Iran’s Army Navy said on Wednesday that a tanker caught fire after striking a sea mine in an area east of the Strait of Hormuz, which it described as “unsafe and restricted.”
The navy’s public relations office said the forces were monitoring and controlling the eastern part of the strait.
It urged shipowners to coordinate with Iran’s armed forces to ensure safe passage.
Rep. Jim Jordan, a strong supporter of President Donald Trump's military campaign against Iran, was elected House Republican leader Tuesday, placing a longstanding critic of Tehran's nuclear program at the head of the party's diminished congressional ranks.
The Ohio Republican defeated House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana by 106 votes to 73 in a closed-door secret ballot, following Republican defeats in the November 3 midterm elections.
Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a founding member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, will become minority leader when Democrats take control of the chamber in January.
His election puts one of Trump's most dependable congressional allies in charge of Republican opposition to the incoming Democratic majority, including potential disputes over the administration's handling of the Iran war.
A longstanding opponent of Iran's nuclear program
Jordan has consistently opposed diplomatic concessions to Tehran and supported efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In September, he described Iran as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism and reiterated his opposition to its nuclear ambitions.
“We cannot let them get a nuclear weapon,” he told Newsmax.
In an August interview with Ohio broadcaster WLIO, Jordan defended Trump's military campaign and said Washington needed to complete its mission against Iran.
“The president's right when he says we can't let them get a nuclear weapon, and I agree with that,” Jordan said.
His position extends back to the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama.
Jordan voted against approving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which restricted Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. He also supported legislation preventing the Obama administration from easing sanctions under the agreement.
Support for Trump's military authority
Jordan's voting record during the 2026 Iran war indicates strong support for the administration's military operations.
In a March 12 interview with CNN's Kasie Hunt, Jordan argued that Americans should accept temporarily higher gasoline prices and other economic costs resulting from the war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“If that means prices go up for a short time, I think Americans understand,” he said, adding that the military campaign was justified despite its economic consequences.
In March, June, July and September, he voted against resolutions directing Trump to withdraw US forces from hostilities with Iran, according to congressional voting records.
In June, Jordan appeared on Sean Hannity's radio program to defend Trump's approach to Iran and his warnings of renewed military action if Tehran violated its commitments.
His position contrasts with lawmakers, including some Republicans, who have argued that the prolonged conflict requires explicit congressional authorization.
The leadership change could strengthen Trump's influence over the House Republican conference on Iran policy, particularly on military operations, sanctions and opposition to nuclear concessions.
Jordan will nevertheless lead the minority in a Democratic-controlled House, where Republicans will have limited power to advance legislation independently.
His influence may therefore rest primarily on maintaining Republican support for Trump's Iran strategy, resisting attempts to restrict presidential military authority and shaping the party's position on any eventual agreement with Tehran.
US President Donald Trump says the Iran war is effectively over militarily, but his plan to maintain a naval blockade raises questions about how long the standoff can last and whether it serves the interests of the Arab neighbors he says support it.
“Most importantly, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and others would prefer the status quo, that we remain as is,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday after meeting Qatar’s prime minister.
He described that approach as continuing the US naval blockade, while keeping American forces ready for renewed military action.
Speaking to reporters in Paris after meetings with G7 counterparts on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US sanctions and the naval blockade were inflicting growing economic damage on Iran, reducing the need for further major combat operations.
Regional analysts disagree over whether that policy offers Arab states across the Persian Gulf their safest option or prolongs a confrontation that threatens their security and economies.
Pressure without stability
Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute and former executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine, offered the opposite assessment to Trump’s. Regional governments want a weaker Islamic Republic, he said, but that does not mean they favor an indefinite blockade.
“They would like to see the regime weakened, but they don't believe that the blockade serves their interests,” he told Iran International.
Even where oil continues to flow, insurance costs and the risk of further attacks weigh on regional economies. Prolonged uncertainty also threatens the stability underpinning investment, tourism, finance and logistics, he said.
“No war, no peace equals uncertainty, equals instability,” al-Omari said.
He argued that Arab governments across the Persian Gulf doubt Washington’s willingness to sustain the policy.Trump’s midterm setback has intensified concerns that domestic pressure could prompt an abrupt change, leaving neighboring countries to manage the consequences.
Without an agreement reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the conflict, some governments could seek separate arrangements with Tehran to reduce their exposure, he said.
Between a rock and a hard place
Dalia Ziada of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) described the Arab states of the Persian Gulf as caught “between a rock and a hard place”: fearful of a resurgent Islamic Republic, yet harmed by the instability of a prolonged standoff.
“They don't want the Iranian regime to get strong again,” she told Iran International.
But continued insecurity carries its own economic consequences, threatening the region’s appeal to investors and confidence in its future.
“The biggest loss for the wealthy Gulf states is the lack of stability,” Ziada said.
She argued that differences among regional governments, combined with doubts about the reliability of American protection, complicate their choices. Their concerns cannot be reduced to a simple preference for war or continued restraint, she said.
One incident could break the standoff
Mohamed Fahmy, a journalist and Middle East political analyst, also sees significant differences among Iran’s Arab neighbors.
“There is no unified Gulf position on how long the blockade should continue,” he told Iran International.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE see value in maintaining American pressure until Tehran makes meaningful concessions, Fahmy said, while Qatar and Oman place greater emphasis on mediation.
Their shared interest in reducing the Iranian military threat does not eliminate the costs of prolonged confrontation.
“The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have invested heavily in presenting themselves as stable international hubs for business, tourism, finance and logistics. Prolonged confrontation threatens those ambitions,” he said.
Those concerns reflect damage already sustained. An October 15 Reuters investigation documented at least 135 missile and drone attacks by Iran and allied groups against at least 84 infrastructure sites across seven Arab countries since US-Israeli attacks on Iran began on February 28. The tally covered infrastructure attacks, rather than every launch or attempted strike.
Fahmy said the standoff could continue for some time because Washington and Tehran both appear to believe waiting will improve their negotiating positions. But an attack killing American personnel or seriously damaging Persian Gulf energy infrastructure could trigger renewed military action.
“It takes only one serious incident involving American forces, a commercial tanker or a Gulf energy installation to undermine the current restraint,” he said.
Growing pressure in Washington over financial costs, military commitments and the absence of a clear exit strategy could instead encourage a negotiated settlement, he argued.
The case for staying the course
Saad bin Tefla Al-Ajmi, Kuwait’s former information minister, argues that maintaining the status quo remains the least harmful choice.
“The solution is to keep the status quo as is. That’s the best solution,” he told Iran International, referring to an article he supplied outlining his position.
Renewed war could bring further Iranian attacks on neighboring countries, he argues, while American withdrawal could leave them exposed.
“The third option is the safest and best for us, for the region and for the beleaguered peoples of Iran,” he wrote in the article.
Al-Ajmi advocates sustained naval and economic pressure alongside efforts to constrain Tehran’s regional armed allies. He predicts that pressure could eventually bring down the regime, although that outcome remains uncertain.
He acknowledges the costs to neighboring states.
“The Gulf states are indeed paying a price under this scenario. Their trade is disrupted, tensions persist in their airspace and their projects are delayed,” he wrote.
His support for maintaining that pressure rests on the judgment that the alternatives would be worse. The question is whether Washington and its regional partners can sustain it without an escalation that forces them back into war.
An alleged IRGC operative helped coordinate a plot to attack RAF Fairford, a British airbase housing US forces, from a New York jail using coded messages sent through his family, according to a US indictment unveiled Tuesday.
The eight-count indictment charges three men with terrorism-related offenses over their alleged support for the IRGC and Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-aligned Iraqi militia, and their involvement in nearly 20 attacks and attempted attacks across Europe and the United States, including a September plot targeting RAF Fairford in southwestern England.
The Justice Department identified the defendants as Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood al-Saadi, a dual Iranian-Iraqi national; Mohsen Mohajeri, an Iranian national; and Mohammed Ali al-Hassani, an Iraqi national.
Al-Saadi, arrested abroad in May and transferred to US custody, allegedly used calls with his mother and sister in Iraq to relay coded messages to Mohajeri and al-Hassani, who were in Iran during preparations for the Fairford plot.
During a September 24 call, prosecutors said, al-Saadi asked about al-Hassani, whom he called “Ali,” and instructed his relatives to “give him money so we can do it.”
Two days later, three vans were driven toward RAF Fairford as part of the alleged plot.
From coded messages to a British airbase
According to prosecutors, al-Hassani began organizing the operation in August, paying an associate to survey RAF Fairford and film its perimeter while arranging vehicles, fuel and other materials.
The preparations included obtaining vans and barrels of fuel, researching chemical accelerants and purchasing metal objects that could be used as explosive shrapnel, the indictment said.
The vans were disguised as fuel delivery and swimming pool supply vehicles.
On September 26, al-Hassani allegedly directed three vans toward the base, maintaining frequent contact with their drivers. At least two encountered a security roadblock and were prevented from continuing along their intended routes.
British authorities recovered three white vans and arrested their occupants early the following morning.
The incident triggered a major security operation around RAF Fairford, including the temporary evacuation of nearby residents.
British counterterrorism police subsequently said they had recovered petrol from the vehicles but found no improvised explosive devices. Five men initially arrested near the base were released on police bail as the investigation continued.
The suspected plot prompted the United States to withdraw bombers from Fairford, a base used by American aircraft during strikes on Iran.
Trump said on October 5 that the bombers had been moved because of security threats, adding that those responsible “would be linked to Iran.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected the allegations in a September 30 post on X, pointing to the suspects' release on bail and telling Britain: “You're barking up the wrong tree.”
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham subsequently told parliament that the suspected operation was highly likely to have been coordinated in Iran and almost certainly directed by the IRGC.
In an October 12 joint statement, more than 30 countries, including the United States, acknowledged Britain's attribution of the Fairford incident to Iran and condemned Tehran's alleged use of covert networks and proxy actors.
On October 27, British prosecutors charged two men under national security legislation in connection with the Fairford incident.
A wider network of attacks
The US indictment links the three defendants to approximately 18 attacks claimed by a group calling itself Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, or HAYI, across Europe in the spring of 2026.
Prosecutors described HAYI as a front for Kataib Hezbollah and other US-designated terrorist organizations.
About seven of the attacks took place in Britain, including incidents involving arson, explosives and a near-fatal stabbing of two Jewish men in London, one of whom held dual US-British citizenship.
The indictment alleges that Mohajeri and al-Hassani discussed plans for attacks while together in Iraq in early April, with a map of London displayed on a computer screen.
“We need to get focused on London,” Mohajeri allegedly told al-Hassani in a recorded conversation.
During an April 17 arson attack on a Jewish charity in London, the three defendants allegedly directed the perpetrator in real time through FaceTime while recording the incident.
The following day, al-Hassani allegedly directed another individual during an attack on a London synagogue, instructing the person to “light it up like a Christmas tree” before an improvised explosive device was thrown at the building.
Al-Saadi was separately accused of attempting to arrange an attack on a synagogue in Manhattan during March and April.
Fresh security concerns at another US airbase
The indictment emerged as US military aircraft were moved from a second British airbase amid reports of another threat linked to Iran.
Reuters reported Tuesday that at least 10 American KC-135 refueling aircraft departed RAF Mildenhall in eastern England on Monday, while at least three Osprey aircraft were moved to nearby RAF Lakenheath.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the movements followed a threat from Iran, although the precise nature of that threat remained unclear.
The Journal said security at Mildenhall and Lakenheath had been raised to FPCON Charlie, the second-highest threat level, while Britain maintained that its military bases remained secure.
No publicly disclosed evidence has established a connection between the reported threat at Mildenhall and the three defendants named in Tuesday's indictment.
The three men face charges including conspiracy to provide material support to designated terrorist organizations, terrorism financing and conspiracy to bomb a public place.
Al-Saadi, 32, remains in US federal custody. The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
A discussion on Iranian state television signaled cautious openness to future nuclear talks with Washington, with a commentator describing flexibility over preliminary exchanges while insisting Tehran’s conditions for ending the war must first be met.
Vahid Khazab, introduced as a military and political analyst, said on the state broadcaster’s Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time) talk show on Monday night that a significant development amid mediation efforts was Tehran’s willingness to discuss its nuclear program through intermediaries.
His account suggested room for diplomacy, but did not amount to an official announcement of a change in Iran’s negotiating position.
Iran has insisted that Washington accept its seven demands and end the war before nuclear negotiations begin. Khazab described preliminary discussions through intermediaries as a sign of “flexibility.”
However, he said, those discussions were limited to determining the issues that could be addressed in future nuclear negotiations, once Iran’s initial conditions had been accepted and the war ended.
Proposed nuclear compromise
According to Khazab, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has raised the possibility of allowing Iran to continue uranium enrichment at 3.67%. His account did not establish whether Washington had accepted that provision.
In exchange, the proposals include diluting Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, which Khazab put at 400 kilograms, or converting it into fuel rods for nuclear reactors.
The proposed arrangement would also include the release of part of Iran’s frozen assets, the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and ultimately the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Khazab said.
Tehran would likely regard any US acceptance of enrichment inside Iran as a major concession, he said. However, it would seek to negotiate how its highly enriched uranium stockpile is diluted and how much nuclear material remains inside the country.
He added that some Iranian experts had suggested gradual dilution to preserve part of the country’s nuclear capabilities for the “future, post-Trump era.”
Parallel mediation efforts
Pakistan, China, Iraq, Turkey and Qatar have been pursuing diplomatic initiatives amid concerns about renewed US military strikes against Iran.
Nima Akbarkhani, also introduced as a military expert on the program, said people with what he described as “greater access” had told him that the scale of mediation efforts in recent days was unprecedented compared with previous initiatives.
China has been among the countries involved. Ali Bagheri-Kani, a deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, traveled to China in early November and met with Beijing’s special envoy for Middle Eastern affairs, Zhai Jun.
Zhai subsequently traveled to Iran on November 8. According to Khazab, he met not only with Iranian Foreign Ministry officials but also with Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf.
Iraq has also been involved. Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaydi traveled to Iran late last week on an unannounced visit.
Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, reported that al-Zaydi met with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf. However, the agency said he had not obtained what it described as “a result satisfactory to the United States.”
Turkey has also been seeking to facilitate an agreement through political contacts with Washington and Tehran.
According to remarks attributed to Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke with Trump and expressed concern about renewed military attacks against Iran, urging him to refrain from further strikes.
Qatar, which has served as one of the main channels of communication between Tehran and Washington in recent months, is also attempting to bring the two sides back to negotiations.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani traveled to Washington on Monday and met with Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
Former Qatari prime minister and foreign minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani has also emphasized the need to resolve regional disputes.
Khazab interpreted his recent emphasis on cooperation to end Iran’s blockade as a possible shift in Qatar’s calculations under wartime conditions.
Iran denies plans for Vance-Rezaei meeting
Khazab also addressed reports that Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, could meet Vance in Qatar next week.
The discussion followed reports on Monday citing Kalin as saying Qatar would host the US vice president and Iran’s security chief the following week. Türkiye newspaper carried the Turkish intelligence chief’s remarks.
In his Monday night comments, Khazab suggested that reports of a possible meeting were not necessarily false, interpreting Iranian denials as a rejection of the existence of a specific arrangement.
According to the analyst, whether a meeting could take place would depend on Washington announcing its acceptance of Iran’s seven initial conditions for ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed reports of the meeting as “speculation and media fabrication” and described them as “baseless from the outset.”
“There are no plans for such a meeting,” he said.
Rezaei subsequently told Lebanon-based Al Mayadeen television in an interview on Tuesday that “the Americans’ claims about the continuation of negotiations or the holding of a meeting in Qatar are outright lies.”
He said the claims were being circulated solely to ease economic pressure and drive down oil prices.
Khazab’s argument for conditional engagement rested on Tehran’s distrust of Washington. He accused the United States of violating its commitments after an earlier agreement and memorandum of understanding, leading to renewed hostilities.
For that reason, he said, Iran did not want to enter another round of negotiations that might produce a temporary agreement followed by a return to war.
“We have no objection to negotiations, no objection to talking. But it must be done in a way that genuinely removes the threat of war,” Khazab said.
Iran's parliament is preparing to consider allowing a non-cleric to head the Intelligence Ministry for the first time, under a proposal that would also give the supreme leader direct appointment powers over two new bodies within the ministry.
Parliamentary presidium spokesman Abbas Goudarzi said Tuesday that an urgent bill removing the requirement of ijtihad, an advanced qualification in Islamic jurisprudence, would be placed on parliament's agenda next week, ISNA reported.
Under the proposal, two organizations responsible for "internal security" and "ideological affairs" would be established within the ministry. Their directors would be appointed by Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, while the intelligence minister would continue to be nominated by the president and approved by parliament.
Goudarzi described the two organizations as a substitute for the minister’s religious qualification.
He said the change would help resolve a vacancy lasting nearly eight months, following the killing of Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, a clerical figure, in an Israeli strike in March. The ministry has since been run by an acting minister whose identity has not been publicly disclosed.
Four decades of clerical intelligence chiefs
Since the ministry’s establishment in 1984, every permanent intelligence minister has been a cleric, under a law passed in 1983 requiring religious education equivalent to ijtihad.
Clerical leadership has not insulated the ministry from scandals over repression. Dissidents were assassinated inside Iran and abroad during Ali Fallahian’s tenure from 1989 to 1997. His successor, Ghorbanali Dorri Najafabadi, resigned in 1999 after the ministry acknowledged its agents’ involvement in the 1998 murders of dissidents and writers.
Control of the ministry has also brought presidents into conflict with the supreme leader. In 2011, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi, but Ali Khamenei ordered his reinstatement, demonstrating the limits of presidential authority over the ministry.
A broader selection process, new appointments
The proposal follows conflicting statements from lawmakers about whether the change had received committee approval.
Amir Hayat Moghadam, deputy chairman of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, argued Saturday that the requirement had restricted the selection of qualified intelligence professionals.
Committee spokesman Hassan Qashqavi subsequently clarified that members had discussed the issue without formally approving legislation. But Hayat Moghadam claimed committee approval.
The latest proposal would widen the pool of potential ministers while establishing two senior positions filled directly by the supreme leader.
The proposal also comes after years of competition between the ministry and the Revolutionary Guards’ separate intelligence organization.
Whether the change would benefit career intelligence officers or open the position to figures from the Guards remains unclear. No candidate has been publicly identified, and the proposal still requires parliamentary approval and clearance by the Guardian Council.