AMNA NAWAZ: Today, there is a new partnership in the Middle East and South Asia.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed an agreement similar to NATO's Article 5, pledging that a strike against one of them would be considered a strike against all of them.

But what there is not today is an announcement of a deal between the U.S.

and Iran, despite reports from the administration all week that it was close.

Nick Schifrin is here now to explain why.

So, Nick, let's start with that deal between the U.S.

and Iran.

How close was it this week?

NICK SCHIFRIN: It was very close, according to four regional officials and one senior U.S.

official, who told me that, in the middle of the week, Iran and Oman had a deal over the Strait of Hormuz, that ships entering the strait would use a lane closer to Iran.

Ships leaving the strait would use a lane closer to Oman.

There would be no tolls.

The strait would be demined, and it would restart the 60-day clock, bringing the U.S.

and Iran back to cease-fire and larger negotiations.

This was a temporary deal supported by the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, all the countries that you see along the Gulf there, even though it meant that Iran could hypothetically block their imports.

And senior Gulf officials told me they had no choice because they feared, if the U.S.

escalated against Iran, their fear was that Iran would escalate against them, targeting cultural, even political targets.

And in a call between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Trump, a senior regional official tells me that the crown prince painted a -- quote -- "nightmare scenario" about the risk of escalation to the region and to global energy.

That helped move the president to want this deal by midweek.

And, again, they thought -- U.S.

officials did think that they had one and it would restart those negotiations with Iran over the nuclear program, over the frozen assets, and a permanent solution to the strait.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, officials thought they had a deal over the strait.

What ended up happening?

NICK SCHIFRIN: So, there's a debate where it comes down to this.

But a senior U.S.

official and three of the Arab officials tell me that they believe Iran changed its demands, that Iranian negotiators agreed to this temporary deal, but then members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps came up, came in over the top, demanding clear promises that the U.S.

lift the blockade, also lift sanctions, let Iran sell oil again in dollars and also add tolls to the agreement.

Take a listen to Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies: We have seen this movie from the Islamic Republic before, where you think a deal is close or imminent or at hand, and, last minute, the parameters change and the government asked for more.

That's fundamentally in the nature of the Islamic Republic.

But, ultimately, there was one real reason here why there is no deal at hand yet.

And that's because the regime, more so than ever before, believes that escalation, rather than engagement, will guarantee its survival, and its diplomatic strategy in the short and medium term is to try to find a way to punish the Trump administration, rather than come to a modus vivendi with it.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But Iran says the blame is on the United States for what it called -- quote -- "theater diplomacy on loop."

Chief negotiator Mohammad Ghalibaf wrote this week: "Acknowledge the facts, fulfill your commitments.

We don't need more theater."

The facts being a reference to Iran's demand that the U.S.

lift new sanctions that the U.S.

recently imposed on Iran.

Take a listen to Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group.

He says the U.S.

is incorrect if it assesses that somehow Iranian divisions or mixed messages are preventing this deal.

ALI VAEZ, Iran Project Director, International Crisis Group: The belief that there are divisions between the more moderate, pragmatic forces of Iranian politics and the IRGC is what's the creating serious divisions within Iran is just misguided.

The Revolutionary Guards is in charge and is calling the shots.

If it was up to Iran and Oman, a deal would have been achieved a few weeks ago, but because behind Oman there's the United States and other Arab Gulf states, and they were pulling the strings.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Taleblu and Vaez do not agree necessarily on what's going on, but they do agree on one thing, Amna, that Iran is playing for time and does believe that time is on its side.

AMNA NAWAZ: So tensions with Iran continue, tensions in the strait continue, but you have been reporting on this new deal between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Tell us about that.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes, so they signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement.

We saw today Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Pakistani President Shehbaz Sharif there, three Sunni Muslim leaders who, especially when it comes to MBS and Erdogan, have competed more than collaborated in the past.

They pledged to treat an attack on one as an attack on all of them.

That is a specific reference to NATO, of course.

The bottom line, Amna, this is an example of countries in the region seeking new security arrangements outside of the United States.

None of these countries are weakening their U.S.

ties, but there are some officials in the region with doubts about U.S.

leadership that are accelerated by the Iran war, knowing that Iran's regime will survive, knowing that Iran's regime will emerge from this more emboldened, and, as we were talking about at the top, more leverage over the strait.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, Nick Schifrin, thank you very much.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you.