{"id":14734,"date":"2026-11-02T11:52:52","date_gmt":"2026-11-02T08:52:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rasanah-iiis.org\/english\/?p=14734"},"modified":"2026-11-02T11:52:54","modified_gmt":"2026-11-02T08:52:54","slug":"makkah-alliance-meeting-in-iran-limits-of-contributing-to-regional-de-escalation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rasanah-iiis.org\/english\/monitoring-and-translation\/reports\/makkah-alliance-meeting-in-iran-limits-of-contributing-to-regional-de-escalation\/","title":{"rendered":"Makkah Alliance Meeting in Iran: Limits of Contributing to Regional De-escalation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Recognizing the risks and costs that continued regional escalation could impose on the future of the entire Middle East, as well as the exceptionally delicate and critical circumstances facing the region, a high-level delegation from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye, signatories to the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement,  made an unprecedented and historic visit to Tehran on October 26, 2026. Led by Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, the delegation included Pakistan\u2019s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir and Ibrahim Kal\u0131n, head of T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s National Intelligence Organization. They held talks with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Mohsen Rezaei and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. According to the Saudi Foreign Ministry, discussions<\/a> centered on the urgent need to de-escalate the crisis, promote dialogue and revive diplomatic solutions, with a view to opening a new chapter of regional diplomacy and cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significance of the Tehran meeting, held at such a critical juncture for the Middle East, raises several questions. What prompted representatives of the alliance to convene in Iran so suddenly and at this particular moment? What were the meeting\u2019s objectives and significance and what issues were discussed? Will the messages delivered during the meeting reach Tehran and potentially prompt concessions that could spare the region the devastation of a full-scale war? What are the prospects for the meeting succeeding in preventing a descent into such a conflict? Will Tehran agree to hand over its enriched uranium and long-range ballistic missiles? Where does the actual decision to escalate tensions or go to war rest? Does Iran still have the option of averting a potential conflict, perhaps by drawing lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war, or has the decision already been made in the corridors of power in Washington and Tel Aviv? Finally, where is the Middle East headed in the aftermath of this historic meeting in Tehran?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Significance and Objectives of the Meeting Amid Regional Escalation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significance of this meeting lies in the fact that it took place amid an increasingly complex and volatile regional security environment involving multiple actors. The situation has brought the Middle East dangerously close to a point of no return, with the risk of a slide into an all-out war that could have devastating consequences for the region and its peoples. The gathering of alliance members in Tehran reflects an effort to convey several key messages and advance specific objectives as part of a strategic initiative to address the escalating regional crisis before it is too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Historic Opportunity to Avert the Threat of a Devastating War<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the primary objectives of the coalition members gathered in Tehran was to seize a historic, and perhaps unprecedented, opportunity to revive diplomacy. This means preventing the outbreak of a war that would inevitably affect every country in the region, while countering the designs of \u201cwar profiteers\u201d\u2014 regional and international actors seeking to benefit from dragging regional powers into an all-out, destructive conflict. Any new round of warfare would be decisive and fundamentally different from previous confrontations, unfolding in an exceptionally volatile regional environment characterized by escalating tensions between Iran, Israel and the United States. This is particularly significant in light of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2019s reported<\/a> directive to his military and intelligence services to work toward overthrowing the Iranian establishment, as well as US President Donald Trump\u2019s rhetoric about the total elimination of Iran. Moreover, the regional landscape has changed following Saudi Arabia\u2019s establishment of maritime and defense alliances with regional powers, most notably the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement, whose provisions stipulate that an attack on any one member constitutes an attack on the entire alliance and requires a collective military response. This development has coincided with growing defense coordination between Saudi Arabia and Egypt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Activating the Alliance and Reinforcing Its Commitment to Stability<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The presence of alliance representatives in Tehran sent a message to regional and international actors that the alliance is moving beyond a purely political framework toward practical and operational engagement. By exploring concrete mechanisms to address security threats and accelerating the implementation of defense commitments, the meeting challenged the perception that the alliance is merely symbolic or superficial. Instead, it highlighted a substantive partnership designed to promote deterrence, security and stability across the Middle East. It also conveyed a clear message, led by Saudi Arabia, that the three countries oppose further escalation and that the alliance is prepared to play a central role in shaping the region\u2019s future. This initiative offers a tangible message to the Iranian public, citizens of allied countries and the wider region: the alliance seeks to serve as a force for security and stability, working to prevent a devastating war whose consequences would fall primarily on ordinary people, including the Iranian population. It also demonstrates that allied countries are as committed to preserving Iran\u2019s stability as they are to protecting their own security and stability. Through this initiative, allied nations effectively placed the ball in Iran\u2019s court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Advancing Mediation and Restoring the Diplomatic Track<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Makkah pact countries are seeking opportunities to mediate between the United States and Iran. They aim to hold Tehran accountable for the dangers of miscalculated escalation and its uncompromising refusal to make concessions, a position that ultimately threatens Iran\u2019s own future. Easing tensions between Washington and Tehran is considered a prerequisite for addressing other outstanding issues, including the status of the Strait of Hormuz, enriched uranium and long-range ballistic missiles. Alliance representatives may also emphasize to Iranian officials the need to restrain escalatory behavior, warning that Iran will bear the consequences of any risks arising from threats to the security of neighboring Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia. This is especially relevant given Iran\u2019s claims that it maintains a \u201cbank of targets\u201d across the Gulf states, to be activated if Iran comes under attack from the United States or Israel. Furthermore, any expansion of the conflict, or any deployment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to strike Saudi Arabia, would prompt other alliance members to intervene under the terms of the agreement. In practical terms, the alliance\u2019s Tehran meeting cannot be viewed separately from the broader mediation and de-escalation efforts led by Qatar and Russia. Notably, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Tehran on October 19, 2026, while the Iranian president  held talks in Russia, likely focusing on the same issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exploring the Creation of a Regional Security Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Efforts are underway to examine the possibility of establishing a regional security framework capable of curbing escalation and preventing the Middle East from descending into an all-out regional war. Following the Tehran meeting, Rezaei stated, \u201cAn understanding has been reached with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye that regional security should be achieved through the states of the region themselves.\u201d However, reconciling the different regional positions on this issue appears challenging. Iran\u2019s approach to regional security arrangements is rooted in the very nature of its political system, which incorporates both state and non-state actors into its conception of regional security. In other words, Tehran\u2019s vision involves integrating armed militias in Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon into a new regional security architecture. This approach conflicts with the position of nation-states across the Middle East and is categorically rejected by the Gulf states, which insist that regional security arrangements should be confined exclusively to state actors and should protect the national interests of all participating countries on an equal footing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By any measure, the timing of this meeting marks a watershed moment, representing a critical turning point between two distinct phases in the history of the Middle East. It demonstrates to Iran that Saudi Arabia favors de-escalation and seeks to prevent a renewed descent into devastating conflict. It also makes clear that the kingdom knows when and how to engage with Tehran, contrary to narratives promoted by certain regional actors seeking to dictate the course of Saudi Arabia-Iran relations. Riyadh is fully aware of the designs of some regional powers, which seek to instigate wars among Middle Eastern countries. They aim to remain on the sidelines as chaos unfolds, and subsequently reshape the region according to their own interests, as reflected in their threats to redraw the Middle East\u2019s geopolitical map. Ultimately, however, the meeting\u2019s success will depend largely on Iran\u2019s ability to exercise restraint in the event of a confrontation with the United States and Israel, as well as on the nature of any strikes it might face. In this regard, the future course of escalation will depend to a considerable extent on how Washington and Tel Aviv deal with Tehran in the period ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prospects for the Meeting\u2019s Success<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The meeting\u2019s success depends on several factors that will determine whether the participating parties can translate their overlapping interests into concrete understandings capable of reducing the risks of regional escalation and preventing the confrontation from spreading to additional regional arenas. Against this backdrop, the key determinants and prospects for success are outlined below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran\u2019s Growing Need to Contain Escalation and <\/strong>Prevent the Emergence <\/strong>of a More Cohesive Regional Front<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran\u2019s need to contain the consequences of a regional confrontation is a major factor that could push Tehran to engage seriously with the issues highlighted during the meeting, particularly as it faces mounting pressures on multiple fronts, including military challenges and growing risks to its relations with neighboring countries. The persistent threat of a renewed confrontation with the United States, coupled with the expansion of operations in Yemen and increasing threats to its regional proxies across multiple theaters, has made the potential costs of escalation higher for Tehran than ever before. These pressures could encourage Iran to maintain open channels of communication with Saudi Arabia, T\u00fcrkiye and Pakistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Economic and social considerations are also central to this calculation. Continued escalation, alongside blockades and restrictions on Iran\u2019s foreign trade channels, is deepening the country\u2019s economic difficulties and placing additional pressure on living standards. Tehran therefore has a clear interest in stemming its economic deterioration and avoiding another round of confrontation. This strengthens its incentive to engage seriously with any regional dialogue initiative that could ease these pressures and offer a potential economic lifeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran\u2019s Recognition That the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement Could Turn Into a Regional Pressure Tool Beyond Traditional Defense Coordination<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another factor that could contribute to the success of the meeting is Tehran\u2019s recognition that closer coordination among Saudi Arabia, T\u00fcrkiye and Pakistan expands the three countries\u2019 collective options for responding to security threats while reducing Iran\u2019s ability to deal with each of them separately. Their combined participation brings together significant political and economic influence, alongside the collective military and intelligence capabilities of the alliance\u2019s members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This consideration becomes even more important as defense cooperation among the three countries moves toward practical implementation. Their efforts to strengthen military coordination include an agreement to accelerate the deployment of the necessary forces and military capabilities within Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against this backdrop, Iran may conclude that engaging in dialogue with the three countries carries fewer costs than allowing the alliance to develop amid entrenched mistrust and escalating tensions. The opportunity lies in Tehran recognizing that de-escalation and addressing the threats that prompted the alliance\u2019s formation could help reduce the factors driving further confrontation. Conversely, continued attacks against Saudi Arabia or threats to maritime navigation would likely strengthen the alliance\u2019s defensive cohesion and expand the scope of regional and international support for its members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Strategic Weight of Saudi Arabia\u2019s Involvement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saudi Arabia\u2019s role is among the most important factors determining the success of the Tehran meeting. The kingdom\u2019s involvement extends beyond mere participation to encompass active leadership and diplomatic support for the de-escalation process. The presence of a delegation led by Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman lent considerable political and security weight to the meeting and underscored Riyadh\u2019s commitment to pursuing this course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, coordination with T\u00fcrkiye and Pakistan strengthens Saudi Arabia\u2019s ability to convey its security concerns to Tehran. It makes clear that continued aggression would not merely undermine bilateral relations but would also affect evolving joint defense arrangements, particularly if the underlying sources of existing threats remain unresolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this context, Saudi Arabia\u2019s role can be understood as a bridge between deterrence and de-escalation. Riyadh is leading a collective regional initiative to determine whether communication channels with Tehran can be translated into concrete understandings, while retaining the option of collective deterrence. This presents an important opportunity to advance the meeting\u2019s objectives and increases the prospects of turning it into a practical avenue for regional de-escalation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Roles of Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye in the Context of Saudi Arabia-Iran Relations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pakistan is a key factor in the potential success of the meeting because of its established relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United States. Its shared border with Iran and its history of mediation, including facilitating the exchange of messages between the parties, give Islamabad an opportunity to identify areas of potential agreement and help prevent miscalculations that could trigger unintended escalation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The importance of Pakistan\u2019s role was highlighted by the recent visit of Field Marshal Munir to Tehran, shortly before the meeting, where he held talks with the Iranian president and other officials. These discussions may have helped lay the groundwork for the subsequent joint engagement between Iran and allied countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pakistan\u2019s contribution extends beyond bridging differences between the parties. It also involves communicating the costs of continued escalation, both for Saudi Arabia\u2019s security and for regional stability. By combining its mediation role with its defense partnership with the kingdom, Islamabad can operate from a position that goes beyond strictly neutral mediation while retaining its ability to engage with Tehran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s role provides an additional factor that could strengthen the prospects of the meeting\u2019s success. Ankara is seeking to consolidate its position as an influential regional power while preserving its ability to engage with the various parties involved in the crisis. Its significance lies particularly in its capacity to participate in a defense arrangement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan while maintaining open channels of communication with Iran. This position enables T\u00fcrkiye to help develop understandings that do not require the parties to abandon their fundamental interests but instead seek to reduce the risks of confrontation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The participation of Kal\u0131n, head of T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s National Intelligence Organization, further underscored the importance of security channels at this critical juncture, particularly in addressing issues that may require informal or undisclosed understandings to prevent escalation and facilitate the exchange of messages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Challenges That Could Render the Meeting\u2019s Outcomes Unsuccessful<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Tehran meeting took place in an environment fraught with obstacles and challenges that could hinder its primary objectives, including the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Lack of Trust Amid Ongoing Attacks by Proxy Groups<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The insistence of the terrorist Houthi group on launching attacks against Saudi infrastructure undermines the foundation of trust that the Tehran meeting sought to build. The kingdom cannot continue its efforts to contain escalation while its territory remains under attack by a group aligned with Iran. Consequently, the failure to achieve a de-escalation on the Yemen front may well be the most significant obstacle to the success of the Tehran meeting, as these attacks erode trust and diminish the prospects for a cooling of tensions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Complex Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The challenges facing the success of the Makkah alliance meeting are multifaceted, requiring the simultaneous addressing of various issues rather than resolving each one in isolation. For instance, the Houthis have their own agenda and may not necessarily yield to Iranian pressure \u2014 a factor that could hinder the meeting\u2019s outcomes from the outset. Furthermore, the militia\u2019s hostile stance toward the kingdom is fueled by pressure from Iran, which seeks to leverage the group as a bargaining chip in its ongoing conflict with the United States. Consequently, halting Houthi attacks \u2014 a potential foundation upon which to build the success of the meeting\u2019s outcomes \u2014 is inextricably linked to the lifting of US sanctions on Iran. This, in turn, necessitates US-Iranian understandings, a return to negotiations and a willingness from both sides to accept compromises. In reality, all diplomatic efforts to contain the escalation and advance the diplomatic process are faltering due to the intransigence of both the United States and Iran, as each side remains convinced that it still possesses the capacity for deterrence and influence \u2014 believing it can emerge from the conflict having secured total gains at the expense of the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

US and Iranian Positions and Responses to Regional Powers\u2019 Efforts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran remains fixated on the memorandum of understanding that collapsed, hoping that any diplomatic efforts might lead to its revival. The United States, however, no longer views that memorandum as serving its interests. Consequently, the success of the meeting in Tehran hinges on the ability of the regional parties involved to persuade both the United States and Iran to soften their rigid, hardline stances and accept compromises that could defuse the crisis and prevent a renewed war. It is clear, however, that Trump is banking on economic siege and military might to compel the Iranian establishment to accept all his conditions. For its part, Iran is relying on its own asymmetric capabilities to force Washington to abandon its blockade and its reliance on the use of force. Thus, any such meeting remains stalled, pending a shift in the perspectives held in both Tehran and Washington.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Israel\u2019s Obstruction of Understandings and Preparation for Preemptive Escalation<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Israel views this meeting as a strategic threat. Any de-escalation between Iran and the Gulf states \u2014 along with Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye \u2014 would grant the Iranian establishment  regional legitimacy, thereby undermining the outcomes of the confrontations with its proxy militias over the past several years. Furthermore, it would reshape the regional landscape in a way that compromises Israel\u2019s aspirations and gains, including its agenda for the region\u2019s reconfiguration. Beyond the fact that this meeting exerts pressure on the United States \u2014 potentially pushing it to return to diplomacy with Iran and abandon its current maximum pressure strategy (which would grant the establishment legitimacy and a lifeline for survival, posing a direct challenge to Israel) \u2014 the meeting also brings the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement nations closer to Iran. This shifts the regional balance of power to Israel\u2019s disadvantage and extinguishes any lingering hope of pressuring the kingdom to join the Abraham Accords. Ultimately, such a development could erode all the gains Israel has sought since October 7, 2023, leaving it isolated both regionally and internationally. Consequently, this may drive Israel to launch an attack on Iran or pressure Washington to reject any mediation efforts aimed at restoring calm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The Contradictory Alliances of Iran and the Members of the Makkah Alliance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The parties stand far apart regarding their alliances, regional positioning and conflicting interests. Bridging this gap \u2014 let alone integrating Iran into the same alliance as the members of the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement \u2014 would be exceptionally difficult. Iran views the US presence in the region as a security and strategic threat to its interests and the survival of its ruling establishment; consequently, it seeks to neutralize this factor, which it perceives as a constraint on its regional influence. Conversely, the members of the Makkah pact maintain vital strategic and defense-related ties with the United States. The US protective umbrella remains both necessary and effective within the region and for these specific nations \u2014 a  reality underscored by their security commitments to Washington, such as T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s membership in NATO or the Saudi-US security partnership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Conflicting Ideological Orientations and Regional Interests<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran\u2019s regional policy is fueled by an ideological drive toward hegemony, utilizing tools rooted in religion and sectarianism. Iran\u2019s interests have intersected \u2014 and often clashed \u2014 with those of other nations in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere. Consequently, Iran\u2019s approach creates a security dilemma within a region where it shares space with other major regional Islamic powers \u2014 namely Saudi Arabia, T\u00fcrkiye and Pakistan \u2014 whose spheres of influence overlap with its own. Given Iran\u2019s expansionist tendencies and its use of armed groups as instruments to exert control and entrench regional influence, the situation could escalate into a direct confrontation between Iran and one of the members of the Makkah pact. Furthermore, given the mutual defense commitments among the members of this alliance, Iran \u2014 rather than cooperating or integrating into a regional security architecture \u2014 finds itself on a collision course with the kingdom. Undoubtedly, the construction of any regional framework that includes Iran would require the latter to abandon its expansionist agenda \u2014 pursued under the guise of ideological slogans \u2014 and to cease interfering in the internal affairs of other regional states. Under the current Iranian power structure, such a shift remains a distant prospect. This presents a fundamental challenge that must be addressed before any meaningful discussion regarding regional cooperation or integration involving Iran can even begin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Potential Scenarios<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ability of the tripartite Makkah alliance to help de-escalate regional tensions will largely depend on the course of the confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran, given that the alliance itself is not a direct party to the ongoing conflict. Against this backdrop, two possible scenarios can be outlined for how the crisis may unfold, depending on the calculations and assessments of the parties involved:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first scenario envisages the parties continuing along the path of de-escalation and negotiations, with all sides making concessions to reach an agreement that brings the war to an end. Under this scenario, the Makkah alliance could play an influential role by serving as a mediator and helping moderate the hardline positions of the warring parties. This would be driven, in part, by Tehran\u2019s recognition of the risks of pushing neighboring regional powers to activate their mutual defense commitments, as well as the possibility that the United States and Israel might abandon any plans to draw these countries into a war against Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second scenario envisages a resumption of hostilities between the warring parties. It encompasses two possible sub-scenarios, depending on the scale and intensity of escalation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first involves a limited escalation, intended to increase pressure on Iran and compel it to make further concessions in response to US and Israeli demands. In this case, Iran would likely respond proportionately, making direct attacks against Saudi Arabia unlikely, given Tehran\u2019s interest in preserving its existing regional relationships, particularly with T\u00fcrkiye and Pakistan. Iran relies heavily on both countries, with which it shares land borders, to mitigate the effects of the US naval blockade. It may also need their support as potential mediators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second sub-scenario involves a full-scale escalation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian establishment. In such circumstances, Tehran might mobilize all available resources to prevent its collapse by maximizing the global economic and strategic costs of the war. Saudi Arabia, along with the Gulf states more broadly, could become primary targets, potentially compelling the members of the Makkah pact together with Egypt, to invoke their mutual defense commitments and triggering a wider regional war. Such an outcome would serve US and Israeli objectives of drawing regional countries into the conflict on their side. However, this scenario would run counter to Iran\u2019s interests. Its likelihood would depend on the scale of the US-Israeli offensive and the extent to which room remains for a negotiated settlement. Activating the alliance would effectively bring Pakistani mediation to an end, widen the conflict and result in the closure of borders with neighboring countries, placing the Iranian establishment in a zero-sum predicament as outlined earlier. Accordingly, Iran\u2019s strategic calculations may favor targeting assets that increase the costs for the United States while preserving its regional relationships. Based on its declared list of potential targets, Tehran has several options available, most notably  telecommunications cables, US assets in the Gulf  and the possibility of tasking the Houthis with attacking Saudi Arabia, as is currently the case. In any event, the deterrent capabilities of the Makkah alliance will face a critical test in the coming weeks if Trump proceeds with his plans for an offensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, the meeting in Tehran between the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement delegation and senior Iranian officials represents a significant diplomatic breakthrough, potentially helping to ease tensions and avert a full-scale regional war. The joint initiative by Saudi Arabia, T\u00fcrkiye and Pakistan signals an operational shift for the Makkah pact, moving beyond its initial stages of formation and coordination toward establishing a new framework for deterrence and stability that requires major global and regional powers to assume their respective responsibilities. Nevertheless, the meeting\u2019s ultimate success depends on Iran\u2019s willingness and readiness to make tangible concessions and, perhaps more importantly, on whether the United States and Israel demonstrate sufficient flexibility in responding to any concessions Tehran may offer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recognizing the risks and costs that continued regional escalation could impose on the future of the entire Middle East, as well as the exceptionally delicate and critical circumstances facing the region, a high-level delegation from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and T\u00fcrkiye, signatories to the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement,  made an unprecedented and historic visit to Tehran […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":14735,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[7153],"class_list":["post-14734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-reports","tag-makkah-alliance-meeting"],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\n