Gulf Warnings Push Trump Towards a Temporary 'De-escalation' of Confrontation with Iran

SadaNews - Sources and analysts specializing in Middle Eastern affairs stated that the sudden halt announced by U.S. President Donald Trump in the confrontation with Iran came after warnings from Gulf countries that the war was heading towards a more dangerous phase.

The sources clarified that these warnings came amid growing regional concerns over the possibility of Washington misjudging Tehran's readiness to escalate, which prompted some parties to raise alarms about the widening scope of the confrontation.

Three sources from the region, who requested anonymity, added that Gulf countries warned directly that U.S. strikes on Iranian power stations could provoke a response targeting vital installations in the region, particularly energy and water desalination facilities, which could significantly impact regional stability.

Trump had threatened to bomb Iranian electrical facilities unless Tehran reopened the Strait of Hormuz, which carries one-fifth of global energy supplies from Gulf oil and gas producers. However, Iran refused to capitulate, the strait remained closed, oil prices rose, and global stocks fell, revealing the limits of Trump's influence.

Two other sources from the area mentioned that Iran sent a warning to Gulf capitals through an Arab mediator, stating that any U.S. bombing of its power stations would lead to an unlimited response.

Former U.S. diplomat and Iranian affairs expert, Alan Eyre, noted, "Trump completely miscalculated when he said: 'You have 48 hours to open the strait.'"

He added, "However, he had to retreat once it became clear that Iran was serious about targeting energy infrastructure in the Gulf in response."

White House: Trump is in Close Contact with His Partners in the Middle East

Alex Vatanka from the Middle East Institute stated that Tehran surprised Trump with its ability to continue fighting and its readiness to escalate without constraints. He added, "They showed no hesitation, limitations, or reservations."

No comments have yet been received in response to requests for comments on this article from the Iranian government, the Gulf Arab states, and the U.S. State Department.

In response to a request for comment, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that President Trump believes the United States is close to completing its specific objectives for the "Epic of Rage" operation.

She added, "The president is in close contact with our partners in the Middle East, and the terrorist Iranian regime's attacks on its neighbors prove how necessary it is for President Trump to eliminate this threat facing our country and our allies."

Analysts and sources indicate that Trump's halt in strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure seems to acknowledge that the war he threatened to escalate was already beyond his control, and its costs now outweigh any political gains from demonstrating U.S. power.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, efforts continued to mitigate the crisis's repercussions through intermediaries, including Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, along with Gulf partners who felt concerned about being dragged into a war they did not choose and do not control.

Emirates Policy Center head, Ibtsam Al-Khatibi, stated that Trump's halt indicates two possible paths; one is tactical, aimed at buying time to complete deployments, test Iran's response, and issue a final warning before launching a larger strike.

She added that the other is strategic, using de-escalation to pave the way for a broader agreement that includes resetting the rules of engagement in the Gulf.

In either case, the end to this war has not been written; rather, it has been repurposed as a means of pressure.

Gulf States 'Faced Huge Risks Without Their Consent'

From the outset, Iran escalated the situation by attacking infrastructure and maritime navigation in the Gulf, raising the specter of a long-term shock to oil, gas, liquefied natural gas, and trade via the Strait of Hormuz.

Vatanka from the Middle East Institute stated that Gulf countries are the ones paying the highest price. He added, "If I were a Gulf leader, I would be very angry."

He continued, "They have been subjected to enormous risks without their consent, and it may take many years to repair the damage incurred over just four weeks."

Analysts indicated that Trump misjudged both Iran's resilience and the scale of the repercussions for the region and the world.

Analysts and officials noted that he expected Tehran to be extremely weak or divided or fearful of responding strongly, yet instead he faced an asymmetric escalation that imposed heavy costs on U.S. partners and the global economy.

The result was a familiar shift from Trump: a tough rhetoric coupled with a postponement of his declared course of action. Analysts stated that maintaining his options means pulling back from an escalation that could turn a show of force into a quagmire that determines the fate of his presidency.

Analysts say a deeper problem is that the war has shattered the status quo that Trump seems to believe he can reshape.

Iran, which has suffered severe blows but not broken, has learned a harsh lesson that deterrence works. Analysts indicate that a mix of confidence and fear shapes Tehran's calculations now: either derive something lasting from this war, or risk being dragged back into it again.

For Trump, any agreement will be narrower, more costly, and harder to market than he might prefer.

Eyre stated, "Iran feels emboldened on one hand and fearful on the other."

He added, "They have suffered significant damage and destruction and loss of life, and they do not want to go through this experience again. But they cannot go back to the old status quo," as Israel will simply attack them again.

Iran Seeks a Broader Settlement and a New Order in the Region

High-ranking sources in Tehran indicated that Iran's negotiating position has hardened significantly since the war began, suggesting that any serious talks may come at a high cost for Trump.

The sources added that Iran will seek binding guarantees to prevent any military action in the future, compensation for war losses, and formal control over the Strait of Hormuz.

However, any Iranian attempt to control the strait will raise concerns among Gulf states that share the waterway and fear that Iran will seek new hegemony that harms their interests in the region.

Abdulaziz Al-Saqr, head of the Gulf Research Center based in Saudi Arabia, told Reuters that the strait "remains a vital strategic and economic route, and its stability is non-negotiable."

Vali Nasr, the U.S.-Iranian academic and foreign policy expert, stated that Iran is no longer seeking to revert to the pre-war status quo, but rather a broader settlement that includes security guarantees, economic aid, and a different balance of power in the Gulf.

Specialized sources on the region suggest that U.S. officials appear to be prepared to engage indirectly with Iran through intermediaries, implying the possibility of a back-channel for negotiations even as both sides publicly maintain a hardline stance.

Analysts indicate that Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guards leader with the standing to negotiate while maintaining credibility with the hardline conservative current, plays a pivotal role in any potential agreement.

Despite Tehran's signals indicating openness to talks, its position remains cautious as it shows deterrence while still suffering from the effects of the damage it has incurred. U.S.-Iranian historian Arash Azizi stated that this reflects a strategy to show strength without causing further destruction.

He adds that any solution will likely require acceptance from the parties in the region and perhaps support from global powers like Russia or China.