Over the past week, I’ve heard two very different voices coming from the Middle East.
When I spoke with senior Israeli officials, the conclusion was clear: US President Donald Trump was going to strike. “It’s not a question of if, but when,” they told me. Israel had also raised its level of readiness in anticipation of a possible attack.
By contrast, officials from Gulf states delivered a very different message: “He won’t strike. He doesn’t want to strike, and he will find a way to reach an agreement.”
Their reasoning was persuasive. After all, the president has no interest in seeing oil prices soar to $250 per barrel just before the midterm elections.
As of 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, it appears my counterparts in the Gulf were right. Over the past several weeks, everyone understood that Trump did not want to launch an attack.
In Jerusalem, the assessment was that an agreement might eventually fail, and if it did, military action would follow. In the Gulf states, however, the belief was that even a strike would be limited, significant perhaps, but unlikely to topple the Iranian regime.
Such an attack would allow the president to claim “victory” while leaving the Gulf countries to absorb the fallout - missile and drone strikes against critical infrastructure, energy facilities, and desalination plants. They might even have to respond directly to Iran. But ultimately, the Iranian regime would remain in power, and the Gulf states would still bear the consequences.
A coalition of Gulf States from Qatar to UAE sending a clear message to not attack Iran
As a result, a coalition emerged, from Qatar to the United Arab Emirates, with a clear message: Don’t attack. Some states might have preferred continued pressure and sanctions against Iran. Still, there was strong diplomatic pressure on the American president to avoid another military operation.
A comment Trump made a few days ago has gained significance: “If there’s a deal that’s good for the Gulf states, it’s good for me as well.” In other words, he signaled that he had no intention of taking a harder line than the countries most directly affected.
We are now at a point where it remains unclear whether a deal will be reached.
The original American demands reportedly included a full Iranian commitment to dismantle its nuclear facilities and remove all enriched uranium, even uranium enriched to 20%.
Today, an eventual agreement may include little or no meaningful Iranian commitment on these issues. Discussions are not expected to address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its network of regional proxies.
Under the framework being discussed, US forces would remain in the region, and Trump would retain the option to strike if Iran violated the agreement.
But if the president was not genuinely interested in starting a war now, and he certainly had many reasons not to, why would he want to do so 60 days from now, just before midterm elections?
There is always another option: simply post on social media that “the deadline has been extended.”