The Guardian, on Iran, 28 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Gulf states working on multipart peace deal to avert renewal of US-Iran war

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

A multipronged peace deal to reopen the strait of Hormuz within four days of sanctions being lifted and for the Houthis to withdraw substantial forces inside Yemen are at the heart of Gulf states’ plans to avert what they regard as a disastrous renewal of war between Iran and the US.

The US is aware of the talks’ progress but is holding out for a concession that European powers suggest could involve Iran allowing back into the country.

The British foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, urged the Iranians to agree to readmit the UN weapons inspectors when he met the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, in New York but so far Iran has refused, saying it will only hold talks in principle on its nuclear programme.

European diplomats believe is a minimum requirement for a breakthrough with the US president, Donald Trump.

But Iran remains focused solely on the guarantees of sanctions relief it would receive in return for reopening the strait of Hormuz. Dr Ali Bagheri, the deputy secretary of Iran’s national security council, said Iran was willing to reduce its proposal that the strait reopen seven days after economic sanctions are lifted to four days.

In a further sign of flexibility, Iran is starting to acknowledge it has a mediating role in the parallel conflict in Yemen. Iran’s secretary of the supreme national security council, Mohsen Rezaei, met the Houthi’s ambassador to Iran, Ibrahim al-Dulaimi, on Tuesday.

The meeting took place 24 hours after a high-level delegation from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan travelled to Tehran to discuss Saudi terms for ending the Yemen conflict as well as a longer-term security architecture for the region.

Iran backs the Houthis, and has the power to influence them, including devising proposals that stop short of a Houthi military victory that many say is unobtainable. In return the Houthis are demanding that Saudi Arabia lift what it regards as a naval and air blockade on Houthi-held territory.

Iran successfully prevented discussion of its nuclear programme at the meeting with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and instead ensured the focus was a broader discussion about a long-term regional security vision that would include the Gulf states and Iran and see the US presence in the Middle East reduced or ended.

A new non-aggression pact in which Iran is no longer ostracised by the rest of the Gulf, as it has been since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, .

An agreed commitment to this goal by six Gulf states might also make it easier for Iran to swallow potentially difficult tactical concessions that it would be required to make concerning its nuclear programme.

One of the key advocates of the inclusive security plan, Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, said he believed the US administration understood this was the direction the region is heading.

He said: “I think if Iran is fully re-engaged in this idea of having all of us, eight countries at peace with the rest of the world, the economic potential is going to be enormous for all of us in the region and those outside the region who choose to take part in this development. We have really discussed this in at length during the talks between Iran and the United States, and I think there is general acceptance that this will be the direction of travel once we have a deal in place at the end of the day.”

At a televised event in Iran this week Araghchi underlined the importance of a new postwar security pact to Iran, saying: “Recently, there has been talk of a new war but I am already thinking about the postwar period. Whether there is war or not, our policies remain the same.”

Read the original article on theguardian.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

The Guardian reports Gulf efforts to broker a deal between Iran and the US and gives Iranian and Omani officials their own words. It calls the UN inspectors "weapons inspectors" in its own voice, which hints at a weapons programme the article never shows, and it states Iran's "highest strategic goal" as fact without a source. These are minor problems in an otherwise attributed report.

  1. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “UN weapons inspectors”

    Why this matters
    The Guardian calls the UN inspectors "weapons inspectors" in its own voice, when European powers describe the concession they want.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it that Iran has weapons for inspectors to find, so the concession is about uncovering arms.
    The context
    The article never names the IAEA or describes what inspectors have found. It gives no evidence of a weapons programme. Calling them weapons inspectors assumes one without saying who claims it.

    How we know

    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “IAEA”.

    Show it in the article

    “allowing weapons inspectors to reenter Iran and visit its bombed nuclear sites”

    Why this matters
    Here the label sits right next to Iran's nuclear sites. The Guardian joins "weapons" and "nuclear" in one phrase in its own narration.
    The impression it gives
    A reader links the nuclear sites with weapons work and treats that link as settled.
    The context
    The only description of Iran's position in the article is that it will hold talks "on its nuclear programme". The article gives no source saying the sites are weapons sites. Any such claim should be put to whoever makes it.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“it will only hold talks in principle on its nuclear programme”

    Show it in the article

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “would meet Iran’s highest strategic goal”

    Why this matters
    The Guardian states, in its own voice and with no source, what Iran's highest strategic goal is.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the Iranian government's top priority as an established fact.
    The context
    No Iranian official in the article says this is Iran's highest goal. Araghchi speaks of a postwar security pact, but ranking it as Iran's top aim is the reporter's reading of a government's motive, given without attribution.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“underlined the importance of a new postwar security pact to Iran”

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “Dr Ali Bagheri, the deputy secretary of Iran’s national security council, said Iran was willing to reduce its proposal”

    The article gives Iran's negotiating position in the words of a named Iranian official rather than through Western diplomats alone.

  • “what they regard as a disastrous renewal of war”

    The article marks the Gulf states' view of the war as their view, attributed rather than asserted.

  • “Recently, there has been talk of a new war but I am already thinking about the postwar period.”

    The article quotes Iran's foreign minister directly on Iran's aims, letting the reader hear the Iranian government's own account.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Guardian

  1. 26 OctHigh-level delegation visits Iran to try to avert flare-up with US and Israel3.0
  2. 23 OctUS and Israel are warned against launching fresh strikes on Iran3.0
  3. 23 OctOil hits five-month high amid fears US will renew strikes on Iran0.0
  4. 22 OctRevealed: billionaire Reform donor was in business with foundation linked to Iranian regime3.0
  5. 22 OctIran threatens to strike oil and AI facilities across Gulf if US and Israel renew attacks3.0

Everything we scored from The Guardian