Any flare-up of tensions, even a conflict targeting a single country, would have serious consequences for the entire Middle East, Iran’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia warned, as Tehran said it has held intensified contacts with Arab states to prevent a wider confrontation.
Alireza Enayati said in an interview with the Saudi newspaper Okaz that Iran believed dialogue and joint regional action were the most effective ways to preserve stability and avoid broader conflict.
“In recent days, we have witnessed contacts from Arab countries,” Enayati said, adding that foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman had been in close communication with Tehran, alongside a recent visit by Oman’s foreign minister.
“These efforts are aimed at regional stability and strengthening security,” he said, adding that Iran welcomed initiatives to prevent escalation but warned that “the ignition of any tension, even a conflict targeting one specific country, would have serious consequences for the entire region.”
Enayati said Iran remained committed to peaceful solutions for regional crises and viewed dialogue as the only way to address even the most complex issues, while accusing other parties of opting for confrontation instead.
He warned against what he described as plans aimed at weakening countries in the region and said the real threat was Israel’s growing influence in the Middle East.
US President Donald Trump signaled on Tuesday that he was leaning toward a military strike on Iran when he said Iranian protesters should keep up the demonstrations and that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
At least 12,000 people have been killed in Iran in the largest killing in the country's contemporary history, much of it carried out on January 8-9 during an ongoing internet shutdown, senior government and security sources told Iran International.
Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Robert Satloff, the Executive Director of the Washington Institute, believe that limited military action by the United States may briefly punish Tehran's abuses but is unlikely to stop violence unless it is followed by a broader campaign.
“In April 2017, the president responded to Bashar al Assad's use of chemical weapons by doing airstrikes. We did not follow that up with a maximum pressure campaign or a political campaign,” Rayburn said. “One year later, he used them again.”
Rayburn argued that the lesson from Syria was clear: “We can’t do this just by one-off military strikes. They have the impact, but we have to have a campaign and we have to use all the tools at our disposal.”
“We can’t just do something and move on,” he said. “If the objective is to stop the killing, then the tools have to stay in place until that objective is met.”
Satloff said he does not like the notion of a strike. "A strike sounds like something that you do and then you’re done and that you can then turn to whatever next international problem is on your agenda.”
He said the current moment presents a more direct test for the Trump administration. “Will the president’s actions bring an end to the carnage? That’s the key right now.”
Trump said on Wednesday he had been informed that the killing in Iran has stopped and Tehran would not execute any of the protesters.
Satloff cautioned against reading too much into claims that violence inside Iran may have eased.
“If indeed the killing has stopped… terrific,” Satloff said during the town hall moderated by Behnam Ben Taleblu, the senior director of the Iran Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
“But if the killing continues tomorrow, the day after, then that tweet will mean nothing and the president will know it.”
He said the 2017 strikes on Syria imposed a cost but did not fundamentally change the regime’s behavior until they were paired later with broader sanctions and diplomatic isolation.
“It was only after the second time that the US government and our allies finally said… we have to have a campaign,” Rayburn said.
Satloff argued that Iran presents a different but related challenge, because Trump has explicitly framed his objective as stopping the killing of civilians.
“This is somewhat different than partial punishment and partial deterrence,” he said, adding that Iran now represents “a much more visible, tangible test.”
Beyond strikes: cyber, communications
Both speakers stressed that military force is only one option, and not necessarily the first one Washington should use.
Satloff argued the US should focus on “leveling the playing field” between protesters and the Iranian security apparatus.
“Let’s find some way to shut down their communications so that they can’t talk to themselves and orchestrate this nationwide crackdown,” he said. “We have ways of shutting down the communication system employed by the regime.”
Rayburn said the administration could immediately escalate non-military pressure by fully restoring what he described as the president’s early-term directive to reimpose maximum pressure on Iran.
“There is no reason not to be fully implementing the maximum pressure campaign,” he said. “That hasn’t been fully implemented yet. It can be.”
Rayburn added that Iran is now “in an even more brittle state” than during Trump’s first term.
“They are not resilient to that kind of pressure,” he said. “I think the Iranian regime wouldn’t survive that.”
'Narrow targets, civilian risks, and credibility'
While emphasizing non-kinetic options, Satloff outlined what he would recommend if military action became unavoidable.
If violence continued, he said, US action should be tightly focused on security forces responsible for repression.
“I would target very specifically the barracks and the facilities of the IRGC and the Basij,” Satloff said, while warning that civilian casualties could quickly undermine US credibility.
“I think we have to be very careful to avoid civilians,” he said, noting that past strikes in the region showed how quickly public perception can turn when non-combatants are killed.
The United States launched airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities in June in the middle of a 12-day war between Iran and Israel.
The Israeli strikes began after Tehran ignored a 60-day deadline set by President Trump to reach a deal over its disputed nuclear program.
“We see that through interaction between the government and the people, any protests or outstanding issues can, God willing, be resolved, and I am very hopeful that this will happen,” Abbas Araghchi told reporters on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting in Tehran.
At least 36 people have been killed in anti-government demonstrations which began on Dec. 28. US President Donald Trump has vowed to intervene if authorities killed protestors, in comments which have ramped up anticipation about his intentions.
Araghchi appeared to address the comments by saying the unrest was a domestic matter. "Iran’s internal affairs were not the concern of any foreign government," he said.
Relations between Tehran and Washington are at a low ebb and talks between the longtime foes on Iran's disputed nuclear program ended when Israeli launched a surprise military campaign in June capped off by US attacks on Iran nuclear sites.
“Now the conditions are not right for negotiations due to US policies,” Araghchi added.
“Iran has never left the negotiating table,” Araghchi added, sayingTehran had always been ready for talks based on mutual respect and interests.
Israel Hayom reported on Tuesday that Trump had rejected a proposal by his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to pursue further talks with Tehran and instead chose to increase pressure on Iran.
Meanwhile, protests and strikes continued on Wednesday as shopkeepers shut stores and joined rallies in multiple cities.
Araghchi also said he would travel to Beirut on Thursday, adding that an economic delegation would accompany him and that Iran wanted to expand long-standing ties with Lebanon and its government.