The Trump administration came “very close” to approving a new military strike against Iran on at least one recent occasion, The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday, citing several sources familiar with the discussions.
Trade between Iran and Pakistan remained suspended at two major border crossings on Tuesday, leaving trucks and cargo stranded, with Pakistani authorities citing security and anti-smuggling measures and Iran pointing to technical difficulties.
Commercial traffic through the Gabd-Rimdan and Taftan crossings was halted as of October 20, although passenger movement reportedly continued at Gabd-Rimdan.
Pakistan described the suspension as a temporary measure to strengthen security and combat smuggling, while Iran attributed the disruption to technical issues and precautionary measures.
The two countries remain in contact to resolve the problem, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Tuesday.
The closures come as Iran increasingly relies on land routes to sustain foreign trade following restrictions on maritime shipping during the war.
Before the conflict and the US military blockade of Iran's southern ports, more than 80 percent of the country's foreign trade passed through the southern ports of Rajaei and Khomeini.
The diversion of shipments to road networks has increased transport costs and congestion, although land crossings lack the capacity to replace maritime trade.
Thousands of trucks stranded
Iranian media had already reported queues of approximately 3,000 trucks at Rimdan before the latest suspension, with some drivers waiting between 20 and 30 days to cross.
Limited processing capacity on the Pakistani side and requirements to transfer cargo from Iranian trucks to Pakistani vehicles have contributed to the delays.
An industry circular issued in August also described difficulties unloading Iranian trucks in Pakistan and transferring their cargo.
“I urge all truck drivers not to bring cargo toward the borders. The situation is so bad that since last night and throughout October 20, huge queues of trucks have been turning back. The border is closed and is being cleared. Do not come!” a person affected by the disruption told Iran International.
Another person contacted the broadcaster with a similar warning, urging drivers to avoid sending additional shipments until the crossings reopen.
The latest suspension has increased the risk of prolonged vehicle inactivity and financial losses for transport operators and cargo owners.
Talks continue on reopening
Negotiations with Pakistani authorities to remove obstacles at Rimdan were continuing, border market director Abdolsalim Hoot said on October 18, adding that perishable goods were receiving priority.
An official in Pakistan's Balochistan province also described progress in negotiations and the possibility of reopening the crossings soon.
No timetable for resuming commercial traffic had been announced by Tuesday.
Iran and Pakistan had previously set a target of increasing annual bilateral trade to $10 billion, but border disruptions, banking difficulties and limited freight capacity have complicated efforts to reach that goal.
The suspension also coincides with Washington's efforts to increase economic pressure on the Islamic Republic, including warnings of sanctions against countries and companies maintaining financial and commercial dealings with Iran.
Saudi Arabia should join forces with the United States, Israel and the United Arab Emirates to help bring about political change in Iran, rather than continue policies that have failed to contain Tehran's regional influence, an analyst told Iran International.
The Islamic Republic's support for Yemen's Houthis has exposed the limits of Saudi military power and diplomacy, making a broader coalition against Iran necessary, said Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“I'm not saying the Marines should land anywhere in Tehran,” Abdul-Hussain said. “I'm just saying push the regime enough so that the other Iranians can take over.”
The proposed strategy, he said, would draw on the US-led coalition that expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, with Saudi Arabia providing regional political support for a campaign aimed at weakening the Islamic Republic and enabling Iranians to determine their country's political future.
Such a coalition could fundamentally alter the regional balance of power and influence the calculations of China and Russia, Abdul-Hussain added.
Iran's Houthi leverage
The Houthis have emerged as one of the Islamic Republic's most effective regional allies, maintaining their military capabilities despite years of Saudi-led operations and pressure on other Iran-backed armed groups.
Their geographical distance from Israel has also made them more difficult to weaken than Hezbollah in Lebanon or Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, according to Abdul-Hussain.
The challenge, he said, has become more pronounced since the withdrawal of Emirati forces from Yemen following divisions within the Saudi-led coalition.
Pro-UAE militias had provided some of the coalition's most effective ground forces, leaving Saudi Arabia increasingly dependent on air power and Yemeni government forces weakened by corruption, inflated troop numbers and divisions, Abdul-Hussain said.
Airstrikes alone cannot defeat an armed group operating from mountainous terrain and fortified positions, he argued, drawing comparisons with Israel's experience fighting Hezbollah in 2006 and 2023.
The absence of reliable ground partners has therefore allowed the Houthis to remain a persistent military challenge despite Saudi Arabia's superior conventional capabilities.
The group's operations also serve Iran's wider regional strategy by placing Saudi energy infrastructure and shipping routes within reach of an Iranian ally.
Recent Houthi advances and strikes on Saudi territory reflect a broader Iranian message that disruptions to its own oil exports could be accompanied by pressure on other regional producers, particularly as Saudi Arabia shifts exports toward the Bab el-Mandeb shipping route, Abdul-Hussain added.
Saudi diplomatic failures
Saudi Arabia's continued diplomatic engagement with the Islamic Republic has failed to reduce the security challenge posed by Iran's regional allies, Abdul-Hussain said.
Maintaining an ambassador in Tehran and inviting Revolutionary Guards officials to Saudi National Day celebrations, even as Saudi energy infrastructure faces missile strikes, sends a message of weakness rather than diplomatic pragmatism, he argued.
The UAE, despite its smaller size and closer geographical proximity to Iran, had previously demonstrated greater willingness to sever diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic, according to Abdul-Hussain.
Saudi Arabia's diplomatic outreach to Turkey and Pakistan has also produced limited practical support against the Houthis and the Revolutionary Guards, he said.
Abdul-Hussain attributed part of the problem to a Saudi leadership structure in which advisers are reluctant to challenge prevailing assumptions, leaving decision-makers without a credible alternative to their existing strategy.
“They have to swallow their pride with the Emiratis and the Israelis,” Abdul-Hussain said. “This is the key.”
Restoring cooperation with Abu Dhabi and establishing open relations with Israel would provide the foundation for a more effective regional alignment against Iran, he added.
Such cooperation would need to be public rather than confined to private security arrangements, particularly because Israeli participation could expose Israeli shipping to additional Houthi operations.
Saudi Arabia's decision to condition normalization with Israel on Palestinian statehood has further complicated the formation of an anti-Iran coalition, Abdul-Hussain said.
The shift, he noted, has moved Riyadh away from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's earlier emphasis on prioritizing Saudi national interests, without producing corresponding security benefits for the kingdom.
Coalition against Iran
A coalition modeled on the international military campaign that expelled Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait in 1991 could provide a framework for confronting the Islamic Republic without a US ground invasion of Iran, Abdul-Hussain said.
Saudi Arabia played a central role in assembling regional support for that campaign, lending political legitimacy to a military operation led by the United States.
A similar alignment involving Washington, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Israel could apply sustained pressure on Iran's ruling establishment while leaving the ultimate outcome to Iranians themselves, according to the analyst.
“Throw all the chips behind President Trump and the war on Iran, and push for regime change,” Abdul-Hussain said.
The proposed approach would mark a departure from Saudi Arabia's efforts to balance diplomatic relations with Iran against military operations targeting its regional allies.
Rather than continuing to absorb the costs of confronting the Houthis without weakening their principal backer, Saudi Arabia should help organize a broader campaign directed at the Islamic Republic itself, Abdul-Hussain argued.
The central objective, in his view, would not be a foreign occupation of Iran but sufficient external pressure to create an opportunity for Iranians to replace the country's ruling establishment.
Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on Tuesday, the latest senior official to move through the region after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held talks in the Iranian capital and US War Secretary Pete Hegseth made an unannounced visit to Israel.
Iranian state media reported Munir’s arrival on Tuesday afternoon, but there was no clear account of his agenda.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said earlier Tuesday that he did not know the reason for Munir’s visit.
“We need to speak with him to see what he intends to discuss,” Baghaei said during a press conference.
Tehran plays down mediation speculation
A spokesman for parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee separately said the visit should not be interpreted as a new mediation effort.
The trip by Munir and other senior Pakistani military and security officials was “solely within the framework of bilateral relations, strengthening border cooperation and neighborly ties,” Ebrahim Rezaei Ghashghavi said.
He said it was unrelated to mediation or any new initiative concerning the conflict around the Strait of Hormuz.
Lavrov held Tehran talks a day earlier
Munir’s arrival came a day after Lavrov met President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Tehran.
Pezeshkian told Lavrov that Iran rejected attempts by countries to impose their will through force but remained ready to resolve regional disputes through dialogue.
He also thanked Russia for what he described as its support during the recent war and called for closer cooperation with Moscow and Beijing.
Lavrov said Russia and Iran shared similar views on international affairs and supported continued diplomatic consultations.
Hegseth moves through Israel and CENTCOM
At the same time, Hegseth was moving through the region.
He met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an unannounced visit to Israel on Monday. Axios reported that the meeting took place while Washington and Israel were discussing the possibility of renewed major combat operations against Iran, though neither side publicly disclosed what Hegseth and Netanyahu discussed.
Hegseth later said he visited US forces serving under Central Command, describing them as being on a “historic mission.”
Trump says US could leave war
The diplomatic and military visits come as President Donald Trump sends mixed signals about the next phase of the conflict.
At a campaign rally in Kansas on Monday, Trump said the United States was already in a position to leave the war.
“Somebody said you could leave right now. It’s true. We could leave right now,” Trump said, adding that Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon.
Trump also said Iran’s military and senior leadership had been severely weakened and questioned whom Washington could negotiate with.
The movement of senior officials through Tehran, Israel and the wider region therefore comes with no clear diplomatic track yet emerging, while Washington continues to maintain a military presence and Tehran keeps contacts open with Russia, Pakistan and other regional powers.
Between 30 and 40 of Iran’s operational aircraft were destroyed during the war, while another 70 to 80 were hit, Iran Air chief executive Taher Abdolhai said on Monday.
Abdolhai said Iran had a little over 300 aircraft in total, but only around 130 to 140 were operational before the latest losses, according to Nournews, a media outlet close to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
He said the scale of damage varied. Some aircraft were hit by missiles and suffered holes in their fuselages, while one Iran Air aircraft was “completely pulverized.”
Wartime losses cut into an already limited fleet
The figures suggest the war significantly reduced an aviation fleet that was already constrained by sanctions, aging aircraft and difficulties obtaining spare parts.
Abdolhai’s estimate is higher than some earlier figures given by Iranian officials. The secretary of Iran’s Association of Airlines had previously estimated that about 20 aircraft suffered serious damage.
Mohammadreza Rezaei Kouchi, head of parliament’s Civil Commission, had separately said around 50 aircraft were damaged and 10 destroyed.
It remains unclear how many of the damaged aircraft can be repaired and returned to service.
Sanctions have long constrained Iran’s aviation sector
Iran’s commercial aviation industry has for years faced restrictions on buying aircraft, sourcing parts, carrying out maintenance and receiving services at some foreign airports.
Abdolhai said those restrictions had made it harder for Iran Air to maintain its fleet and had also cut the airline off from some profitable markets.
The wartime losses have added another layer of pressure by shrinking the pool of aircraft available for commercial flights and reducing the industry’s ability to preserve routes and revenue.
Final scale of damage remains unclear
Abdolhai did not give a final estimate for the financial cost of the losses or say how many damaged aircraft were beyond repair.
The differing figures offered by Iranian officials also make the full scale of the damage difficult to establish independently.
Iran’s new defense minister threatened the US and Israel during a parliamentary session held online over fears of attack, but even the virtual meeting faltered when poor internet connections prevented 25 lawmakers from voting on his appointment.
Mehrdad Akhlaghi was elected defense minister on Sunday with 237 votes in favor and 15 against. Alireza Salimi, a member of parliament’s presiding board, said 277 lawmakers attended the virtual session but 25 were unable to register their votes because of internet connectivity problems.
Akhlaghi issued his warning during the same session, saying another US or Israeli “miscalculation” would trigger Iran’s response.
Parliament has relied heavily on remote sessions during the war, after lawmakers amended its internal rules in July to allow virtual plenary meetings during emergencies.
Iranian media have also raised questions about attendance and voting participation during virtual sessions. At one virtual session on July 28, held to examine the International Crime Countermeasures Bill, 50 lawmakers were absent. Of the 240 lawmakers present, 37 did not participate in the vote.
No explanation was given for why the 37 lawmakers did not vote.
Hardline lawmaker Meysam Zohourian has also criticized the pace of parliamentary work. He said online sessions were being held no more than twice a week and warned that, at the current pace, approving the so-called “Infiltration Bill,” which lawmakers are examining, could take a year.
Political dispute over remote sessions
Restrictions on in-person sessions have intensified a dispute between parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf and his hardline opponents, including members of the Paydari Front and allies such as the Masaf group.
Some of Ghalibaf’s hardline critics have accused him of supporting restrictions on in-person sessions to reduce his exposure to possible US or Israeli attacks and to shield President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, from parliamentary pressure.
Hamid Rasaei, a hardline Tehran lawmaker who was sentenced to prison on charges of defaming Ghalibaf and recently began serving his sentence, has been among the most vocal opponents of holding parliamentary sessions online.
Another hardline lawmaker, Mojtaba Zolnouri, recently said 117 lawmakers had signed a letter calling for a return to in-person parliamentary activity. According to Zolnouri, the signatories argued there was no longer any reason to hold meetings remotely.
Media outlets supportive of Ghalibaf and his political allies have strongly rejected the accusations.
On October 11, Iman Shamsaei, head of parliament’s communications center, rejected claims that restrictions on in-person plenary sessions were intended to protect Ghalibaf’s life. Instead, he argued, it was necessary to prevent parliament from losing its quorum.
Shamsaei argued that if the number of representatives fell below the constitutional two-thirds quorum, parliament would be unable to carry out its legislative and oversight functions and new elections could become necessary.
Criticism spreads on social media
The dispute has also played out on social media, particularly among hardline supporters of the Paydari Front and Ghalibaf’s political allies.
On Sunday, hardline journalist Fereshteh Sadeghi criticized the claim that parliament remained operational because some meetings were being held online.
“Parliament is closed. The fact that its committees have held meetings here and there, or that online sessions have been arranged — with many lawmakers unable to connect — does not mean parliament is open,” she wrote on X.
Reformist journalist Davoud Heshmati focused on the internet problems that prevented lawmakers from voting.
“This is no joke. Twenty-five lawmakers did not have a decent internet connection to carry out their parliamentary duties and participate in an important vote to elect the defense minister. This is a clear and real example of the situation we live in,” he wrote.
Other users defended the continuation of remote sessions, arguing that some hardline lawmakers were pushing for a return to in-person meetings because in-person sessions provided them with a platform to obstruct the government.
Questions over parliament’s public legitimacy
The controversy comes amid broader questions about the parliament’s standing with the public.
Turnout in Iran’s 2024 parliamentary elections fell to a record low for the Islamic Republic, with participation particularly weak in Tehran, where only 24% of eligible voters cast ballots.
Despite the dispute over whether parliament is functioning effectively, lawmakers have continued to advance controversial legislation during the war, including the so-called Infiltration Bill.
The dispute underscores a broader contradiction: critics say remote sessions have impaired parliament’s ability to function effectively, even as lawmakers continue advancing legislation that could impose further restrictions on Iranian society.
