Why Trump paused military action against Iran

All eyes turned to Tehran, awaiting what was widely expected to be a decisive move by U.S. President Donald Trump, who had threatened to deliver a crushing blow to the Iranian regime as it confronted mounting domestic protests with extreme brutality.

Yet the anticipated climax never came. Just as the clock seemed to be ticking toward zero hour, a combination of political and diplomatic factors intervened, prompting the U.S. president to suspend the military option, at least for the time being.

At the forefront of these factors was a joint initiative led by Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The three countries delivered a clear message to the White House: give diplomacy one last chance before resorting to military action against Tehran. They voiced serious concerns about the consequences of any strike not only for Iran’s internal stability, but also for the security of the wider region, particularly the Gulf states and Iran’s immediate neighbors.

Calls for restraint were not limited to the Gulf capitals. Turkey aligned itself with the initiative of the three Gulf states, urging Trump to pause military action. Ankara’s position was driven by its own added anxiety emanating from the Iranian file, notably the Kurdish issue and its potential repercussions.

A second factor, according to media reports, was a phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump. During the conversation, Netanyahu reportedly conveyed Israel’s incomplete readiness of its defensive systems to cope with a potential Iranian response.

The third, and most decisive factor, lay in the assessments submitted by U.S. military commanders to President Trump. These reports clearly indicated that the American military posture in the region was not yet prepared to execute a swift and decisive strike capable of shaking the foundations of the Iranian regime and triggering meaningful change from within.

According to these assessments, any operation of that magnitude would require weeks to deploy aircraft carriers, naval assets, and other combat systems from distant theaters, including Venezuela and the South China Sea, in line with the mission’s scale and complexity. Military estimates warned that a limited strike under such conditions would fail to achieve Trump’s political objectives and could instead drag the United States into a prolonged war of attrition, an outcome the president is keen to avoid.

Trump is not seeking a symbolic blow, nor an open-ended confrontation without a clear horizon. He wants a rapid operation that would deliver a strategic shock inside Iran and translate into a tangible shift in the internal balance of power in favor of real change.

In summary, the military strike was put on hold, while the doors to negotiation were thrown wide open. Washington simultaneously announced four conditions that, if accepted, would fundamentally transform the behavior and regional role of the Iranian regime as it has been known for more than four decades. These include abandoning the nuclear project, scaling back the missile program, handing over part of its enriched uranium stockpile, and ending the activities of its regional proxies. Parallel to the diplomatic track, the United States continues its military buildup in the region, sending a dual message that blends pressure with incentive.

Donald Trump is, above all, a dealmaker. What matters to him are outcomes, not methods. If Iran accepts these terms, Trump will have achieved his most important strategic objective: dismantling the core of the Iranian system as we know it, even if the regime remains formally in power. If, however, Tehran opts for rejection and confrontation, U.S. military preparations will by then be complete, placing Trump in a position of full readiness to move to the military option after having addressed the concerns of Washington’s regional allies and exhausted the diplomatic path to its very end.