Change of mediator won’t break deadlock between Iran, US
Talks between Iran and the United States have traditionally taken shape either through third-party mediation or within multilateral frameworks. Now, with discussions after the 12-day war waged by Israel against Iran hitting a stalemate and former mediators losing their ability to move the needle, Saudi Arabia appears to be stepping in as a new player. The Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has recently told US President Donald Trump that Riyadh stands ready to help facilitate dialogue between Tehran and Washington. Iran, however, has stressed that its communication channels with the US still run through its traditional mediators, Oman and Qatar. Unlike its predecessors, Saudi Arabia lacks balanced relations with both Tehran and Washington, a gap that inevitably casts a shadow over its potential role.
International affairs analyst Abbas Aslani told Iran Daily that although the rise of a new mediator may look promising, it cannot play the savior given the fundamental rifts between Tehran and Washington.
IRAN DAILY: What capacities and limitations do Riyadh have in acting as a mediator, and how effective could its role be?
ASLANI: Saudi Arabia, as a heavyweight regional actor with ties to various influential states and major powers, does have a degree of potential to take on a mediating role. Its close relationship with the United States, highlighted by the recent meeting between bin Salman and Trump, also adds to that capacity. Beyond this, Riyadh’s considerable economic resources could, in theory, provide an additional lever in exploring such a role.
But major limitations also come into play, creating real challenges. First, Saudi Arabia is an exceptionally close partner of the United States. During the crown prince’s recent trip to Washington, it was even stated that Saudi Arabia is a major “non-NATO all” of the US. This means the balance in Riyadh’s foreign relations tilts heavily toward Washington, and such closeness may skew any mediation process.
Another structural obstacle arises from the long-standing regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Despite recent improvements, the two countries have traditionally competed over various regional issues. This raises an obvious question: can a country viewed, at least to some extent, as a rival truly step into the role of mediator?
Additional concerns include issues like the “Abraham Accords,” which Iran views with sensitivity and which could further complicate the mediation landscape. Overall, the scales are anything but balanced. Riyadh’s alignment with Washington remains too pronounced to allow for an impartial process.
Countries like Oman and Qatar, by contrast, have a track record of mediation. Oman, in particular, has been relatively successful at times, and Qatar has also played limited mediating roles in certain periods. Even if such efforts fail, they do not damage Tehran’s relations with those capitals. Saudi Arabia, however, lacks this historical foundation.
Moreover, although Saudi Arabia has economic strength, Iran-Saudi ties have historically centered more on regional matters and issues such as the Hajj. Even before the 1979 Revolution, bilateral trade never carried significant weight, meaning Riyadh has little economic leverage to draw on in a mediation role.
Page 8