Russian Newspaper Reveals: Why Trump Backed Down from Striking Iran?

SadaNews - In a report published by the Russian newspaper "Pravda", strategic expert Yuri Butcharov highlighted the reasons for the absence of confrontation between the United States and Iran despite the military buildup in the region and the escalating tensions between the two parties.

The author states that the world has been in a charged state of anticipation for weeks amidst the potential outbreak of a major war between the United States and Iran, but the escalation has so far only extended to verbal confrontations and displays of military strength.

The author believes that understanding why this momentum has not transformed into actual confrontation requires examining three key elements: the nature of the U.S. military buildup, America's demands from Iran, and the geopolitical factors that have allowed the conflict to transcend the boundaries of the Middle East.

The Nature of Military Deployment

The author points out that the Trump administration launched a wide-ranging military deployment in the Middle East last January.

Additional Patriot missile batteries, missile defense systems, and early warning systems were deployed to secure U.S. bases and allied bases in the region.

According to the author, the nature of this deployment shows that the United States primarily seeks to strengthen its defenses and prepare for any potential reaction, rather than to carry out a first strike.

Excessive Demands

The author also points out that under this military buildup, the Trump administration presented the Iranian regime with four excessive demands: to cease the execution of fire and executions, not to suppress demonstrators, to abandon the nuclear program, and to stop developing long-range missiles.

The author believes that the military buildup created the right conditions for presenting these American demands, followed by opening the door for negotiations aimed at obtaining concessions from the Iranian regime.

However, experts indicate that abandoning the nuclear program and halting the development of long-range missiles touches on the foundations of Iranian strategic sovereignty, and implementing them would practically mean the regime's surrender.

Regional Rejection of War

The author continues, stating that Washington faces another challenge represented by the refusal of regional countries to participate in the war. It has become clear through diplomatic channels that Gulf countries are unwilling to open their airspace for any strikes targeting Iran, coupled with questions about the readiness of military infrastructure and bases.

The author clarifies that the Gulf states view participation in a war against Iran as an existential threat, due to Iranian warnings about targeting any party involved in aggression, meaning that oil infrastructure, ports, and other facilities would be in the line of fire.

Amid concerns from Gulf countries about the impact of any conflict - however limited - on their security and economies, the United States finds itself, according to the author, in a politically and logistically perilous situation, even if it is practically capable of waging war.

The Position of China and Russia

The author notes that some sources have circulated information about Chinese military transport planes arriving in Iran and shipments of equipment and weapons.

The author asserts that in the absence of any official confirmation or denial of this information, the mere circulation of it widely is an indicator of potential secret support or disinformation aimed at showing that Iran is no longer isolated, with the same result in either case being an escalation of tensions.

It is certain that there are joint maneuvers between Russia, China, and Iran in the northern Indian Ocean, which, in the author's opinion, send a message to the United States, Gulf Arab countries, regional actors, financial markets, and energy markets, that any strike against Iran would not only affect regional stability but also global balance.

The author explains that Iran represents a pivotal geopolitical anchor for both Russia and China, and its loss would mean enormous economic and strategic losses.

For Moscow, the northern-southern corridor is an outlet to the Gulf and India and Asia, providing an alternative to the Baltic Sea and Black Sea corridors controlled by NATO.

For China, Iran is a key link in the Belt and Road Initiative, and destabilizing it means severing the land route to Europe and enhancing U.S. dominance at sea.

Thus, Trump Backed Down

Therefore, the author believes that directing a strike on Iran is no longer just a regionally limited consequence step, but has become an operation that directly threatens the balance of power on a global scale, through its implications for Russia's and China's interests.

The author emphasizes that under these circumstances and the Gulf states' refusal to participate in the war, Washington no longer has room for maneuver or resorting to the use of force unilaterally, but must find a way to avoid it without triggering an uncontrollable global crisis.

The author concludes that Israel has fully realized this matter, as although it has placed its army, air defense systems, airports, civil defense services, and medical infrastructure on high alert in preparation for any emergency, the political agenda in recent days has no longer focused on war with Iran, but rather on domestic politics and the second phase of the peace agreement in Gaza.