President Donald Trump announced on January 16 that he had persuaded himself to delay military action against Iran, rejecting suggestions from reporters that persuasion by Gulf leaders was decisive. Asked at the White House whether appeals from the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman had influenced him, Mr. Trump replied that no one had convinced him — “I convinced myself.”
The decision to hold off followed internal counsel warning of the limits and risks of a large-scale strike. Advisers told Mr. Trump that a major military operation was unlikely to topple the Iranian regime and carried a significant risk of escalating into a broader conflict, counsel that apparently reinforced the president’s resolve to wait and reassess.
U.S. and Israeli sources say that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu phoned Mr. Trump on January 14 to urge a delay, framing such a pause as useful to give Israel additional time to prepare for possible Iranian retaliation. That call underscores the overlapping but not identical risk calculations in Washington and Jerusalem: Israel has direct operational concerns, while U.S. planners are weighing regional escalation and political consequences.
The pause reflects a familiar strategic conundrum for Washington: limited military force can have unpredictable political effects when directed at a sovereign state with regional proxies and asymmetric capabilities. Senior aides’ assessment that strikes would not produce regime change but could broaden the war highlights why restraint is sometimes chosen as the least damaging option.
Gulf capitals have played a discreet diplomatic role, pressing for de-escalation rather than immediate retaliation. Their appeals are shaped by an interest in avoiding a wider regional conflagration that would threaten energy supplies, economies and fragile political balances across the Arabian Peninsula.
For Tehran, the episode is both a rebuke and a reprieve. The United States has signaled credible willingness to use force, yet the delay gives Iran operational room to calculate next steps and preserve retaliatory options while gauging diplomatic openings.
The immediate implications are cautionary: Washington’s restraint reduces the chance of immediate large-scale violence but leaves unresolved the underlying drivers of confrontation. The coming days will show whether diplomacy, covert pressure or lower-intensity measures become the instruments of U.S. policy, or whether a fresh trigger pushes both sides toward a more dangerous spiral.