Mideast oil flows recover while Iran exports vanish, tracker says

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq said an attack on Saudi Arabia’s critical infrastructure would be “a source of pride” if it had carried it out, but insisted that it had not.

“The accusations against the Iraqi resistance regarding the attack on Saudi Arabia’s vital infrastructure, while a source of pride if we had carried out such an action, are not something we claim,” the alliance said in a statement carried by Iran’s Tasnim news agency.

Iraq closed three border crossings with Iran on Saturday, officials told AFP, after Iraqi and Saudi authorities said the drones that struck the pipeline had been launched from Iraqi territory.

An Iraqi security source said the closures were “part of an intelligence effort to track down the perpetrators and prevent their escape” and to hinder the smuggling of drones through the crossings.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi also dismissed the military commander in Maysan province, which borders Iran, after authorities determined that drones had been launched from the province.

No group has claimed responsibility.

The statement criticized the Iraqi government for what it called a rush to accept the accusations “without documented and reliable evidence or an investigation,” and said the alliance was prepared to participate in any government inquiry aimed at establishing what happened.

US President Donald Trump has said Iran was probably behind the attack, while Saudi Arabia has said the drones originated in Iraq. Neither Riyadh nor Baghdad has publicly identified the group responsible.

The dispute has also spilled over into relations between Baghdad and Tehran.

Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Mohammad Kazem Al-e Sadegh, told Tasnim that the Mehran and Khosravi crossings remained open and said Tehran was in talks with senior Iraqi officials over the closure of the Chazabeh and Shalamcheh crossings.

Al-e Sadegh acknowledged reports that the closures had been ordered in connection with an operation against Saudi Arabia launched from Iraqi territory, but questioned their relevance to the border and said large numbers of Iraqis who had travelled to Iran for pilgrimage or medical treatment had been left stranded.

The attack has taken on wider significance because of the growing importance of the East-West pipeline during the war.

The route carries Saudi crude from the kingdom’s oil-producing east to the Red Sea, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz as shipping through the waterway faces severe disruption.

“I think they are, probably they are,” Trump told reporters in Dublin when asked whether Iran was behind the attack.

Trump said he expected the conflict to end shortly after the US midterm elections in November. “I think very soon. I think it'll be probably right after the mid-terms,” he said, adding that oil prices would “tumble” once the war ended.

He also said Washington controlled the Strait of Hormuz and that the Iran-backed Houthis “don't want to fight with us.” Asked about Saudi Arabia, Trump described Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as “a good friend of mine” and said: “Everything will work out fine.”

Saudi pipeline attack triggers border restrictions

The comments followed an aerial attack on Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, a critical route carrying crude from the kingdom’s eastern oil-producing areas toward the Red Sea. The strike caused injuries and material damage and forced the pipeline to shut.

Saudi Arabia said the drones involved in the attack were launched from Iraqi territory.

Iraq subsequently ordered the closure of the Shalamcheh border crossing with Iran as a precaution, Reuters reported, citing two security sources. The sources said a large-scale operation was underway to pursue those responsible for the attack.

Valiollah Hayati, deputy governor of Iran's Khuzestan province, said Iraqi authorities had also closed the Chazabeh crossing from early Saturday, halting passenger and commercial traffic through both crossings.

Hayati later said Iraq's prime minister had ordered authorities to allow stranded passengers on both sides of the Shalamcheh and Chazabeh crossings to pass. Travelers were given a two-hour window to cross before the borders were to close again, he said.

Sources at Basra airport also reported the suspension of flights to and from Iran.

The attack drew condemnation from several regional governments, while Spain called for urgent de-escalation and said freedom of navigation through both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb must be guaranteed.

BRICS seeks common ground as Iran-UAE tensions persist

Diplomatic attention also turned to New Delhi, where BRICS leaders unanimously adopted a joint declaration calling for conflicts to be resolved through “dialogue, consultation and diplomacy” and warning about growing nuclear risks.

The declaration condemned unilateral coercive measures that it said violated international law and said nuclear safeguards, safety and security must be upheld even during armed conflicts. Reuters had earlier reported that the text was expected to avoid naming individual countries as members worked to bridge differences between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the regional war.

The agreement marked a change from a BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in May, when divisions between Tehran and Abu Dhabi prevented the group from issuing a joint statement.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian met UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on the sidelines of the summit on Saturday, though Iran’s embassy in India gave no details of their discussions.

Chinese President Xi Jinping meanwhile urged BRICS members to take on a peacemaking role in the Middle East conflict, saying the war did not serve the common interests of the international community.

Tehran hardens military and nuclear rhetoric

Inside Iran, senior officials and lawmakers continued to signal a tougher posture. Lawmaker Esmail Kowsari said Iran had moved beyond a defensive military posture and that its war strategy had become offensive.

IRGC commander Ahmad Vahidi said Israel’s military would “collapse in a very short time” without US support and argued that Washington and Israel had underestimated Iran’s military capabilities.

Another member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Mohammadreza Mohseni-Sani, said Iran no longer regarded itself as constrained by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and could reconsider its enrichment policy.

“Everything is changing” and “anything is possible,” he said when asked about higher enrichment levels and changes to Iran’s nuclear and defense doctrine.

At the same time, Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom said it planned to increase the number of its specialists at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant to 150 in the near future.

The heights, overlooking the city of Nabatieh in southern Lebanon and long regarded as a strategic Hezbollah position, came under heavy Israeli attack this week. On Thursday night, explosions destroyed underground facilities that the Israeli military said included command centers and weapons tunnels running more than two kilometers.

Within hours the loss had become an Iranian domestic argument. Hardliners contend that Israel could not have taken the heights had Tehran not tied its own hands by signing the agreement with the United States on June 28.

The clause that was a victory

That agreement, reached in Islamabad, opened with a commitment by both sides to halt military operations immediately and permanently on all fronts, Lebanon included, and referred explicitly to Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Iran said afterwards that any continued Israeli operations in Lebanon would violate the understanding and would be answered.

Israel resumed bombing Lebanon less than a day after the signing. Iran briefly suspended the follow-on talks in Switzerland and briefly closed the Strait of Hormuz. It did not respond militarily in Lebanon.

Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliament speaker and Iran's chief negotiator in Islamabad, has since repeatedly described the inclusion of Lebanon in the agreement as a victory for Tehran. It is that claim, set against the smoke over Ali al-Taher, that his critics are now holding up.

'Political score-settling'

The reformist daily Shargh, in a report on Wednesday headlined "Polarization under the code name Ali al-Taher," warned that the Israeli attacks were being used for "political score-settling at home."

"The latest Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon and the dispute over the Ali al-Taher heights, instead of being judged solely by the realities on the ground, have once again created the conditions for polarization and attacks on the negotiators and the June 28 Iran-US understanding," the paper wrote.

Shargh said some critics were charging that the negotiators had, through the agreement's first clause, effectively "sold" Hezbollah, or at least abandoned effective support for it. The charge bites because Iranian officials had presented that very clause as the mechanism for protecting the Lebanese front.

Ghalibaf the target

On social media the confrontation has been rawer, and Ghalibaf is its main object.

"What greater betrayal could Ghalibaf have committed to deserve prosecution?" one account wrote, adding that Yemen's Houthis were fortunate not to have placed themselves under his control, "otherwise Yemen's fate would have been no better than southern Lebanon."

Another laid out the hardline case in full: "The day after the ceasefire, 300 points in Lebanon were bombed in 10 minutes. You prevented a response under the pretext of negotiations. You repeatedly prevented a deterrent attack and failed to maintain the continuity and coordination of the various resistance fronts. The responsibility is yours."

Another user accused Iranian officials of allowing the agreement to prevent a military response: “Is there any reason for Iran’s failure to launch a major response against Israel at the last moment other than the insistence of officials on adhering to that worthless, ridiculous piece of paper and keeping it from falling apart? If there is another reason, tell us so we can know too.”

The defense, and what it concedes

Ghalibaf's camp has answered that a dead agreement cannot be blamed for a live war.

"For nearly 60 days, the agreement that imposed restrictions has not been implemented," Mohammad-Saeed Ahadian, a journalist and political aide to the Ghalibaf, wrote on X.

"During this period, some people have offered nothing but vague and imaginary solutions, yet they say the agreement, which they claim is dead, is responsible for the fall of Ali al-Taher. Enough of this destructive game of domestic politics."

Another defender, Vahid Hajipour, argued the fall was a consequence of the agreement's collapse, not its terms: "Now go ahead and insult Ghalibaf again. With this, you are making Netanyahu even happier."

The defense carries its own admission. The clause Ghalibaf called a victory has, by his own aide's account, not been in force for two months. The argument in Tehran is therefore not whether the Lebanon provision protected Hezbollah, since neither side now claims it did, but who should answer for the fact that it did not.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said several drones launched from Iraqi territory targeted the pipeline in the Riyadh and Medina regions, causing injuries and damage.

Riyadh said it had given the Iraqi government an opportunity to take sufficient measures to prevent attacks launched from its territory and had exercised restraint while Baghdad acted. It added that the kingdom reserved the right to take all necessary steps to protect its sovereignty, security and critical infrastructure.

Iraq welcomed Saudi Arabia’s decision to hold off on retaliation and condemned any attack threatening the kingdom’s security. Prime Minister Ali Falih al-Zaidi ordered an investigation into those responsible, according to a statement from the Iraqi armed forces.
Baghdad later dismissed a military commander responsible for operations in southern Maysan province after investigations confirmed that the latest drone attacks on Saudi Arabia originated from Iraq. Iraq also ordered the closure of the Shalamcheh border crossing with Iran as a precautionary measure, while security forces launched a wide-scale operation to pursue those responsible.

Saudi Arabia has not publicly identified the group behind the attack, but the incident adds to concerns over Iran-backed Shiite militias operating in Iraq and their potential role in a broader network of pressure on Iran’s regional adversaries.

Iran-aligned Iraqi factions have developed increasingly sophisticated drone and missile capabilities, while several maintain close ties with Tehran and other members of its regional network.

Houthis tighten grip on Yemen’s Red Sea coast

The pipeline strike comes as the Houthis have made major territorial gains in Yemen, expanding their control along the Red Sea coast and strengthening their position around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, another of the Middle East’s most important shipping chokepoints.

The advance gives the Iran-backed group control over virtually all of Yemen’s Red Sea coastline, increasing its ability to threaten shipping and infrastructure along a route that has become even more important amid disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

That poses a particular concern for Saudi Arabia.

The kingdom’s East-West pipeline carries crude from oilfields in the east to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, allowing Saudi exports to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Any sustained threat to the pipeline or the Red Sea route could therefore squeeze Riyadh from both sides.

The Gulf Cooperation Council condemned the pipeline attack as a dangerous escalation and urged Baghdad to take “necessary, decisive measures” to prevent Iraqi territory from being used as a launchpad for further attacks. Qatar separately condemned the strike and expressed full solidarity with Saudi Arabia.

The developments come just days before foreign ministers from Iran, Iraq and Persian Gulf Arab states are expected to gather in Oman for talks focused partly on regional security and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Iran and Oman would brief the participants on their discussions over mechanisms for safe passage through the strait.

He said the goal was to establish regional arrangements that would safeguard the shared security and interests of neighboring states without the involvement of outside powers.

Baghaei also portrayed the willingness of Arab governments to attend the meeting despite months of Iranian strikes and regional escalation as evidence that Tehran’s military power had strengthened its diplomatic position.

He said Iranian diplomacy, backed by military strength, had persuaded neighboring states that the solution to regional security was to sit down with Tehran rather than rely on foreign powers.

The meeting comes as the Trump administration is providing Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting assistance but has no current plans to launch direct US strikes against the Houthis, ABC News reported. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sought direct US military intervention in calls with Trump, according to the report, while Riyadh has signaled it could undertake a major operation on its own.

It remains unclear whether Monday’s Oman talks will stay focused on the Strait of Hormuz or also take in the Houthis, Bab el-Mandeb and attacks from Iraq.

On Thursday, Israel said it destroyed a major underground Hezbollah complex, adding to pressure on one of Iran’s most important regional allies, which has been severely weakened over the past two years.

Ultraconservative MP Mohammad-Taghi Naqd-Ali blamed what he called Iran’s “non-confrontational stance,” arguing that Tehran’s failure to respond more forcefully to Israeli threats had placed southern Lebanon and Hezbollah “in serious danger.”

“We must carry out a preemptive strike,” he said.

His warning reflects a broader argument among Iranian politicians and media over whether restraint reduces the risk of a wider war or instead encourages Iran’s adversaries to escalate.

The debate encompasses Tehran’s support for regional allies, its confrontation with the United States and, increasingly, its nuclear policy.

Hassan Ghashqavi, spokesperson for parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said on Thursday that “until Iran reaches complete and total deterrence, the probability of an attack exists at every single moment.”

The same argument has surfaced in the nuclear debate, where hardline lawmakers and commentators have called for suspending cooperation with the IAEA or even withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

‘Meydan’ vs diplomacy

The dispute echoes an older fault line in Iranian politics between meydan — literally “the field,” shorthand for military power and Iran’s regional armed network — and diplomacy.

The distinction became particularly contentious during Hassan Rouhani’s presidency, when then-Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif publicly complained about diplomacy being subordinated to military priorities.

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government has not renounced Iran’s regional alliances, and some of the sharpest disputes over military strategy now take place within the conservative establishment itself.

But the underlying argument has resurfaced: whether Iran is safer when diplomacy is accompanied by restraint, or when its adversaries believe Tehran is prepared to escalate.

The disagreement has become more consequential as Iran faces the combined pressures of war, sanctions and a weakened network of regional allies.

The Houthi example

Unlike Hezbollah, which has suffered heavy losses in its conflict with Israel, the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have continued to expand their military campaign and made new territorial gains in recent days around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The Houthis could nevertheless bolster the hardline argument that an allied force can continue imposing costs on its adversaries rather than pulling back under military pressure.

But the comparison also exposes the risks facing Tehran. Greater Iranian identification with Houthi attacks on shipping could deepen its confrontation with the United States and regional powers at a time when Iran is already under intense military and economic pressure.

That tension goes to the heart of the disagreement over Iran’s regional network.

Hardliners have traditionally regarded Hezbollah and other allied armed groups as an outer defensive perimeter, allowing Tehran to deter or confront adversaries before threats reach Iranian territory. From that perspective, the weakening of those groups does not make disengagement more attractive but makes restoring their deterrent power more urgent.

The counterargument is that Iran’s own economic vulnerability and the danger of further regional escalation require greater restraint.

The argument has acquired greater urgency as Hezbollah comes under renewed Israeli attack while Iran itself faces direct confrontation with the United States.