More Stories
Iran and Russia will conduct joint naval drills on Thursday in the Sea of Oman and the northern Indian Ocean, IRGC-affiliated Fars news agency reported.
The exercise comes days after Iran’s Revolutionary Guards held military drills in the Strait of Hormuz.
The main goals of the drill include boosting coordination to counter threats to maritime security and combat maritime terrorism, Iranian navy commander Hassan Maghsoodloo said, according to Fars.
Ambassador Michael Waltz, the US representative to the United Nations said on Tuesday that Washington made clear to Tehran the conditions for easing tensions over its nuclear program.
“Well, I’m not going to get ahead of the President or advertise his decision space, but the US has the greatest military in the world. We can project around the world, anytime, anywhere. Obviously, there has been a convergence of forces. But if the president decides to keep that posture for the foreseeable future, we have the capability,” Waltz said in an interview with Hugh Hewitt show.
“Step forward and step up to finally walk away from enrichment, walk away from long-range ballistic missiles, walk away from its terrorist proxies, and don’t slaughter your own people. These shouldn’t be anything near controversial for any reasonable government that seeks to get along with its neighbors and the international community," he added.
The latest round of Iran-US talks in Geneva on Tuesday would likely not have taken place without sustained pressure from regional powers that leveraged their close relations with Washington to help avert a wider war.
From Riyadh to Ankara and Doha, governments across the Middle East have moved with unusual urgency to contain the confrontation.
Their motives are not driven by abstract appeals for peace, but by hard calculation: war between Iran and the United States would expose their territory, economies and political stability to immediate risk.
This emerging consensus reflects a simple conclusion shaped by a decade of upheaval: a controlled crisis can be managed; a war cannot.
Turkey, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have taken active diplomatic roles, encouraging negotiations and warning against escalation.
Iran, for its part, has sought to use these fears to its advantage, signaling that any US strike could trigger a broader regional conflict and effectively drawing its neighbors into the role of intermediaries.
Most of these states maintain closer ties with Washington than with Tehran. Yet their opposition to war is rooted less in sympathy for Iran than in their own vulnerability.
Mediators and stakeholders
Oman has played the most visible mediating role, hosting talks and serving as a trusted channel between the two sides. Muscat has repeatedly warned of the dangers to Persian Gulf security and maritime traffic, emphasizing diplomacy as the only viable path forward.
Qatar occupies a similarly delicate position. It hosts Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US military installation in the region, while maintaining functional ties with Tehran. Qatari officials have warned that any war would be “catastrophic,” and Doha’s dependence on uninterrupted gas exports makes it especially exposed to disruption.
Saudi Arabia, after years of confrontation with Iran, has adopted a more cautious posture. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has emphasized avoiding escalation in contacts with both Tehran and Washington.
Saudi officials have also publicly supported diplomacy, reflecting concern that another regional war could threaten the kingdom’s economic transformation plans and expose its oil infrastructure to attack, as seen in the 2019 strikes on Aramco facilities.
Egypt, though geographically further removed, faces its own vulnerabilities. The security of the Suez Canal and Red Sea shipping lanes is critical to its economy, and Cairo fears a conflict could disrupt trade routes and deepen economic strain.
Turkey’s balancing act
Turkey, which shares a border with Iran and maintains deep economic ties with its neighbor, has intensified diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly said Ankara does not want another war in the Middle East, while Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has warned that military strikes would neither topple Iran’s leadership nor resolve the nuclear dispute.
War could trigger refugee flows, destabilize border regions and inflame ethnic tensions, particularly in Kurdish areas.
Yet Turkey’s NATO membership and longstanding security relationship with Washington limit its room for maneuver. In a conflict, Ankara would likely seek formal neutrality while quietly maintaining limited cooperation and positioning itself as a mediator.
Oppose war, prepare for it
Across the region, governments face a difficult reality: they depend on the United States for security while remaining exposed to Iran’s missiles, drones and allied militias.
This dual vulnerability explains their approach. They oppose war and are working to prevent it—but are also preparing for the possibility that diplomacy fails.
War could drive up oil prices, offering short-term gains for producers like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But those benefits would be outweighed by the risks: attacks on infrastructure, disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz or Suez Canal, and capital flight.
Their mediation efforts have helped create the conditions for talks in Muscat and Geneva. But their calculations remain shaped by geography and alliances.
If war breaks out, most would seek to avoid direct involvement while quietly aligning with Washington’s security framework to protect their territory and long-term interests.
The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is sailing in the Atlantic and heading toward the Strait of Gibraltar, positioning it for transit to the Middle East, USNI News, a publication of the US Naval Institute, reported on Tuesday.
The carrier is expected to join the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group in the region, according to the report.
Trump should not ease economic and political pressure on Iran in pursuit of a nuclear deal, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal argued on Tuesday, saying Tehran benefits when Washington focuses narrowly on enrichment talks while unrest continues at home.
According to the piece, Iran is discussing a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, as well as proposals involving a regional enrichment consortium and transferring its enriched uranium stockpile to Russia. The board argued such steps would largely preserve Tehran’s capabilities while providing economic relief.
The editorial added that limiting negotiations to the nuclear file while easing sanctions would strengthen Iran’s leadership without addressing broader concerns about the nature of the regime.
