The U.S. plan envisions an international force in Gaza to help maintain a fragile truce that began this month, ending two years of conflict between Israel and Hamas. It remains uncertain whether Arab or other states will commit troops to the multinational force.

“Countries that want or are ready to send armed forces should be at least fair to Israel,”

Saar said at a news conference in Budapest.

Relations between Israel and Turkey have worsened sharply during the Gaza conflict, with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan criticising Israel’s military campaign in the small Palestinian enclave.

“Turkey, led by Erdogan, led a hostile approach against Israel,”

Saar said, speaking alongside his Hungarian counterpart Peter Szijjarto.

“So it is not reasonable for us to let their armed forces enter the Gaza Strip and we will not agree to that and we said it to our American friends,” he added.

While the U.S. has ruled out sending its own soldiers into Gaza, it has been discussing contributions to the multinational force with countries including Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and Azerbaijan.

Last week, Netanyahu indicated he would strongly oppose any role for Turkish security forces in Gaza. On Sunday, he said Israel would decide which foreign forces to allow in the territory.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, visiting Israel to support the truce, said on Friday the international force would have to be made up of “countries that Israel’s comfortable with.” He made no comment on Turkish involvement.

The statement came from Ali Akbar Velayati, senior foreign policy adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during remarks on Saturday. Velayati emphasized Tehran’s strategic interest in the South Caucasus and its alignment with Armenia and Russia, stating that the proposed corridor threatens regional balance.

“We will not allow any geopolitical changes in the region that damage our interests or isolate our allies,” Velayati said, adding that Iran is prepared to act “with or without Russia’s involvement.”

The corridor, which aims to link Azerbaijan’s mainland to its exclave of Nakhchivan through Armenian territory, is part of a broader U.S.-brokered effort to normalize relations between Baku and Yerevan following years of conflict. The initiative has been welcomed by several regional actors, including Georgia and Turkey, as a potential step toward lasting peace and improved connectivity in the South Caucasus.

However, Iran has long expressed concern that such a route could weaken its influence and disrupt long-standing regional dynamics. Tehran views Armenia as a buffer against NATO-aligned Turkey and Azerbaijan, and it has traditionally opposed any arrangement that bypasses Iranian territory in regional trade and transport.

The decades-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region reignited in recent years. A Russian-brokered ceasefire in 2020 failed to resolve key territorial disputes, but U.S.-led diplomacy has recently gained momentum. Still, Iran’s growing resistance adds a new layer of complexity to the fragile peace process.

Conclusion:

With Iran openly opposing the corridor plan and reaffirming its alliance with Armenia and Russia, the U.S.-brokered agreement faces a major geopolitical test one that could either accelerate regional integration or revive old rivalries in a volatile crossroads of Eurasia.