Last minute

Tehran and Riyadh Aligned to Prevent Regional War Iranian Ambassador Praises Saudi Support in Nuclear Talks Significant Progress Reported in US-Iran Geneva Meetings Pezeshkian and Bin Salman Emphasize Middle East Stability US Envoys Witkoff and Kushner Engage with Iranian Officials Nuclear Diplomacy: Technical Teams to Meet in Vienna

Tehran's Ambassador in Riyadh to Asharq Al-Awsat: Saudi Arabia, Iran Aligned on Averting War

BAKU, Azerbaijan, February 27. Iran’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Alireza Enayati revealed that Tehran has consulted Gulf Cooperation Council states, foremost among them Saudi Arabia, on its nuclear talks with the US, voicing appreciation for Riyadh’s support for dialogue and for agreements reached in earlier rounds TurkicWorld reports via aawsat.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian discussed the latest regional developments with Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince and Prime Minister, with both sides stressing “the need to achieve security and peace in the region and avoid war.”

He said Iran’s foreign minister also held several phone calls with his Saudi counterpart to brief him on developments in the nuclear file.

The third round of nuclear talks between Iran and the US wrapped up in Geneva on Thursday after “notable progress,” Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, who is mediating the negotiations, said.

US President Donald Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, held direct and indirect talks in two phases with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

The meetings began on Thursday morning and lasted about three hours before breaking for consultations. They resumed later in the evening and ended after roughly 90 minutes.

Enayati welcomed Oman’s “active and influential” role, saying it reflects “a shared regional vision to address issues with wisdom and diplomacy through fair dialogue.”

‘Serious’ negotiations

Tehran entered Thursday’s talks “with full seriousness, based on a fundamental principle that prioritizes dialogue,” Enayati remarked, reiterating Iran’s preference for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue.

He outlined what he described as key pillars of the file: “Iran’s right to enrich uranium to a certain level, its commitment not to seek nuclear weapons, and the lifting of sanctions.”

The Geneva discussions lasted about seven hours, he said, with Al-Busaidi and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi conveying the positions of both sides. Negotiators engaged in what he described as serious talks on the substance of a potential agreement, covering both nuclear matters and sanctions.

Citing remarks by Iran’s foreign minister after the session, Enayati said “an understanding was reached on some issues.”

Technical teams are due to begin detailed reviews on Monday at the IAEA’s headquarters in Vienna, with support from agency experts. The meetings will focus on setting a framework and methodology to address technical questions.

Consultations with Gulf states

Enayati said regional countries are working jointly to safeguard security and prevent war, adding that Tehran has held consultations with Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, on the nuclear talks.

Pezeshkian discussed regional developments with Crown Prince Mohammed, and both leaders underlined the need to secure peace and stability and avoid conflict, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Iran has expressed appreciation for Saudi Arabia’s backing of the dialogue track and for agreements reached in previous rounds, he added.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that the two sides could reach a framework for a nuclear deal if Washington separates nuclear and non-nuclear issues, adding that remaining differences should be narrowed during the third round in Geneva.

Trump is pressing for a complete halt to Iranian uranium enrichment and for the inclusion of Tehran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional armed groups in the talks.

Iran insists the negotiations remain limited to nuclear issues and maintains its program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Fears of military escalation

If diplomacy fails, uncertainty surrounds the timing of any potential US strike. If military action is intended to force concessions at the negotiating table, it is unclear whether limited strikes would achieve that goal.

If the objective were to remove Iran’s leadership, the US would likely face a broader and longer campaign. There are no public indications of planning for what might follow, including the risk of instability inside Iran.