Iran deal cancels US strikes as region eases tension
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
US President Donald Trump has cancelled planned strikes on Iran after saying Tehran and other Middle Eastern states asked him to "hold off" while the "perimeters" of a deal were agreed rapidly. The announcement, made in a Truth Social post, followed reports that the US and Israel had been preparing an intense bombing campaign against Iranian energy infrastructure, discussed at a Friday cabinet meeting at Camp David where Trump was overheard telling reporters "we'll be hitting them very hard." Iran, however, publicly disputed Trump's account, with the Mehr news agency calling his claim "a new lie" and the acting defence minister insisting Tehran would not be caught off guard.
The de-escalation came after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called Trump urging dialogue, reflecting Gulf states' fears that their infrastructure, rather than the US mainland, would bear the brunt of any Iranian retaliation. Trump framed the climbdown as being "for the future benefit of the world" while still warning Washington remained "locked and loaded" at levels of force "not seen since World War II" should talks fail. The episode echoes his April threat that "a whole civilisation will die tonight," which led to inconclusive US-Iran talks in Pakistan; the current ceasefire arrangement, following a collapse of an earlier truce in June, remains unconfirmed by Tehran and continues a pattern of escalating strikes and counter-strikes between the two sides.
- Trump cancels planned Iran strikes, contingent on a rapid deal
- Move follows Saudi Crown Prince's call urging de-escalation
- Iran disputes Trump's version, says threats are "a new lie"
New here? Start with this
Iran's nuclear programme has been a source of tension with the United States and Israel for years, with both countries objecting to Tehran's ability to enrich uranium and warning it could be used to build a weapon, something Iran denies wanting. Israel and Iran have exchanged direct military strikes in recent times, and the United States, as Israel's closest ally, has periodically weighed joining in with its own attacks on Iranian targets.
The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping channel between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, is one of the world's busiest oil transport routes, and Iran has previously threatened to close it in response to pressure from the West. Any move to shut the strait would disrupt global energy supplies, which is why it features heavily in demands made of Tehran.
President Trump has taken a personal role in these negotiations, alternating between threats of military action and offers to negotiate a new deal with Iran. The involvement of Israel alongside the US, and warnings from Iran to other Middle Eastern states, reflect how a conflict could draw in the wider region, which is why any shift towards de-escalation or renewed confrontation is being closely watched.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the president's approach argue that pairing the threat of overwhelming force with an offer to stand down shows disciplined statecraft: it demonstrates resolve and capability while leaving Iran a face-saving route to negotiate, potentially averting a wider war and its human and economic costs. They contend that unpredictability – keeping adversaries uncertain whether force will actually be used – can be a legitimate and effective negotiating tool, and that halting planned strikes the moment diplomacy shows promise reflects prudence rather than weakness, prioritising a deal over destruction if one can genuinely be reached quickly.
The case against
Critics argue that publicly announcing strikes and then cancelling them subject to a rapid deal risks eroding US credibility, since adversaries and allies alike may come to see military threats as bluffs contingent on the news cycle rather than firm commitments. They also warn that conducting high-stakes nuclear diplomacy through public statements and abrupt reversals, rather than quiet, structured negotiation, invites miscalculation on both sides and puts undue pressure on Iran to concede quickly under an artificial deadline, which could make a durable and verifiable agreement harder to achieve rather than easier.
More coverage
Americas Government Middle East Politics World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by BBC World as “Trump says he is cancelling strikes on Iran subject to ‘rapidly’ making deal”.