Suspended at the last minute. Such was the fate of the large-scale military strike that Donald Trump had planned to launch against Iran on Tuesday. On Monday, the American president reversed his decision, at the request of the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who, according to him, believe that an agreement is possible.
In the aftermath, he told journalists that an agreement with the Islamic Republic remained “very likely.” He also stated that he would prefer to achieve such a result without resorting to attacks, expressing satisfaction with what he described as “encouraging signals” in the discussions with Tehran, without specifying the content.
In a message posted separately on his Truth Social platform, he still maintained pressure by reminding that the US remained ready to launch “a total and large-scale attack on Iran at any time,” in case negotiations failed.
This shows that we are once again faced with Mr. Trump’s usual political mechanics, now well identified, almost ritualized, where maximum pressure always comes with a slight opening towards negotiation.
The Gulf, real mediator or political pretext? Given the latest developments, the role of the Gulf countries raises questions. Seen as actors who influenced the American decision, they appear as diplomatic channels capable of influencing the course of the war. A view that deserves to be nuanced, as specified by General Dominique Trinquand, former head of the French military mission at the UN and specialist in international relations.
Interviewed by Ici Beyrouth, he estimates that the suspension of the strike does not result from a decisive pressure exerted by the Gulf monarchies, but rather from an American political positioning. “The request from the Gulf countries is a pretext,” he explains, emphasizing that Donald Trump would be, above all, “in a deadlock” and seeking to find a way out by all means.
According to the expert, the American president knows that strikes would not lead to an agreement with Iran. “He is therefore trying to keep negotiation space open,” he notes. In this logic, the reference to the Gulf countries would mainly fulfill an internal political function, that of showing that he takes external opinions into account while actually trying to avoid resorting to attacks.
General Trinquand goes further by relativizing the real weight of these states in American decision-making. “We cannot talk about a real structuring diplomatic weight at this level.” According to him, the Gulf monarchies share an objective interest in avoiding escalation, but their ability to influence an American military decision remains limited.
He also recalls that, in previous episodes of regional tensions, these same countries had already expressed reservations without necessarily being followed by Washington, thus illustrating the limits of their real influence on American strategic choices.
A strategy of pressure with no clear outcome? In the absence of tangible progress on the Iranian nuclear issue, American statements about progress, according to General Trinquand, are not based on any verifiable elements. Especially since Tehran shows no significant concessions, reinforcing the impression of a blocked dialogue despite public statements.
In this context, the current dynamic could lead not to a structuring agreement but to a form of unstable status quo. “It would probably end in a bad agreement,” believes our interlocutor, mentioning a scenario in which Iran would retain its negotiation capabilities and its strategic levers, especially around the Strait of Hormuz, without a real resolution of the nuclear issue.
In any case, whether it is a cancellation, a postponement, or a simple strategic reassessment, each signal sent in the Iranian dossier raises a fundamental question. Is Trump trying to avoid war, or better prepare for it if negotiations fail?
