U.S. Delays Iran Strike - Trump advisers conclude military action unlikely to topple regime

U.S. President Donald Trump and his senior advisers have decided to postpone a planned military strike on Iran and, for now, return to diplomatic channels, after concluding that the likely costs of an attack would far exceed any immediate benefits, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

Trump had initially favored a swift, forceful strike — ideally a limited or one-off operation — that would produce a decisive outcome, including the possible collapse of Iran’s ruling system. However, military leaders and national security advisers told him they could not guarantee such an outcome and warned that preparations for a rapid, decisive campaign would take weeks and still might not achieve regime change.

Pentagon, Advisers Warn of Escalation

Senior officials at the Pentagon and members of the National Security Council cautioned that an attack on Iran would almost certainly trigger retaliation, including strikes on U.S. bases across the Middle East and missile and drone attacks on Israel.

They also warned that Iranian retaliation could target the energy infrastructure of U.S. allies in the Gulf, potentially driving up global oil prices and impacting the U.S. economy.

Those risks, officials said, were a central factor in Trump’s decision to pause military action.

Regional Allies Urge Restraint

U.S. regional partners, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, urged Washington not to strike Iran, fearing they would be drawn into a wider conflict. Officials said those governments warned that a U.S. attack could prompt Iranian retaliation against their territory, followed by a large-scale Israeli response — a chain of events that could plunge the region into a broader war.

None of the regional actors, including the United States, was seeking such an escalation, officials said.

Protests Subside Inside Iran

Another key factor influencing Washington’s decision was the apparent decline in protests inside Iran over the past 24 hours. Iranian authorities had already moved forcefully to suppress demonstrations, using live fire and mass arrests, according to multiple reports.

While clashes continued in some regions — including Kurdish areas in the northwest, the Arab-majority province of Ahwaz in the south, and Baluchistan — officials said widespread fear and trauma had largely emptied the streets.

Western intelligence assessments cited lower casualty figures than those reported by some human rights groups, estimating between 2,500 and 4,000 deaths, including roughly 500 members of Iran’s security forces killed by protesters.

Trump Sees Diplomatic Opening

U.S. officials said the decline in unrest gave Trump room to claim that his warnings alone had curbed the worst of the violence. Through intermediaries, Tehran signaled that it would halt mass shootings of protesters and refrain from executions, according to officials familiar with the messages.

That communication, officials said, provided Trump with a political off-ramp to shift back to diplomacy without appearing to back down.

No Unified Opposition Leadership

U.S. intelligence agencies also concluded that the protest movement lacked a clear leadership structure or unified political program capable of translating street anger into a credible challenge to the regime.

Exiled Iranian opposition figure Reza Pahlavi was not seen in Washington as a unifying leader. Intelligence assessments indicated that while he is viewed sympathetically by some Iranians, only about 30% would support him as a national leader.

The Central Intelligence Agency reportedly advised Trump that Pahlavi was unlikely to rally the country or fracture the regime’s power base.

Limited Defections From Security Forces

Officials said there were also a few signs of large-scale defections within Iran’s security apparatus. While some members of the regular army, or Artesh, showed signs of disaffection, defections among the more powerful Revolutionary Guards and Basij forces were limited and insufficient to threaten regime stability.

From Israel’s perspective, the timing was also unfavorable. Israeli officials feared that an attack might fail to topple the Iranian regime while inflicting heavy damage on Israel’s home front and imposing enormous economic and security costs.

Despite reservations, Israeli and U.S. forces carried out intensive defensive coordination, including close cooperation between the Israel Defense Forces and U.S. Central Command, officials said.

For now, U.S. officials said, Washington will keep military options on the table but prioritize diplomatic engagement, betting that restraint — at least temporarily — better serves American and regional interests.