Iran's enemies cannot defeat it, if we stop imposing restrictions on ourselves and stop selectively excluding people, President Masoud Pezeshkian said Sunday.
Alluding to internal divisions, Pezeshkian said, "If we join hands, no power can bring us to a standstill," calling for an end to exclusionary practices, state news agency IRNA reported.
An attack by Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis on Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport drew condemnation from European leaders, the United Nations and regional governments on Sunday.
The attack on Riyadh's King Khalid International Airport prompted warnings to travelers, expressions of solidarity with Saudi Arabia and calls for an end to attacks on civilian infrastructure.
International condemnation of Houthi attack
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Iran-backed Houthi forces are destabilizing regional transport and energy infrastructure.
“These attacks by Iran’s proxies are pushing the region into a spiral of violence,” von der Leyen said.
She described the airport strike as a dangerous escalation and called for an immediate end to attacks on civilians.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also condemned the strike, calling it an “appalling act of terror.”
“There can be no justification for indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure,” Kallas said.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for an immediate halt to attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
“Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are a violation of international law,” Guterres said.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul described the strike as “a terrorist act against Saudi Arabia and civil aviation,” while British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband urged British nationals to avoid Riyadh airport and follow Saudi authorities' instructions.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni censured the attack and expressed solidarity with Saudi Arabia and the victims' families.
“Attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure are unacceptable and must stop,” Meloni wrote on X.
Meloni said Italy would continue working with regional partners to promote stability and freedom of navigation.
France also condemned the attack, describing it as “heinous” and expressing its “total solidarity” with Saudi Arabia, the French Foreign Ministry said on Sunday.
France would continue supporting Saudi Arabia in defending its territory and infrastructure, including through its military assistance, the ministry said. It also called on the Houthis to immediately stop attacks and provocations destabilizing the region.
Russia also condemned the attack on Riyadh's international airport, Interfax news agency reported on Sunday.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney condemned the attack and offered condolences to the families of those killed.
“There can be no justification for attacks on civilian infrastructure,” Carney said.
The Arab League and Syria also condemned the strike. Syria's Foreign Ministry said a Syrian citizen had been killed and called for international action to prevent further attacks on civilian facilities.
Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to Saudi Arabia's security under the two countries' joint defense agreement.
“Pakistan stands in unwavering solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its leadership and brotherly people,” Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said.
The Houthis subsequently renewed their warning to airlines, airport workers and travelers against using Saudi airports, saying Saudi Arabia bore responsibility for failed interceptions.
Iranian officials warn of further military action
Separately, Iranian officials warned against further attacks on Iran and reiterated threats over the Strait of Hormuz.
An adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said that any new attack involving missiles or aircraft would trigger a stronger Iranian response.
“Any provocation or attack with missiles or aircraft will be met with a heavier and crushing response,” Mohammad Reza Naghdi said on Sunday.
Iranian Army Deputy Coordinator Habibollah Sayyari said the military had previously struck vessels and remained prepared to do so again.
“We defended firmly and will continue to do so,” Sayyari said. “Wherever necessary, we will act to strike the enemy.”
Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said that Iran's response to any new military action would differ from its previous responses.
“Our response in the 40-day war was different from the 12-day war, and we hope our adversaries will show some rationality,” Gharibabadi said.
Gharibabadi also described the Strait of Hormuz as an Iranian waterway and said the country would use it as an instrument against its adversaries.
Lawmaker Hassan Ghashghavi said support for reviewing Iran's nuclear doctrine was growing among officials, experts and the public.
Ghashghavi also argued that Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz was strengthening and that the waterway could not reopen until the Islamic Republic's conditions were met.
Separately, the newspaper Khorasan, which is close to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, wrote that Washington and Israel had already decided to launch another war and that recent diplomatic exchanges were unlikely to alter that decision.
Nuclear dispute and maritime pressure continue
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Mohammad Eslami criticized international institutions and the International Atomic Energy Agency for their response to attacks on Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear facilities.
“The silence and selective approach of international institutions and the IAEA toward direct attacks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and non-nuclear facilities represent an obvious and disastrous contradiction in the international system,” Eslami said.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi separately maintained that US-Israeli strikes on Iranian oil and energy infrastructure had created environmental hazards, including the possible contamination of air, soil and water.
Maritime developments added another dimension to the day's security concerns.
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency reported an encounter involving a tanker and military forces in the Gulf of Oman, hours after the US military announced that it had struck a vessel attempting to breach its naval blockade of Iran.
The agency advised vessels to remain alert as authorities examined the circumstances.
The international condemnation of the Houthi attack on Riyadh airport came alongside renewed threats from the Houthis and Iranian officials, raising concerns about further attacks on civilian infrastructure and commercial shipping across the region.
The US blockade and tighter sanctions enforcement are cutting into Iran’s oil income and targeting financial networks that sustain the Islamic Republic, but may still fall short of forcing Tehran into concessions, experts said at an Iran International town hall in Washington.
The discussion, hosted by Fardad Farahzad, brought together Kerri Bitsoff, a former senior official at the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC); Patrick Clawson, the Morningstar senior fellow at the Washington Institute; and Mohammad Machine-Chian, a senior economist and analyst at Iran International.
“The thing about sanctions, if they’re on the books but not enforced, they only hurt the people,” Bitsoff said, arguing that the current US campaign differed from previous rounds by focusing more heavily on enforcement and the financial intermediaries sustaining Iran’s economy.
Blockade bites
Iran faces declining oil revenues alongside damage to its energy infrastructure following the war, raising the prospect of severe economic difficulties during the coming winter, Clawson said.
President Masoud Pezeshkian had acknowledged that Iran could not export oil during the initial blockade, according to Clawson, who said the country subsequently sought alternative routes for limited shipments.
Iran had also relied on oil previously stored aboard vessels and in China, but those reserves were approaching exhaustion, he said.
Damage to natural gas infrastructure could compound the difficulties, potentially forcing greater reliance on mazut, a heavily polluting fuel used for electricity generation.
Iran depends on natural gas for approximately 69 percent of its energy requirements, making disruptions particularly consequential for households and industry, Clawson said.
Machine-Chian estimated that between $21 and $23 billion in export proceeds had not returned to Iran and that the blockade could cost the country another $35 billion in oil revenue.
Hitting financial networks sustaining Iran's leadership
The current campaign differs from previous sanctions because Washington is concentrating on enforcement and the intermediaries sustaining Iran's economy rather than simply announcing additional restrictions, Bitsoff said.
She pointed to restrictions imposed by the United Arab Emirates, measures against Iranian airlines and Turkish action against banks connected to Iranian transactions.
Such measures could influence officials and business figures whose continued support for the Islamic Republic depends on financial privileges and access to international markets.
Earlier sanctions had often pushed legitimate commerce underground while allowing networks connected to the Revolutionary Guards to profit, Bitsoff said.
Machine-Chian described the emergence of wealthy intermediaries, sometimes called sanctions merchants, who benefited from moving Iranian oil and money through opaque arrangements.
Those networks subsequently became obstacles to negotiations and economic normalization because their commercial interests depended on maintaining the existing system, he said.
Machine-Chian distinguished between sanctions that impose prolonged hardship without producing results and measures designed to achieve specific objectives within a foreseeable period.
The loss of the UAE, Machine-Chian added, as a major commercial and financial intermediary has further complicated Iran's position.
Dubai previously provided an important channel for Iranian transactions, but restrictions have forced businesses to seek alternatives through Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Machine-Chian said.
Those routes, he said, have limited capacity and cannot quickly replace the financial infrastructure previously available through the Emirates.
China and regional allies face financial constraints
China remains Iran's principal oil customer, but its commercial relationship offers fewer advantages to the Islamic Republic than commonly assumed, Bitsoff said.
Independent Chinese refineries purchase Iranian crude at substantial discounts, while payments in yuan often remain in China and are largely available for purchasing Chinese goods.
Major Chinese banks generally avoid Iranian transactions, leaving smaller intermediaries to facilitate much of the remaining trade, she said.
The blockade also allows Washington to restrict Iranian oil exports without directly confronting major Chinese financial institutions, Clawson said.
Targeting those institutions could provoke Chinese retaliation affecting broader US economic interests.
The financial pressure is also affecting Iran's regional allies.
Hezbollah has struggled to maintain basic financial obligations and social support programs since the blockade began, Bitsoff said.
Machine-Chian argued that Iran's relationships with allied armed groups had become increasingly transactional, making continued financial assistance essential to sustaining their loyalty.
Political survival and prospects for negotiations
Despite the mounting pressure, the panelists differed over whether the Islamic Republic would ultimately accept Washington's demands.
Economic hardship alone was unlikely to persuade Iran's leadership to abandon its objectives, Bitsoff said.
Instead sustained pressure could influence members of the security apparatus whose loyalty depends on salaries, privileges and expectations of continued stability.
Clawson considered negotiated concessions possible, pointing to previous occasions when Iran reversed positions it had presented as nonnegotiable.
He suggested Iran could accept a three-year suspension of uranium enrichment, particularly because its facilities had been damaged and were not operational.
Machine-Chian was more skeptical, arguing that abandoning regional ambitions and nuclear objectives would challenge central elements of the Islamic Republic's political identity.
The blockade's sustainability also remains a concern because maintaining naval operations places substantial demands on American ships, crews and maintenance resources, Bitsoff said, although she expected the operation to continue.
The discussion highlighted a central uncertainty: whether sustained economic pressure will produce concessions, weaken the leadership's support structures or prolong Iran's economic difficulties without fundamentally changing its political direction.
A deadly Houthi attack on Riyadh’s main airport drew a Saudi vow of retaliation on Saturday, as President Donald Trump raised the possibility of joining strikes on the group and resuming attacks on Iran.
Saudi Arabia’s civil aviation authority said 12 people were killed and 309 injured at King Khalid International Airport, making it the kingdom’s deadliest attack since a 2015 mosque bombing in the eastern city of Qatif. An American citizen was among those killed.
The Saudi-led military coalition blamed Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis, called the attack a “war crime” and promised a decisive response, without specifying what action it would take. Hours later, it reported that a projectile had landed near King Fahd International Airport in Dammam, eastern Saudi Arabia.
Trump initially said Washington could join Riyadh in striking the Houthis and resume attacks on Iran. Asked later whether Saudi Arabia could defend itself against the group, he praised the kingdom’s capabilities.
“They're able to defend. The Saudis are good fighters. But I think the attack was a terrible thing,” he said.
The United States, Britain, Germany and Spain warned their citizens to avoid the Riyadh airport. The dead included four Saudis, two Bangladeshis, one American, one Egyptian, one Jordanian, one Syrian, one Palestinian and one Sudanese, according to the Saudi aviation authority.
Trump warns Tehran
The prospect of renewed US attacks on Iran also featured in Trump’s remarks in Tennessee on Saturday, where he accused Iranian leaders of potentially seeking to damage him politically before the November 3 midterm elections.
“They'll probably do a little bit extra before the election thinking it's going to hurt us, but we could end it really quick. They don't know how nice I've been to them.”
Trump called Iran a “lunatic country” and mocked its leaders for repeatedly threatening to kill their enemies.
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee more directly linked the Saudi attacks to Tehran, arguing that curbing Iranian support was essential to stopping the Houthis.
“Why are the Houthis even capable of doing these things? Because they're funded and they're empowered and they're trained by Iran,” Huckabee told Newsmax.
He described Washington’s confrontation with Tehran as an effort to constrain Iran-backed groups, including the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah.
“Getting the Iranian regime reined in is the only way to stop some of this aggression that we're seeing through the proxies,” he said.
Huckabee also argued that military and economic pressure under Trump had left Iran in its weakest position since 1979.
Calls to stand behind Saudi Arabia
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that an American had been killed in the Riyadh attack and demanded an immediate halt to Houthi strikes. He said Washington stood with Saudi Arabia and offered condolences to the victims’ families.
“These reprehensible attacks demonstrate a blatant disregard for innocent civilian life. They must stop now,” Rubio said.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif invoked his country’s joint defense pact with Riyadh in underscoring Islamabad’s commitment to Saudi security.
“In accordance with the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement and the enduring bonds of brotherhood between our two countries, we reaffirm our steadfast commitment to Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and security.”
Former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani urged Persian Gulf states to unite behind Saudi Arabia against threats he said originated in Yemen but were directed from abroad.
“It has now become clear that Iran is our main enemy,” he wrote on X, marking a sharp change from his advocacy in 2023 of negotiations with Tehran and opposition to confrontation.
The cost of transporting goods from Turkish ports to Iran has surged over fivefold in less than two months to about $8,000, Iranian media reported, as Washington pressures Turkey to help cut off Iran's overland trade routes to further isolate Tehran economically.
The US naval blockade of Iranian ports has forced Tehran to rely more heavily on land borders to secure essential imports and maintain trade flows, placing increasing strain on transportation networks already struggling with congestion and limited capacity.
Fars News Agency reported Saturday that freight charges from Turkish ports to Iran had climbed from approximately $1,500 to $8,000 in less than two months, adding to the cost of importing goods into the country.
Ehsan Malekzadeh, chairman of Iran's Association of International Transport Companies, told Mehr News Agency that freight rates had reached $7,900 to $8,000, partly because prolonged border delays had created a shortage of trucks available to transport goods into Iran.
Approximately 8,000 trucks are currently stranded at the Bazargan border crossing with Turkey, while Iranian drivers at the Rimdan crossing with Pakistan face delays of 20 to 25 days, according to Fars.
The closure of the nearby Mirjaveh crossing and inadequate infrastructure at Rimdan have compounded the congestion. Each stranded truck incurs an estimated $175 in daily costs, potentially adding thousands of dollars to transportation expenses.
Malekzadeh warned that the disruption was driving up import costs while undermining Iranian exporters' competitiveness, with some export markets already lost.
He said transportation, insurance and related logistics expenses previously accounted for no more than approximately 10 percent of a shipment's value, but now substantially exceeded that benchmark.
Iranian trade officials have previously warned that overland routes cannot fully replace maritime imports.
In August, Davoud Rangi, vice chairman of the Iran Chamber of Commerce's Import Management Committee, estimated that replacing the cargo of a single ship carrying essential goods would require approximately 2,500 trucks.
He warned that land routes through Turkey and Pakistan lacked the capacity to accommodate the volume of goods previously arriving through Iran's southern ports, while transportation costs would rise sharply.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Newsmax on Thursday that Washington was working with Turkey and Pakistan to "cut off all the land routes" into Iran, while describing the United Arab Emirates and Oman as partners in the broader economic pressure campaign.
"We did have a maximum pressure campaign. Now we have an absolute isolation campaign and it's working," Bessent said, referring to Washington's expanding efforts under Operation Economic Outcast.
A revisionist argument is emerging in Tehran over Iran’s nuclear strategy: that its longstanding policy of nuclear ambiguity failed its most important test when it did not deter the United States and Israel from attacking, and should now be reconsidered.
Nezamoddin Mousavi, a former conservative lawmaker with longstanding ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), gave unusually explicit expression to that argument this week, declaring that “nuclear ambiguity did not prevent war” and raising the prospect of revisiting Iran’s nuclear doctrine and even its membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Mousavi, who helped found IRGC-linked media outlets, made the remarks in an interview with Ensaf News, a website close to President Massoud Pezeshkian.
Senior Iranian officials have previously hinted that Tehran could change its nuclear doctrine if sufficiently threatened. But such warnings have generally been directed outward, rather than framed as criticism of an established policy favored by slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Mousavi, however, is effectively arguing that a policy intended to preserve strategic uncertainty while stopping short of weaponization failed to provide the deterrence its architects expected.
That diagnosis feeds into a wider debate over what lesson Iran should draw from the war: whether the failure was one of deterrence, requiring greater military leverage, or of escalation management, requiring a different approach to diplomacy.
Iran has long cited Khamenei’s fatwa prohibiting the possession and use of nuclear weapons when confronted with accusations that it might seek a bomb.
Critics, however, have questioned how absolute that prohibition would prove in an existential crisis, especially since Khamenei’s predecessor and founder of the Islamic Republic, Ruhollah Khomeini, held that preserving the state was paramount, taking precedence even over religious obligations.
Against that backdrop, Mousavi said Tehran should reassess its international commitments, the value of NPT membership and its broader deterrence strategy following attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
He stopped short of explicitly advocating the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
His reasoning amounts to three premises and a conclusion: Iran refrained from building a nuclear weapon; ambiguity was supposed to contribute to deterrence; yet Iran was attacked and senior leaders and military commanders were killed. The assumptions underlying Iran’s deterrence strategy, he argues, must therefore be reconsidered.
Beyond Khamenei
Mousavi also ventured into another sensitive subject: whether Khamenei’s death would fundamentally alter Iran’s strategic direction.
He argued that he would not expect dramatic change. Foreign and security policy, he said, is not simply the product of one individual but of institutional thinking and long-term calculations developed over decades.
It reflects a distinctly conservative view of regime continuity: leaders matter, but institutions matter more. Major strategic directions, in this reading, are unlikely to change abruptly regardless of who occupies the highest office.
That also gives the nuclear debate greater significance. If Iran’s strategic direction is fundamentally institutional rather than dependent on one leader, the lessons the establishment draws from the war could outlast the present leadership.
Deterrence or de-escalation?
Not everyone in Tehran is drawing the same lesson.
An article published Wednesday in Etemad newspaper highlighted a competing strand of Iranian political thinking. Where Mousavi sees a failure of deterrence, more moderate voices see a failure to manage escalation.
The hardline argument holds that the United States and Israel seek to weaken Iran regardless of its diplomatic behavior and that negotiations cannot guarantee security while military pressure continues.
The more moderate argument sees the conflict as the product of a broader strategic environment shaped by political, regional, military and economic pressures. For this camp, the lesson is not necessarily that Iran needs greater deterrence, but that it needs more effective crisis management.
The emerging argument in Tehran, then, appears to be shifting from how this war ends to what lesson should be drawn from it: whether greater military and potentially nuclear deterrence offers the best protection against another conflict, or whether security ultimately depends on preventing the next escalation before it begins.
