Iran’s diplomatic dilemma: The case for strengthening ties with Riyadh

The new cabinet’s formation in Iran has left reformists disillusioned, signaling a likely stagnation in domestic political dynamics under President Masoud Pezeshkian in the months ahead. However, some analysts are expecting a moderate foreign policy in the coming days.

Despite a relatively conservative cabinet formation, the more moderate factions within Iran’s political spectrum are encouraging Iran’s newly elected president to prioritize Riyadh for his initial official foreign visit. Their rationale is straightforward: Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic skills have been successful in alleviating tensions.

This moment presents a unique opportunity for Iran to adjust its relationships. The significance of these appeals is heightened by the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31 coinciding with Pezeshkian’s inauguration ceremony. This incident has increased concerns, making the idea of mediation even more appealing.

While the concept of Saudi Arabia assuming a mediating role in Iran’s relations isn’t novel, it is gaining traction as the U.S. presidential election approaches with the uncertainty surrounding a Donald Trump win. Proponents of this strategy suggest that Riyadh’s close relationship with Washington could facilitate the easing of sanctions on Tehran or secure exemptions for Saudi businesses to engage with Iran.

This suggestion isn’t entirely new. Even before the recent escalation, the influential figures in Iran had discussed the idea of Saudi Arabia stepping in as a mediator to help mend Tehran’s strained relationships with the global community. The recent assassination has only intensified these discussions, underscoring the pressing need to seek a resolution to Iran’s isolation. Saudi Arabia’s potential collaboration with Washington could play a role in this scenario.

By utilizing Riyadh’s sway, Tehran could potentially secure assistance, whether through sanctions or special provisions that permit economic interactions without facing U.S. repercussions. Such a step could not only boost Iran’s economy but also pave the way for better ties with its Arab counterparts like Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain. In a region that’s on the brink of instability this diplomatic move may offer Iran the needed support it seeks.

In the aftermath of the helicopter crash that claimed the lives of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Saudi Arabia has taken some positive steps to preserve the fragile progress in its relationship with Tehran. These efforts, rooted in the China-sponsored agreement that Raisi helped forge, signal Riyadh’s commitment to continuing the delicate trust-building process.

Saudi Arabia’s gestures of goodwill began with its participation in the mourning ceremonies for Raisi. This was further reinforced by the attendance of a Saudi delegation at the inauguration of President Masoud Pezeshkian, where Prince Mansour bin Mutaib delivered a letter from King Salman, emphasizing continuity in diplomatic engagement. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s post-inauguration call to Pezeshkian to discuss bilateral relations and regional developments added another layer to this unfolding diplomatic narrative.

The pricking question now is whether these outreach efforts are simply tactical maneuvers or reflect a deeper shift within Iran’s pragmatic factions. A reassessment of Tehran’s foreign policy, particularly towards Saudi Arabia, could open avenues for leveraging Riyadh’s ongoing development and reform initiatives. Such a shift might not only ease Iran’s international isolation but also relieve internal pressures, marking a pivotal moment in regional diplomacy.

The recent appeals for discussions may reveal concerns within Iran, especially among those worried that hardliners, and could impede the new government’s initiatives. Having connections to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, these hardliners are ready to challenge moderates striving to demonstrate Iran’s ability to handle both external challenges. The decreased voter turnout in elections highlights the declining popularity of the regime, further complicating the moderates’ goals.

Throughout the years, Tehran has been vocal in its criticism of the United States while also being mindful of who holds the presidency. This awareness dates back to the Carter-Reagan election in 1980. It remains an aspect of Iran’s regional strategy today. As Tehran contemplates how to respond to the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, it is evident that they are thinking about how their actions could affect the U.S. election. It seems that Iran is subtly aligning itself with Vice President Kamala Harris.

The leadership in Tehran knows that a strong retaliation could have consequences, especially if it leads to increased tensions with Israel. Such a move could harm Harris’s chances by suggesting a failure to handle the situation effectively impacting both security and the economy.

At the time Tehran is keeping an eye on how the Democratic Party manages its relationship with Israel, it understands that any misstep could strain U.S.-Iranian relations further. With each decision they make, Tehran is carefully considering how it might influence America’s landscape.

Israel’s strategy appears to be capitalizing on Iran’s cautious approach, as Tehran rethinks its retaliation to avoid a direct escalation. Israel, recognizing this moment of Iranian restraint, is pushing forward with its own agenda, undeterred by external pressures, including those from the United States. The leaders in Jerusalem understand that this period of restraint may not last long, especially considering changes in political dynamics after the upcoming election.

Both sides are displaying patience, indicating a game where each step is evaluated for its potential impact on broader conflict risks. Israel’s determination to proceed despite calls for restraint from the community shows its belief that now is the time to strengthen its position.

The situation carries risks as Israel acknowledges that its current influence could diminish if Tehran escalates or if political shifts occur post-election. This delicate balance between power and caution may shape Middle Eastern geopolitics in the future as both Israel and Iran seek to maximize their advantages.

Tehran’s true intentions will become evident through its actions in the region, especially when it comes to handling the stalled reconciliation. Saudi Arabia seeking stability would likely appreciate a visit from Iran’s president. However, this support is contingent upon Tehran’s dedication to enhancing relationships, resolving disputes and bolstering connections with neighboring countries.

Iran must make a shift in its strategies to achieve these goals. Without progress in addressing the challenges in Yemen and Iraq, a fresh chapter in relations will remain out of reach. The region watches closely, aware that genuine progress can only be achieved if Iran moves beyond rhetoric and demonstrates a real willingness to serve broader regional interests. The stakes are high, and the path forward demands more than just diplomatic overtures; it requires concrete actions that signal a break from past behaviors.

Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master’s degree in international relations.