Washington Post: Hungary’s Szijjártó offered intelligence cooperation to Iran after pager attacks

Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó offered intelligence cooperation to Iran after the mass pager explosions linked to Hezbollah in September 2024, according to the Washington Post, which says it reviewed a leaked phone transcript authenticated by Western intelligence. The report has triggered renewed scrutiny of Budapest’s balancing act between close ties with Israel, working channels with Russia, and pragmatic contacts across the Middle East — at a moment when Hungary is also cultivating political goodwill in Washington.

Szijjártó, for his part, has framed the outreach as a security necessity. In a Facebook statement cited in the same Hungarian-language summary you provided, he said he spoke to his Iranian counterpart in 2024 to counter what he called false claims that Hungary had any role in the attacks, and argued the fast diplomatic and intelligence contacts helped prevent Hungary from becoming a target of terrorism.

What the Washington Post says the leaked transcript shows

According to the Washington Post’s account, Szijjártó told Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, that Hungarian intelligence services had contacted Iranian counterparts and would share all relevant information gathered during the investigation.

The Post presents this as an unusual form of cooperation given Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah and its broader geopolitical posture. It also reports that the transcript was authenticated by Western intelligence, though the article’s full details and context are not public in the text provided here.

Why Hungary entered the story in the first place

The Washington Post links Hungary to the controversy because the devices reportedly bore a Taiwanese brand, and a Hungarian company may have been involved via a licensing arrangement. In the reported phone call, Szijjártó insisted that Hungary was not involved in any way and that the devices were not manufactured in Hungary.

That denial is central to Budapest’s line: Hungary positions itself as a bystander caught up in a fast-moving international incident — while simultaneously attempting to contain any security or diplomatic fallout.

Hungary’s declared pro-Israel stance and the Iran contradiction

For international readers, the political sensitivity is straightforward. Hungary has, in recent years, cultivated a reputation as one of Israel’s most consistent supporters in Europe, often aligning itself rhetorically and diplomatically with Israeli positions.

Against that backdrop, an offer to share intelligence with Iran — a state widely seen as hostile to Israel and a key backer of Hezbollah — is bound to raise questions about where Hungary draws the line between crisis management and strategic alignment.

The Washington Post frames the episode as “awkward” or politically uncomfortable precisely because it appears to run counter to Hungary’s stated pro-Israel orientation.

If you missed it - Iran war’s devastating consequences for Hungary: soaring energy costs, inflation risks and recession fears

Why this could matter for US–Israel dynamics and Hungary’s US ties

The United States and Israel have long been close allies in security and foreign policy terms. Hungary, meanwhile, has been eager to position itself as a reliable partner to Washington — particularly to US conservatives — and to strengthen its role as a US-aligned actor inside the EU.

That is why the key issue is not simply whether Hungary spoke to Iran, but whether any such engagement was coordinated with allies.

If allies were not informed, trust can take a hit

Even where countries maintain limited channels with adversarial states, alliance politics usually runs on predictability and consultation. If an intelligence-sharing offer to Iran was made without prior alignment with key partners — above all the United States and Israel — it could be interpreted as a breach of political trust.

This does not automatically mean an open rupture. But it can create the kind of friction that complicates cooperation: allies may become more cautious in sharing sensitive information, and political relationships can cool if partners feel blindsided.

The counter-argument: crisis management and deterrence

Szijjártó’s defence points in the opposite direction: that the purpose was to prevent retaliatory threats against Hungary and to stop misinformation from escalating into a security risk. Under that framing, the outreach is cast as defensive — intended to signal non-involvement and reduce the chance that Hungary becomes a target.

As we wrote earlier, Hungary troops withdraw from Iraq as tensions in the region escalate even more