Washington’s reported decision to alert Tehran through regional intermediaries about a suspected Israeli plan to kill two senior Iranian negotiators has added a volatile layer to fragile West Asia diplomacy, where ceasefire terms, nuclear restrictions and control of the Strait of Hormuz remain unsettled.
The warning, said to have been passed after US officials grew concerned about possible Israeli targeting of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, underscores the depth of mistrust between nominal partners and adversaries working around the same negotiating track. Both men have been central to contacts aimed at turning an interim truce into a broader settlement after months of conflict involving Iran, the United States, Israel and allied forces across the region.
Israel has sharply rejected the allegation, calling it false and a fabrication. The denial has not prevented the claim from rippling through diplomatic circles, partly because it comes against a backdrop of targeted killings, air strikes, maritime disruptions and competing pressure campaigns that have repeatedly threatened to derail talks.
US officials were reported to have become especially alarmed in the spring, after intelligence assessments suggested that Israel viewed senior Iranian political figures as potential targets even as Washington sought to keep a negotiating channel open. The concern was that any assassination attempt against figures directly involved in discussions would make a settlement politically impossible in Tehran and could trigger retaliation across the Gulf, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and the Red Sea.
Araghchi, a veteran diplomat and central figure in Iran’s nuclear diplomacy, has been among Tehran’s main public voices in dealing with the United States and European powers. Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guards commander and long-serving political heavyweight, has carried influence across Iran’s parliament, security establishment and conservative factions. Their survival as negotiators has been viewed by mediators as important to keeping Iran’s fragmented political system aligned behind any eventual agreement.
The reported warning also sheds light on the uneasy relationship between Washington and Israel during the talks. While the United States has maintained its commitment to Israel’s security, it has also sought to avoid actions that could widen the war, close the Strait of Hormuz for longer periods or push global energy prices higher. Israel, for its part, has argued that Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure must be neutralised and that diplomatic pauses should not allow Tehran to rebuild strategic capacity.
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the main pressure points. Around a fifth of global oil consumption moves through the waterway, making even partial disruption a threat to shipping, insurance, energy markets and inflation. The interim framework under discussion has included arrangements to keep maritime traffic moving, establish communications among military and port authorities, and prevent miscalculation between Iranian forces, US assets and Gulf states.
Diplomacy has moved through several channels, including Qatar, Oman and Switzerland, with Gulf governments attempting to reduce the risk of direct confrontation on their doorstep. Those governments have an immediate interest in keeping the strait open and avoiding attacks on energy infrastructure, but they also remain wary of any agreement that leaves Iran’s missile programme, proxy networks or nuclear activities inadequately addressed.
The allegation has also emerged at a sensitive moment inside Iran. The country is navigating leadership pressures, wartime losses and domestic strain caused by sanctions, mobilisation and economic disruption. Any perception that negotiators were being hunted while talks continued would strengthen hardline arguments that diplomacy leaves Iran vulnerable. It could also weaken officials pressing for a negotiated exit from the crisis.
Washington’s reported use of intermediaries to warn Tehran reflects the limits of direct contact. Formal relations remain absent, and public meetings are politically costly for both sides. Backchannels have therefore become essential to crisis management, allowing warnings, ceasefire proposals and technical arrangements to move even when leaders exchange threats in public.
The Israeli denial leaves the central claim contested. What is clear, however, is that assassination fears have become part of the negotiating environment. That alone complicates the task of reaching a durable agreement, because any final settlement will require not only written commitments but also confidence that key participants can travel, meet and bargain without becoming military targets.
