SSP (Sipah-e-Sahaba) in the vulnerable areas of Sistan & Balochistan, and the freedom-seeking movements of the Baloch people of Pakistan.
The Islamic Republic sees a golden opportunity in the rich quarries of Afghanistan, particularly the Uranium mines of Khanashin district in Helmand. On the other hand, evading sanctions, the re-opening in Afghanistan of Iranian banks with ties to the IRGC, the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups, the possibility of using Afghanistan as an alternative base in the case of regime change in the face of increasing domestic and international pressures, and changes in Iran’s access to the waters of Hirmand are all issues that have occupied the Islamic Republic of Iran in an Afghanistan that is ruled by the Taliban. At the same time, Iran is hosting the Taliban’s opponents, including certain Jihadi commanders, former Afghan security forces trained by NATO, the disciplined and experienced Fatimid Division and discontented leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, all of whom can be used as leverage against the Taliban.
Al-Qaeda sees the success of the Taliban as their own strategic success. With the coming to power of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and their allies have been further motivated in their Jihad against the US. They now have access to a vast and impassable landscape, and state-of-the-art military equipment left behind by NATO, and they know they can rely on the riches of the quarries at their disposal, drug trade and digital currencies. Sources in the intelligence community suggest that after the assassination of Ayman Al-Zawahiri in Kabul, certain Taliban leaders in Kabul were suspected of having helped the US find Al-Zawahiri’s hiding place. The Kabul circle is also suspected of being increasingly inclined toward cooperation with the US. As a result of these suspicions, Al-Qaeda have come to play a stronger role in the radical decisions made by the Kandahar circle and they have driven the Kabul circle into isolation. A number of Taliban leaders in Kabul have publicly called into question the authority of the directives issued by the Taliban leadership in Kandahar. Between 1998 and 2001 during the first Taliban government, Al-Qaeda used this very same technique—an uncompromising Taliban versus Western powers—to develop stronger relations between Mullah Omar and Al-Qaeda.
Despite all these opportunities and possibilities, after long years of isolation, Al-Qaeda will need to expand their manoeuvrability across Afghanistan, Waziristan, Iran and Syria and extend their links with their subsidiaries and other affiliates, so that they can recruit more forces from among Islamic extremists and find a safe place for their leaders, before they can create a security challenge for the US and their allies.
The Taliban have no fond memories of the dealings between Pakistan and the US and the International Coalition in the fight against terrorism and the overthrowing of the first Taliban government. There are several factors that are responsible for the Taliban’s distrust of Pakistan: The killing and imprisonment of a number of their leaders in Pakistan; Pakistan’s ambivalent attitude toward the Taliban and playing favourites with certain circles in the Taliban; pressuring the Taliban to either reign in or give up on the TTP; the possibility of the TTP joining ISIS under these pressures and in the event of taking action against them; providing American forces with military bases from which they could conduct drone strikes in Afghanistan; restricting the Taliban’s safe hideouts in Waziristan following the emergence of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and other similar movements. The non-recognition of the Taliban and the disagreement between the expectations of Afghanistan’s neighbours and the international community and the Jihadi mentality of the Taliban is another major issue. The Taliban are well aware of the consequences of global opposition to their radical decisions. In order to survive maximum international pressures, sanctions and even a potential US invasion to overthrow the Islamic Emirate of the Taliban (especially with the likelihood of a reversal in US policies vis-a-vis their support for the Resistance after 2024 Presidential Elections), the Taliban have no choice but to keep an eye out for alternatives.
Conclusion
History shows that the coalition of divergent ideologies does not last for long. Considering the incongruence between Iran, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and their vulnerabilities, this alliance between “enemies of enemies” might work in the short term with recourse to the carrot-and-stick approach, but it seems unlikely that it will ever end up in a long-lasting strategic triad.
The writer is Rahmatullah Nabil, the former Head of the National Directorate of Security of Afghanistan (2010-2015).
Middle East
Israeli envoy warns red line crossed over Turkish moves in Syria
Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, stated that Tel Aviv received clear intelligence showing Türkiye planned to expand its military presence in Syria significantly, an action Israel deemed the crossing of a “red line.”
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Leiter said: “We are not looking for an escalation or a war with either Türkiye or Syria. But a red line was crossed.”
His remarks follow an Israeli air strike on the Abu al-Duhur Airbase in Idlib, Syria, which drew swift criticism from both the Syrian and Turkish governments.
Leiter continued:
“This was seen as a blatant Turkish violation of the understandings. Those who needed access to the intelligence received it. Those who needed to know what was going to happen knew. We made it clear that this was contrary to our understandings, and that is why Israel acted as it did.”
According to Leiter, the failure to heed these warnings led Israel on Tuesday to strike the Abu al-Duhur airbase, where Turkish forces were allegedly expected to arrive.
Syrian officials stated that the airbase was targeted by at least eight strikes, whilst subsequently released satellite imagery revealed damage to the runways.
Leiter stated that the Turkish move contradicted understandings reached during the Biden administration between Israel and the administration of Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, which “froze the existing situation” in the country.
According to Leiter, these understandings were reaffirmed during a meeting held in Paris in January 2026, attended by Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, US Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack, Leiter, then-National Security Council head Gil Reich, and Netanyahu’s military secretary Roman Gofman (now director of Mossad).
Leiter continued:
“This freeze means we do not act as long as the Turks do not act, and they do not force us to withdraw. It is also important to understand: whilst we maintain a security zone of only 78 square miles [approximately 202 square kilometres] in Syria, the Turks have, over the past few years, slowly annexed 3,500 square miles in northern Syria—roughly 5% of the country’s territory.”
According to The Jerusalem Post, with the exception of Tom Barrack, the US Special Envoy for Syria and Ambassador to Türkiye, senior US officials did not condemn the Israeli strike in Syria.
“The administration’s policy is that the previously agreed freeze should continue; that is why even Trump did not condemn the strike,” Leiter said.
Despite the tensions, Leiter emphasised Israel’s understanding that Syria is not seeking an escalation or war.
“It is clear to us that the Syrians do not want a confrontation with us. That is why we tell the Turks not to create conflict. There are multiple indications that the move planned by Türkiye was imposed on the Syrians,” the ambassador said.
Leiter argued that this apparent discord was also evident in the conflicting statements issued by Türkiye and Syria following the strike:
“Whilst Syrian Foreign Minister Shaibani acknowledged that a Turkish delegation was in Syria a few days before the strike, the Turks denied this. They need to resolve this matter between themselves.”
Leiter did not rule out a return to direct talks with Syria, as conducted in the past, but said conditions must be suitable.
“Negotiations can be resumed. We want to continue the face-to-face dialogue we previously conducted with the Syrians,” Leiter said.
Leiter added that Israel is not seeking a conflict with Türkiye and remains open to dialogue with Ankara.
“We are certainly open to dialogue with them, but judging by statements from senior officials in the country, they would prefer to wipe Israel off the map,” the Israeli diplomat said.
Alleging that Türkiye hosts Hamas leaders and “channels funds” to Hezbollah and Hamas, Leiter argued that it was inappropriate at this juncture for “Türkiye to begin expanding its influence in Lebanon and Syria.”
Leiter continued:
“Under current conditions, Türkiye cannot be a force that helps bring calm to the region. If only we could return to the state of relations between Jerusalem and Ankara from several decades ago. Back then, we would have been open to Türkiye’s influence in the region. But in an environment where Türkiye funds terrorist organisations, an increase in its regional influence makes no sense.”
Middle East
UAE halts trade with Iran after reported ballistic missile attack
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has suspended commercial and economic relations with Iran after announcing that Tehran launched two ballistic missiles towards the Gulf state on Tuesday.
The UAE Ministry of Defence stated that air defence systems detected two ballistic missiles launched from Iran towards its territory.
The incident is considered Tehran’s first direct attack targeting the Gulf country since May.
The event prompted emergency telephone alerts to be sent to residents across the UAE.
The Ministry of Defence stated that assessments indicated the missiles targeted maritime traffic, adding that one missile fell into the sea outside UAE territorial waters and the other landed within territorial waters.
The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs later announced that “in light of regional tensions that undermine regional and international peace and security, all trade, commercial relations, and financial transactions with Iran have been halted until further notice.”
Iran denied any involvement in the missile attacks. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the claim “contradicts the principle of good neighbourliness and undermines ongoing efforts to strengthen trust among regional countries.”
The missile strikes occurred after a period in which the UAE and Tehran had sought to reduce tensions between the two countries.
The bulk of Tehran’s military retaliation targeted neighbouring Gulf states, which Iran accused of facilitating US-Israeli attacks.
The UAE bore the heaviest brunt of Iran’s attacks against US allies in the Gulf, sustaining nearly 3,000 missile and drone strikes.
Exhibiting the most hawkish stance against Tehran among its Gulf neighbours, the UAE responded with dozens of strikes against Iran.
However, tensions between the UAE and Iran eased following a memorandum of understanding signed between Washington and Tehran in June.
After the agreement began to unravel in early July, Iran largely redirected its attacks towards Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan.
In recent months, the UAE reactivated diplomatic and economic channels with Iran while simultaneously strengthening its military ties with Israel and the US.
Tuesday’s missile strikes threaten to disrupt the atmosphere of normalisation that had returned to the UAE.
While Dubai’s financial district was once again filling with bankers, certain commercial activities between the emirate and Iranian ports had resumed.
Furthermore, several Iranian flights to the UAE had quietly resumed.
UAE authorities had also begun permitting the return of approximately 20,000 Iranians holding UAE residency permits who were outside the country when the war began.
UAE officials have repeatedly emphasised that the country seeks to avoid being drawn further into a broader regional war.
Nevertheless, efforts to de-escalate tensions between the UAE and Iran have come under increasing strain in recent weeks.
This month, the UAE accused Iran of attacking vessels belonging to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in the Strait of Hormuz.
Middle East
US considers land blockade on Iran involving Türkiye and neighbours
To date, the US has imposed sanctions on thousands of Iranian individuals and legal entities; however, the Tehran administration continues to bypass these restrictions by rapidly establishing new structures to replace those that have been blocked.
In an assessment citing expert opinions published by the Reuters news agency, the current situation was likened to a game of whack-a-mole.
Whack-a-mole is known as a game of agility and reflexes based on the concept of hitting plastic figures with a mallet as they pop up unexpectedly from their holes.
Speaking to the agency, experts outlined other options that Washington could deploy to increase pressure on Tehran and raise the efficacy of sanctions.
Potential measures include restrictions targeting independent Chinese refineries, known as “teapots,” which account for a quarter of China’s oil refining capacity.
China purchases more than 80% of the oil exported by Iran, and these refineries process the vast majority of those shipments. Nevertheless, these facilities have limited ties to the US financial system, rendering them partially protected against secondary sanctions.
Another option on the table is increasing pressure on major Chinese banks. The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has applied secondary sanctions to small firms based in China and Hong Kong accused of executing billions of dollars in transactions for Iranian oil.
The agency has also warned two large banks, though it has not yet included them on its sanctions list.
While taking steps against major banks could deter other financial institutions, such actions carry the risk of Beijing enacting retaliatory measures. Washington seeks to avoid such tension ahead of a potential meeting between US President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in September.
Experts are also evaluating the possibility of enforcing a land blockade with the participation of Iran’s neighbours: Iraq, Türkiye, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Armenia.
The Trump administration holds various leverage mechanisms against such nations, including Pakistan, which is requesting a $10 billion swap line, and Türkiye, which seeks to rejoin the F-35 program. Analysts express, however, that implementing such a blockade on the ground and generating the expected pressure inside Iran would be difficult.
Trump has repeatedly voiced threats to impose secondary tariffs on countries that trade with Iran; however, the US Supreme Court struck down the legal basis for such measures.
On the other hand, a anti-Russia “crushing” sanctions bill passed by the Senate includes new restrictions on Iran and grants Trump tariff authority.
This bill must also pass a vote in the House of Representatives; however, the text faces opposition from both Democrats and certain Republican lawmakers.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced in mid-August that Trump would disclose new measures designed to raise Iran’s economic isolation to an unprecedented level.
Stating that the US President had instructed the re-establishment of the maximum economic pressure policy against Tehran, Bessent said, “We have moved from Epic Fury to Economic Fury.”
Following Bessent’s statements, Bloomberg noted that Tehran has learned to manage the consequences of a naval blockade and thousands of restrictions. According to the agency’s analysts, the principal obstacle facing Washington is the close economic relationship between Iran and China; indeed, Beijing secures more than 90% of Iranian oil exports. Sanctioning the entities facilitating these purchases would directly reduce Tehran’s oil revenues, yet the US is avoiding this step for now.
Maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz remains restricted. On August 11, Iran conveyed its conditions for lifting the blockade in the strait to the US through intermediaries.
Tehran’s conditions included an end to threats and military actions, the lifting of the blockade and sanctions, compensation for damages, and the release of frozen assets.
On August 14, Trump claimed that following the end of the war with Iran, he would declare the Strait of Hormuz to be US territory. Responding to these statements, the Iranian Foreign Ministry warned that the Strait of Hormuz could not be seized “by a tweet, an aircraft carrier, an executive order, or a campaign speech.”
-
Middle East2 weeks agoTrump’s Board of Peace drafts first Gaza base contract
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUS lawmakers seek terrorist designation for Polisario Front
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO faces severe structural and logistical deficits, Professor Erenel warns
-
Europe2 weeks agoCDU unrest raises doubts over Merz’s future as chancellor
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan set to sign defence pact
-
America2 weeks agoWealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand
-
Interview5 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia defense agreement: An attack on one will be considered an attack on all
