Regional US allies behind Trump’s Iran strike postponement

As nationwide protests in Iran intensify and the government’s crackdown draws international condemnation, the possibility of United States (US) military action has unsettled an already fragile Middle East. After escalatory rhetoric and threats issued by Washington, it has been apparent that an imminent US strike against Iran has been postponed; although not off the table entirely.

In recent days, several key American allies in the region have mounted a quiet but urgent diplomatic effort to dissuade President Donald Trump from ordering strikes against Tehran, warning that such a move could unleash far-reaching economic and security repercussions.

Regional allies push for restraint

According to an Arab diplomat familiar with the discussions, senior officials from Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), United Arab Emirates (UAE) Qatar and Oman have directly conveyed their concerns to Washington. Their message has been consistent: a US strike on Iran, even if limited, risks destabilizing the region and shaking global markets at a moment of acute uncertainty. These warnings came amid heightened rhetoric from Trump, who has repeatedly condemned Iran’s violent repression of protesters and openly threatened military action.

The anxiety is not limited to capitals in the Gulf. Regional leaders fear that an attack could trigger retaliatory strikes against US bases or energy infrastructure, disrupting oil supplies and undermining their carefully cultivated image as safe destinations for investment and tourism. Memories of past escalations, such as attacks on Saudi oil facilities and strikes near US installations (notable the al-Udeid air base in Qatar), remain fresh.

Additionally, Israel was also reportedly among various regional actors which requested a postponement of US military action. Although Tel Aviv was yearning for such a strike and the collapse of the Iranian regime for decades, the security risks of a potential operation could cause material losses and civilian casualties (similar to what was witnessed during the brief 12-Day War in 2025).

Mixed signals from Washington

While allies press for caution, the Trump administration has continued to project strategic ambiguity. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has insisted that “all options remain on the table,” emphasizing that only the president and a small circle of advisers know his ultimate intentions. Ambassador Mike Waltz echoed that stance at the United Nations (UN), portraying military force as a viable means to halt what he described as the “slaughter” of protesters.

At the same time, Trump has sent conflicting signals. After initially urging Iranians to seize control of their institutions and suggesting that outside “help is on the way,” he later highlighted reports that executions had been paused and violence was subsiding. His public reaction (welcoming any sign of restraint from Tehran) was interpreted by markets as a potential step back from confrontation, contributing to a dip in oil prices.

Behind the diplomatic push

Gulf states have also engaged Tehran directly, urging Iranian officials to curb the repression and warning that any retaliation against regional targets would carry severe consequences. Analysts note that these efforts reflect not sympathy for Iran’s leadership, but deep concern about unintended outcomes. A sudden collapse of the Islamic Republic or a full-scale conflict could create a power vacuum in a country of more than 90 million people and ambiguous nuclear and ballistic capabilities, with echoes of the chaos that followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Each Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member approaches Iran from a different vantage point, yet all share an interest in stability. Qatar and Oman have long positioned themselves as mediators, while the UAE and Kuwait maintain significant economic ties with Iran. Even Saudi Arabia, despite decades of rivalry, has shifted toward pragmatic engagement to prevent escalation; an approach aligned with Riyadh’s ambitious domestic reform agenda (Saudi Vision 2030), which depends on regional calm and stability.

Practical considerations may also be shaping Washington’s posture. The absence of a US aircraft carrier in the region has fueled speculation that the administration lacks the immediate force posture for a major operation, potentially buying time for diplomacy. Meanwhile, the US has announced new sanctions targeting senior Iranian security officials and financial networks, including the Secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security (SCNS) Ali Larijani, signaling continued pressure without crossing the threshold into open conflict.

For now, Middle Eastern allies are betting that diplomacy can temper Washington’s instincts and avert a crisis that few believe would be contained. While Trump’s deliberate unpredictability keeps all options in play, regional warnings underscore a shared fear: that military action against Iran could ignite a wider fire in a region already stretched to its limits. Whether restraint prevails will shape not only the future of Iran’s unrest, but the stability of the Middle East as a whole.