President Donald Trump announced Monday that newly planned talks with Tehran are Iran's “last chance” for a deal, yet his decision to scrap what he called “the biggest attack since World War II” came directly at the urging of Gulf allies. Trump told reporters he decided to hold off on ordering massive strikes against Iran after hearing from key Gulf leaders, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and at the request of unnamed Iranian officials. This intervention by foreign interests prevented a planned Sunday operation, which Trump had boasted would be the largest U.S. attack since the Second World War.
Trump expects negotiations to begin in the next day or two, aiming to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and address concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. He outlined a two-phase process: first, the opening of the straits, then denuclearization. The President reiterated his dwindling patience, stating, “This the last chance for them to sign a good document.”
Elite Interests Dictate Policy
Trump’s decision to back away from military action follows a phone call with the Saudi crown prince on Saturday. A person briefed on the call, who insisted on anonymity, revealed the crown prince conveyed that an escalation could severely impact the global economy if Tehran targeted Gulf allies. Saudi officials, this source added, have assured the Trump administration of their own defense capabilities, along with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, but expressed concern for Kuwait's vulnerability to Iranian-backed militias.
Earlier Monday, Trump had publicly criticized Iran on social media, calling them “unbelievably duplicitous.” His ire stemmed from Iran's claim that its meetings with Oman were solely about establishing a temporary route through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil waterway. Trump countered, “Whether Iran wants to admit it or not, we are, in fact, talking” about preventing nuclear weapons development.
A Pattern of Retreat
This is not the first time Trump has threatened severe action against Iran only to pull back. Since U.S. and Israeli strikes began five months ago, on February 28, he has repeatedly edged away from his own threats. Four months ago, in early April, the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, an announcement made less than two hours before a Trump-imposed deadline for capitulation or face attacks on bridges and power plants that he claimed would mean “a whole civilization will die.” Two months ago, on May 18, Trump again announced he was holding off on a major planned military strike, crediting Gulf allies for persuading him to show restraint. In June, he threatened to hit Iran “VERY HARD” and seize Kharg Island to “assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets,” only to call off strikes after claiming peace negotiations had progressed.
Asked about his repeated threats followed by retreats, Trump claimed he was showing patience out of consideration for Iranian life, stating, “I want to give them every last chance before decapitation.” Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, characterized Trump's approach as “rather erratic,” suggesting the president would hit a “big reset button” if he could. Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican, acknowledged the devastation inflicted on Iran since the war's start, but warned that further escalation could lead to another surge in already elevated energy prices and “a lot of inflation for the American people.” Kennedy suggested tightening sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program might be the best option, calling the choices “all hellish.”
The Cost to Americans
Polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, published last week, shows two-thirds of U.S. adults believe the war with Iran has not been worthwhile. This includes a vast majority of Democrats and independents, and 37% of Republicans. The economic concerns raised by Senator Kennedy underscore the direct costs to the native working class, who face inflation and higher energy prices as a consequence of these protracted, inconsistent foreign entanglements, often influenced by external globalist interests rather than national sovereignty.