Saudi-Iranian ties — revived in 2023 after a years-long diplomatic freeze — have faced a fresh challenge following controversial remarks by Gholamreza Ghassemian, a cleric with close ties to Iran’s supreme leader. His inflammatory and inaccurate comments about Islam’s two holiest cities, Makkah and Medina, sparked backlash and risked straining the fragile trust between the two nations. While tensions could have escalated, swift diplomatic efforts helped contain the fallout. Riyadh emphasized its commitment to keeping the Hajj season focused on spiritual devotion and free from political agendas that could sow division among Muslims. For its part, Tehran remains eager to maintain and deepen its renewed engagement with Saudi Arabia, particularly given the broader regional pressures it currently faces.
The rapid resolution of the incident by both Saudi Arabia and Iran — culminating in the release and deportation of Ghassemian, despite Saudi Arabia’s legal grounds to pursue his detention for breaching local laws — has raised several significant questions. Chief among these: Why did Ghassemian make such inflammatory remarks at this particular time? What explains the unusually sharp and widespread Iranian condemnation of the cleric, which included calls for his prosecution and praise for Saudi Arabia’s management of the Hajj and protection of pilgrims — responses so strong that even some “hardliner” figures have deemed these excessive?
Observers are also examining the deeper messages both nations sought to convey —internally and to the international community — through their quick de-escalation of the controversy. The episode offers valuable insights into how Riyadh and Tehran are navigating their renewed diplomatic engagement, highlighting the political calculations, sensitivities and lessons that both sides are likely to draw from this test of their evolving relationship.
Ghassemian’s Remarks: Context and Weight Within the Hawza
On May 26, 2025, Saudi security forces arrested Ghassemian in Medina after he posted a controversial video that Saudi authorities described as provocative and defamatory toward the kingdom and its holy sites. In the video, Ghassemian made inflammatory claims, invoking historical references from the Umayyad period to allege that Makkah and Medina had become hubs of immorality. He stated that people would now travel to the holy cities “for casinos, brothels, and vulgar concerts instead of going to Antalya,” drawing sharp condemnation for what officials called baseless accusations and offensive rhetoric against Islam’s most sacred places.
Ghassemian’s Status in Iran
Ghassemian is a prominent Iranian cleric bearing the title hojatoleslam, a designation that underscores his religious authority. He is reportedly close to Iran’s supreme leader and is known for his hardline views and radical rhetoric. Ghassemian played a visible role in the attacks on the British and Saudi embassies in Tehran in 2011 and 2016. He has previously called for the destruction of Israel and the “reconquest of Makkah,” positions that reflect his ideological stance. In addition to his political activism, he has held several official roles, including head of the Iranian Parliament’s Library and Document Center, and deputy director of the Tehran seminary. He has also been a regular presence on programming aired by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
Ghassemian is also known to have close ties to the current Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. His worldview reflects a rigid, ideological perspective shaped by sectarian narratives. Observers note that he tends to interpret present-day events through the lens of historical disputes between Islamic sects, a mindset that not only fuels sectarian sentiment among his supporters and reinforces the ideological base of Iran’s radical circles, but also reveals deeper convictions. These attitudes exemplify broader challenges facing Iran today — most notably, an intellectual stagnation tied to aging leadership and a religious discourse that many critics describe as inflexible and outdated.
Ghassemian and the Community of Clerics
Many clerics in Iran tend to approach political issues through a strictly doctrinal lens, often prioritizing theological precepts over practical outcomes or strategic considerations. This stems from a religious education that frequently treats political viewpoints as fixed religious truths. In this context, the remarks made by figures like Ghassemian toward Saudi Arabia reflect a broader mindset within segments of the Iranian clerical establishment. To move beyond entrenched sectarian perceptions — particularly the negative view of Saudi Arabia and Sunnis — there must be deep structural reforms within the religious seminaries. These reforms would need to address not only educational content but also ethical and social frameworks. The true measure of the ruling elite’s intentions lies in whether it genuinely promotes tolerance, inter-sectarian dialogue and acceptance of the other, including within the religious education system. Without such changes — such as revising curricula and guiding clerical behavior — efforts at political rapprochement risk being undermined by recurring sectarian rhetoric. And that is assuming these voices are merely personal views, not part of a deliberate strategy by elements within the ruling elite — perhaps aimed at testing the resilience of Saudi-Iranian ties, sending signals to domestic religious factions or applying diplomatic pressure through indirect means.
Manifestations and Dimensions of Iranian Reactions
A close examination of Iranian reactions — across official channels, elites and segments of public opinion — to Ghassemian’s statements reveals a noticeable shift in Iran’s approach to managing its relations with Saudi Arabia. Compared to the period before the signing of the rapprochement agreement between the two countries, Iran’s current response reflects a more measured and constructive stance. Ghassemian’s remarks were swiftly and widely condemned in Iran. Critics not only rejected his claims but also questioned his motives, with some even calling for legal action against him. These reactions underscore a growing concern within Iran that such rhetoric could risk ongoing efforts between Riyadh and Tehran to build mutual trust, move past historical tensions and advance toward a new phase grounded in shared interests. Below are the most significant takeaways from the Iranian response.
Rejecting Ghassemian’s Remarks
The first notable aspect of the Iranian response was the swift rejection of Ghassemian’s claims by figures closely aligned with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Their rapid condemnation underscored a broader consensus that Ghassemian’s narrative was baseless. Ali Saeedi, who heads the Ideological-Political Department in the Office of the Supreme Leader, criticized Ghassemian for making statements that contradicted reality. Meanwhile, Hojatoleslam Ali Sarlak, an associate of “conservative” figure Saeed Jalili, went further by calling for Ghassemian’s arrest and prosecution.
This raises a key question: Why would Ghassemian deliberately make such inflammatory remarks, despite knowing the deep religious significance of Makkah and Medina for all Muslims and the global recognition of Saudi Arabia’s efforts in serving pilgrims? The answer appears to lie in his alignment with “hardliner” circles in Iran that remain opposed to restoring ties with Riyadh. His statements may have been intended to influence Iranian public opinion by tarnishing Saudi Arabia’s image at a time when the Saudi model has been gaining popularity among Iranians — particularly youth, women and post-revolutionary generations — posing a challenge to the ideological dominance of the “hardliners.”
Ghassemian may also have been appealing to “conservative” audiences by advancing the notion that Iran is the spiritual center of the Islamic world — a narrative often echoed in “hardliner” rhetoric. To reinforce this message, he invoked historical sectarian grievances, likening Saudi Arabia to the Umayyad state in an apparent attempt to stir Shiite sentiment and manufacture a new sectarian controversy. Lacking the intellectual or religious tools to counter the appeal of the evolving Saudi model, Ghassemian and like-minded figures have resorted to sectarian incitement and misinformation to shore up their influence.
Questioning the Motives of Ghassemian
Ghassemian’s motives have drawn widespread scrutiny within Iran, with many questioning the intent behind his controversial remarks. Javad Imam, spokesman for the Reform Front, described Ghassemian as a polarizing figure and raised doubts about how such individuals are able to operate freely, asking why Iran’s security agencies — typically known for closely monitoring activists — have shown limited concern for figures like him. Saeedi suggested that Ghassemian’s actions may stem from personal or political motivations.
Former lawmaker Jalal Rashidi Koji criticized the statements as intentionally provocative and damaging, implying that these were meant to impose political costs on Iran. Historian and researcher Majid Tafreshi denounced the remarks as reckless and alarming, warning that such rhetoric serves the interests of Iran’s adversaries, including anti-Iranian voices in the West and Israel, and could undermine ongoing talks. Similarly, political commentator Ruhollah Jamei described the comments as calculated and inflammatory, designed to derail the normalization process between Tehran and Riyadh.
Ghassemian’s Narrative Opposing the Declared Official Iranian Stance Toward Saudi Arabia
Iranian authorities made clear that Ghassemian’s remarks not only violated Saudi Arabia’s laws but also contradicted Iran’s official foreign policy, prompting several senior figures — despite his reputed closeness to the supreme leader — to distance themselves from him. Officials emphasized that his statements were personal and did not reflect the state’s position toward the kingdom.
Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref reaffirmed that strengthening ties with neighboring countries is a core principle of Iran’s foreign policy and warned that Ghassemian’s comments risk damaging these improving relations. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also denounced the remarks, reiterating Iran’s commitment to deepening relations with Saudi Arabia, which he described as central to Tehran’s regional strategy. He emphasized that Iran would not permit any disruption to this path. Likewise, Judiciary Spokesman Asghar Jahangir stated that Ghassemian’s statements run counter to the diplomatic approach Iran is pursuing under the guidance of the supreme leader.
Trying Ghassemian Is an Iranian Necessity and Interest
Calls for Ghassemian to face trial in Iran intensified, not only due to the controversial nature of his statements but also because of what many viewed as a blatant violation of Saudi Arabia’s laws and customs. Ehsan Ebadi, a scholar at the Mahdaviya Foundation, criticized Ghassemian for disregarding the kingdom’s legal norms, noting that such behavior contradicts the guidance of Ayatollah Khomeini — who once refrained from performing udhiyah (the ritual slaughter of animals, typically sheep, goats, cows, or camels, performed by Muslims during Eid al-Adha) in Paris out of respect for French local regulations.
In a commentary published by Asr Iran, the author posed a pointed question: What if a foreign visitor to Iran had filmed a video in front of the Imam Reza shrine, making offensive remarks about Iranian leaders, and then shared it online — would Iranian authorities have reacted with tolerance or responded as decisively as Saudi security forces did? The article concluded that, as a guest, Ghassemian had a responsibility to respect the host country’s rules.
The second concern centers on the potential damage Ghassemian’s statements could inflict on Iran’s national interests. Iranian decision-makers recognize the heavy costs incurred during the period of estrangement with Saudi Arabia and view maintaining relations as crucial. Mohammad Mahdi Shahriari, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, asserted that Ghassemian’s remarks undermine national security and impose significant burdens on the country and its citizens, warranting legal accountability. An article published on the Asr Iran website echoed this stance, calling for Ghassemian to face trial in Iran following his release from Saudi custody, sending a clear message that actions harming the state and its people carry consequences.
Harmony Between the Official and Popular Stances
Iran’s condemnation of Ghassemian’s controversial remarks resonated beyond official circles, sparking a wave of criticism on social media. Many users expressed frustration, urging against glorifying someone whose actions could inflict heavy costs on Iran and its government. Popular comments questioned whether Iranians would tolerate a foreigner recording offensive content within their own borders, invoking Khomeini’s example of deferring to French law as a show of respect. Calls were made for Ghassemian’s immediate return to Iran and trial on charges of undermining national security.
Fundamentalist political activist Abbas Salimi dismissed claims that Ghassemian’s arrest in Saudi Arabia was driven by anti-Shiite bias. He clarified that the kingdom would have taken similar action against anyone — Sunni or otherwise — who made comparable inflammatory statements, emphasizing Saudi Arabia’s strict enforcement of rules to safeguard pilgrims and maintain Hajj security.
Reiterating the Saudi Administration of Pilgrimage
Iran’s foreign minister praised the kingdom’s efficient and effective organization in an X post. Iran’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ali Reza Enayati noted that Saudi efforts are fully dedicated to serving all pilgrims, with special attention to Iranian visitors, while urging Iranian pilgrims to adhere to Saudi laws. Former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi expressed appreciation on X, recognizing Saudi officials’ important role in serving the Two Holy Mosques. Meanwhile, Ali Reza Bayat, head of Iran’s Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization, reported that over 68,000 Iranian pilgrims arrived smoothly and on schedule, commending Saudi Arabia’s hospitality and cooperation throughout the pilgrimage.
Meanwhile, Iran’s “hardliner” faction views Ghassemian’s statements as a legitimate exercise of personal freedom, even if it involves “spreading falsehoods.” Ironically, this same group tightly restricts freedom of expression within Iran, suppressing any criticism of the authorities. Intellectuals have been arrested simply for sharing scholarly or historical viewpoints unrelated to the government’s current stance. A notable example is Sayyed Ali Asghar Gharavi, detained after publishing an article questioning whether Imam Ali was a political ruler or primarily a spiritual model. In his piece, Gharavi argued that governance during Imam Ali’s time was based on allegiance and consensus rather than formal appointment or religious guardianship. Dozens of other thinkers have faced similar arrests in this repressive environment.
Significations of the Iranian and Saudi Positions
The swift handling of the incident by both Saudi Arabia and Iran highlights several key points:
A Mutual Commitment to Improving Ties
Both countries appear eager to sustain and deepen their relationship, favoring a stable and mutually beneficial peace. This approach aims to advance shared interests, maximize benefits, end regional and international political pressures on both sides and contribute to overall regional stability rather than prolonging a costly conflict.
Two main factors underpin this shift:
First, the significant losses both nations endured during their estrangement — particularly Iran — due to Saudi Arabia’s success in rallying influential international actors against Iran’s expansionist ambitions, which threaten Arab and Gulf security. Iran has faced isolation, blockades and harsh sanctions that have weakened its internal cohesion and strained the state.
Second, the tangible gains from restored relations: the agreement has ended Iran’s regional isolation and the international campaign aimed at curbing the ruling establishment’s behavior. It has also undercut Israel’s overtures toward Saudi Arabia as a frontline state against Iranian influence. For Saudi Arabia, the deal has broken the cycle of draining conflicts, lowered costs and eased security pressures originating from Iran-backed arenas.
The Neighbors’ Ability to Manage Emerging Challenges
Since the Saudi-Iranian agreement was signed, some issues have arisen, such as the controversy over a picture of Qassem Soleimani in the meeting room with the Saudi foreign minister in Iran, the unveiling of a statue of Soleimani in a stadium in Isfahan and the arrest of a media correspondent in Medina during last year’s Hajj for attempting to make unauthorized recordings. Despite these incidents, the most important test of both countries’ commitment to their renewed ties has been their ability to prevent these problems from damaging relations, even as regional conflicts erupted. Both sides have largely respected the agreement’s core provisions and militias have refrained from targeting Saudi interests.
Iran in Light of Saudi Arabia’s Growing Regional and International Influence
Iran closely observes Saudi Arabia’s expanding influence at both regional and global levels. Saudi Arabia has emerged as a key player attracting the attention of major powers competing for global leadership. This rise stems from its substantial capabilities, diplomatic and economic leverage, balanced policies and dedication to peaceful diplomacy. Saudi Arabia has become central to maintaining international balances, contributing significantly to regional security frameworks and the resolution of regional and international conflicts.
This prominent role explains why Iran remains committed to good relations with Riyadh and the frequent visits by Iranian officials to the kingdom. Most recently, Iran’s foreign minister visited Riyadh as part of a Gulf tour that included the UAE, Qatar and Oman, shortly before a US presidential visit to the region. During this visit in May 2025, the Iranian foreign minister highlighted Saudi Arabia’s crucial role in sustaining any potential Western agreement on the nuclear issue and underscored coordination with Riyadh as a top priority.
Iran is acutely aware of Saudi Arabia’s growing global impact on regional and international affairs. Consequently, Tehran seeks to avoid tensions with Riyadh that could risk progress in nuclear negotiations with the West. Iran also avoids aligning itself with factions that promote international military action against it, especially as it urgently needs sanctions relief deal to address internal crises caused by blockade, isolation and sanctions.
At this pivotal moment, Iran faces significant setbacks in the Middle East and depends on Saudi Arabia and its neighbors to deter a possible military strike against its strategic infrastructure.
Conclusion, Findings and the Future of Bilateral Ties
The swift efforts by both Saudi Arabia and Iran to resolve the issue at the outset and prevent its escalation into a major dispute reflect several significant outcomes:
- Both neighbors are determined to develop bilateral relations and ensure the success of the Saudi-Iranian agreement at this stage — unless future developments trigger a strategic shift by one or both parties, especially considering the Iranian establishment’s enduring principles, constants and foreign policy orientations, which could resurface if regional conditions allow Iran to regain strength.
- Signs are emerging within various levels of Iranian society — official, popular and elite — rejecting the radical voices and ideas that once caused the rupture with Saudi Arabia. During that phase, Iran bore a heavy cost due to international isolation and sanctions. This shift may also be driven by the geopolitical losses Iran has recently suffered in the region.
- Saudi Arabia’s arrest of Ghassemian reinforces the message that normalizing relations means respecting Saudi security, laws and identity. Restoring ties does not imply overlooking strict enforcement of the law against violations, while Saudi Arabia maintains its commitment to preserving the Hajj purely as a religious observance, free from political or sectarian agendas.
- Saudi Arabia recognizes and values the principle of “regional and international peacemaking,” pursuing a “profitable peace” that breaks the cycle of exhausting conflicts. As a growing hub for resolving not only regional but also international disputes, the kingdom cannot allow problems like the Ghassemian incident to hinder this progress, since investing in peace benefits all parties involved.
- By consistently overcoming challenges, bilateral relations can strengthen and pave the way for deeper cooperation — provided Iran continues moving away from narrow ideological approaches to regional issues.
- The selection of a controversial figure like Ghassemian to make offensive remarks during the Hajj season suggests that “hardliners” in Iran may aim to stir tensions during this sacred period, resisting Saudi religious leadership over a ritual considered fundamental to Islam, which could also undermine the stature of the marjaya.
Iran’s reactions indicate that its authorities will uphold Saudi red lines firmly, at least temporarily, showing pragmatic flexibility amid a phase of geopolitical weakness marked by Israeli threats against Iranian strategic sites. The kingdom’s increasing strategic importance to the United States was evident during President Donald Trump’s recent visit, which Iran previously exploited rhetorically during times of estrangement. However, at this current stage, it appears Iran has learned from the severe losses caused by hostility toward Saudi Arabia’s rising regional and global status.
Nonetheless, given the Iranian ruling establishment’s entrenched ideological constants and its historical pattern of behavior toward regional Arab and Gulf states —particularly regarding the sensitive Hajj issue frequently addressed in Khamenei’s speeches — it is clear that Iran often adopts a pragmatic, flexible stance when weak, as now. But this is usually temporary; once conditions improve, the establishment tends to revert to its ideological agenda and positions, which remains the fundamental challenge in dealing with the Iranian issue.
