Trump's Iran pause and the new Middle East reality

Last week, amid widespread protests in Iran, US President Donald Trump openly urged Iranian protesters to continue their campaign and take over government institutions. He then added a loaded line: "Help is on the way." The message instantly triggered speculation of a US military strike on Iran. But that "help" never arrived.

As days passed, US media reported that President Trump had put any plan to attack Iran on hold. Subsequent reporting suggested that Trump reconsidered after a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who advised against launching military strikes. This was surprising. Israel has long been seen as eager to seize any opportunity to corner Iran, militarily or politically. The advice, however, was driven by two hard realities. First, Israeli intelligence assessments concluded that while the Iranian regime appeared under pressure, it was not weak enough to be overthrown through external military action and internal unrest. Protests alone, even if widespread, were unlikely to collapse the system. A failed attempt would only consolidate the regime's grip and validate its narrative of foreign conspiracy.

Second, Israel was acutely aware that any US attack on Iran would inevitably trigger Iranian retaliation against Israel itself. During the 12-day Iran-Israel confrontation in June, Tehran fired hundreds of missiles and drones. Despite Israel's much-vaunted three-layered air defence system, some projectiles managed to penetrate and cause damage. Therefore, Iran retains credible retaliatory capabilities and is willing to use them.

Another critical factor behind Trump's decision was regional opposition. Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman, urged Washington not to pursue military action against Iran. Tehran also made clear that any US attack would compel Iran to strike American military bases across the region.

This marks a significant shift. A few years ago, several Gulf states might have quietly welcomed or even encouraged US action to dislodge the Iranian regime, which they viewed as the primary destabilising force in the Middle East. Today, that has changed.

The Saudi-Iran rapprochement, brokered with Chinese facilitation, has reduced immediate tensions between Tehran and Riyadh. At the same time, Israel's increasingly aggressive posture has alarmed many Arab capitals. Over the past few years, Israel has carried out strikes in multiple countries across the region with near impunity, often expanding its operations without meaningful international pushback.

Former adversaries of Iran now fear a different scenario: that the removal of the current Iranian regime could allow Israel to reshape the regional order entirely on its own terms. There is growing concern that a weakened or fragmented Iran, or one led by a pliant leadership installed after regime change, would remove a key strategic counterweight. Then, other Arab countries could find themselves far more vulnerable to Israeli pressure and military dominance. This explains why several regional states, despite deep differences with Tehran, now see the existing Iranian setup as a form of deterrence against unchecked Israeli power. It reflects hard-nosed regional realism.

For President Trump, the decision to pause appears rooted in cost-benefit analysis. A strike on Iran carries enormous risks: regional escalation, attacks on US forces, economic disruption and no guarantee of regime change. For now, risks outweigh potential gains.

However, this should not be mistaken for a strategic shift. Both the US and Israel remain committed, overtly or covertly, to weakening Tehran's influence and, ultimately, to changing the nature of the Iranian state. Economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, cyber operations and covert actions are likely to continue. For the moment, though, regime change in Iran appears to be a bridge too far. The regional environment, the resilience of the Iranian system and the high likelihood of blowback have combined to make military intervention a dangerously risky affair, even for a president known for unpredictability.