Iran has hardened its public negotiating position as Russia and Pakistan intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent another round of U.S.-Israeli attacks. During a visit to Tehran on Tuesday, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, was told that Iran would not transfer any of its enriched nuclear material abroad or resume negotiations before Washington took steps to rebuild trust. The message came amid renewed threats from President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reports of high-level U.S.-Israeli military consultations, and escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.
While diplomatic channels remain active, Tehran and Washington continue to articulate positions that leave little room for immediate compromise. Meanwhile, military threats and maritime incidents are signaling heightened risks of another major round of war in the coming weeks.
Munir arrived in Tehran accompanied by Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, one day after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met senior Iranian officials. During his meeting with Munir, Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei declared that not even a small amount of Iran’s enriched nuclear material would leave the country. He also said negotiations could not resume until the United States fulfilled Iran’s conditions for rebuilding trust.
Rezaei’s statement rejects transferring Iran’s enriched uranium abroad, an option previously considered in nuclear diplomacy but one that has encountered increasing resistance in Tehran. It does not necessarily eliminate compromises over enrichment levels, monitoring, or the future use of nuclear material, but it narrows the available options, particularly if Washington insists on removing Iran’s existing stockpile. The Memorandum of Understanding had suggested that at a minimum, Iran would downblend the material under IAEA supervision within Iran. Rezaei did not rule this out.
Munir also met President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf. According to Iranian reporting, he announced that border crossings between Iran and Pakistan had reopened following temporary closures that Tehran’s Foreign Ministry attributed to technical problems.
Pakistan has emerged as an important intermediary during the conflict. Its relationships with Tehran, Washington, Beijing, and Saudi Arabia give Islamabad access to several governments involved in the crisis. Munir’s repeated visits suggest that Pakistan remains engaged in efforts to identify a diplomatic formula, although no breakthrough has been announced. His arrival immediately after Lavrov’s visit is noteworthy, but there is no confirmed evidence of a coordinated Russian-Pakistani initiative.
On Monday, Lavrov met Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and Rezaei, reaffirming Moscow’s commitment to its strategic partnership with Iran. At a joint press conference, Lavrov said Russia would not abandon cooperation with Tehran, condemned U.S. and Israeli military operations, and offered humanitarian assistance, including food and medicine. Araghchi argued that regional disputes could not be resolved militarily and blamed American operations and the maritime blockade for instability in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.
The two also discussed attacks on Iranian and Russian vessels and port infrastructure in the Caspian Sea, alongside energy, transportation, and economic cooperation. Russia’s position combines support for Tehran with an effort to preserve its diplomatic flexibility. Its strategic partnership agreement with Iran does not include a mutual defense obligation, and Moscow continues to pursue negotiations with Washington over Ukraine and broader strategic issues.
Reports citing Western intelligence officials have suggested that Russia provided Iran with information useful for tracking American military movements, although the extent of such assistance remains difficult to verify independently.
China remains another important factor. Beijing purchases Iranian oil and maintains strategic cooperation with Tehran and Moscow, but it also has extensive commercial relationships with other Persian Gulf countries. Prolonged disruption of regional energy supplies would impose costs on China regardless of its political relationship with Iran.
Neither Russia nor China has demonstrated a willingness to assume the full military and economic risks of Iran’s confrontation with Washington. Their involvement offers Tehran diplomatic and economic opportunities, but not security guarantees.
The prospect of renewed war has become more immediate following statements by Trump and Netanyahu. On Sunday, Trump publicly endorsed Netanyahu ahead of Israel’s October 27 election, praising him as a wartime leader and warning that Iran could face further attacks unless it changed its policies. In a video of their telephone conversation, Netanyahu said the two countries had unfinished business concerning Iran and would complete it together. His recent statements have also suggested objectives extending beyond restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.
These statements strongly suggest the two leaders are planning further military operations, giving more reasons to doubt recent diplomatic initiatives linked to Washington. The timing is significant. Israel’s parliamentary election is scheduled for October 27, followed by the U.S. midterms in November. Both leaders have connected their political messaging to the confrontation with Iran, although electoral considerations alone cannot establish whether another attack will occur.
Reports of an unannounced visit by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to Israel on Monday added to the uncertainty. Israeli officials said he met Netanyahu at Ovda Air Base in southern Israel, where American military aircraft have been deployed, to discuss regional threats and military cooperation. The meeting indicates continuing military coordination but does not establish that another attack has been authorized.
Trump has separately threatened to strike Pickaxe Mountain, a heavily fortified underground complex near Natanz. Iran began constructing the facility after the destruction of its advanced centrifuge assembly plant in 2020. Iranian authorities have described the complex as intended for producing and assembling advanced centrifuges.
Israeli intelligence reportedly believes that centrifuges and related equipment have been transferred into the mountain. However, the reported transfers have not been independently confirmed, and available satellite assessments do not establish that uranium enrichment is currently taking place at the site.
American reporting has also described military planning involving powerful conventional weapons capable of striking deeply buried targets. Iran has formally protested the threats at the United Nations, calling on the Security Council to demand an end to threats of military force.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei warned Tuesday that Tehran would respond to any renewed attack, rejecting suggestions that Washington could conduct a limited strike without retaliation. IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebi went further, warning that even a limited American operation could trigger a global energy crisis. He also referred to undersea communications cables crossing the Strait of Hormuz while discussing potential new targets.
Even a strike intended to be limited could provoke retaliation against shipping, energy infrastructure, or communications networks, expanding the confrontation beyond its initial objectives. The maritime situation is already deteriorating. On Tuesday, the IRGC claimed that two tankers had struck mines it laid in the Strait of Hormuz, caught fire, and were forced to stop. The vessels were not identified, and the claim has not been independently verified.
British maritime authorities separately reported an incident involving a tanker and military forces approximately 121 nautical miles east of Oman’s Duqm port. Available information does not establish that the reports describe the same incident. The IRGC also claimed to have shot down an American MQ-9 drone over the strait. That claim remains disputed.
The disruptions have added pressure to global energy markets. Brent crude rose above $111 per barrel Tuesday before retreating, reflecting concerns about shipping security and renewed military operations.
Continued fighting involving the Houthis and Saudi Arabia has introduced another source of uncertainty into regional energy markets. The simultaneous threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and energy infrastructure elsewhere in the region demonstrate how the conflict extends beyond a bilateral U.S.-Iran confrontation.
A separate development has raised questions about possible military resupply. Flight-tracking reports indicate that a Belarus-registered Boeing 747 cargo aircraft traveled from Minsk to Tabriz on October 18. However, its cargo has not been established, and the flight alone does not demonstrate that air-defense systems or other military equipment were delivered.
For Tehran, the central question is whether these overlapping diplomatic channels can produce meaningful American concessions or simply delay a reignition of the war. Iran wants an end to the maritime blockade, sanctions relief, and assurances against renewed attacks. Washington continues to demand significant changes to Iran’s nuclear activities while retaining military options. Russia and Pakistan can facilitate communication, but neither can independently resolve these disagreements.
For ordinary Iranians, the war has damaged infrastructure, disrupted trade, constrained economic activity, and complicated reconstruction. Prolonged confrontation risks deepening inflation and uncertainty even without another major military campaign. The significance of the Russian and Pakistani visits will ultimately depend on whether they can help establish a credible sequence of reciprocal commitments: easing the blockade, negotiating verifiable nuclear arrangements, and preventing renewed military operations.
For now, diplomatic channels remain open, but the principal disagreements are unresolved. With military threats intensifying and the Strait of Hormuz increasingly unstable, another incident could trigger escalation before negotiators establish the foundations of a settlement.