Analysis-Gulf warnings and fears of miscalculation preceded Trump’s pause in Iran showdown

By Samia Nakhoul

DUBAI, March 24 (Reuters) – Donald Trump’s abrupt pause in his showdown with Iran followed warnings from Gulf states that the war was veering into a far more perilous phase and rising fears among officials in the region that Washington had misjudged Tehran’s readiness to escalate, regional sources and analysts said.

Gulf Arab states warned him directly that U.S. strikes on Iran’s power plants would trigger Iranian retaliation on their own vital energy and desalination facilities, according to three regional sources who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Trump had threatened to hit Iran’s electricity grid unless Tehran reopened the Strait of Hormuz, which carries a fifth of global energy supplies from Gulf oil and gas producers. But Iran refused to yield, the strait stayed shut, oil markets spiked and global equities fell — exposing the limits of Trump’s leverage.

Iran sent a warning to Gulf capitals, via an Arab intermediary, that any U.S. strike on its power plants would unleash unlimited retaliation, two other regional sources said.

“Trump totally miscalculated when he said ‘you’ve got 48 hours to open the strait’,” said Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat and Iran expert. 

“Once it became clear Iran was serious about hitting Gulf energy infrastructure in response, he had to back down.”

TRUMP IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH MIDDLE EAST PARTNERS, WHITE HOUSE SAYS

Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute said Tehran had surprised Trump with its ability to stay in the fight and its willingness to escalate without restraint. “They showed no inhibitions, no restrictions, no holdbacks.” 

There was no immediate response to requests for comment for this article from the Iranian government, Gulf Arab states and the U.S. State Department.

Asked for comment, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said President Trump had assessed that the U.S. is close to completing its defined objectives for Operation Epic Fury.

She added: “The President is in close contact with our partners in the Middle East, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies.”

Trump’s pause on strikes ‌against Iranian energy infrastructure, the regional sources and analysts say, appeared to be a recognition the war he had threatened to escalate was already slipping beyond his control and its costs now outweighed any political advantage from projecting American strength.

Behind the scenes, efforts to curb wider spillover continued through intermediaries including Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt, as well as Gulf partners unnerved at being drawn into a war they neither chose nor controlled.

Ebtesam Al‑Ketbi, president of the Emirates Policy Center, said Trump’s pause pointed to two possible trajectories. 

One is tactical — buying time to complete deployments, test Iran’s response and issue a final warning before a larger strike. The other is strategic — using de‑escalation to prepare the ground for a broader deal, including a reset of the regional security rules of engagement in the Gulf.

In either case, she said, the war has not ended; it has simply been repurposed as leverage.

GULF STATES WERE ‘PUT AT ENORMOUS RISK WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT’

From the outset, Iran escalated by attacking Gulf infrastructure and shipping, raising the spectre of a prolonged shock to oil, gas, LNG and trade through Hormuz. 

Gulf states, Vatanka said, were left paying the highest price. “If I were a Gulf leader, I’d be furious,” he said.

“They were put at enormous risk without their consent, and the damage inflicted in four weeks could take years to undo.”

Analysts said Trump misjudged both Iran’s resilience and the scale of the regional and global fallout. 

Expecting Tehran to be too weak, divided or deterred to respond forcefully, he instead faced asymmetric escalation that imposed heavy costs on U.S. partners and the global economy, analysts and officials said.

The result was a familiar Trump pivot: tough rhetoric, paired with delay. Preserving his options meant stepping back from an escalation that risked turning a show of strength into a presidency‑defining quagmire, the analysts said.

The deeper problem, analysts say, is that the war has shattered the status quo that Trump seemed to believe he could reshape. Iran, battered but not broken, has drawn a stark lesson: deterrence works. A mix of confidence and fear now shapes Tehran’s calculus: Extract something durable from this war, or risk being dragged back into it, the analysts said. 

For Trump, any deal would be narrower, costlier and harder to sell than he might prefer.

“Iran feels partly emboldened and partly afraid,” Eyre said.

“They’ve taken heavy damage, destruction and death, and don’t want to go through this again. But they can’t go back to the old status quo,” he said, because Israel would simply “mow the grass” — attack — again.

IRAN SEEKS BROADER SETTLEMENT, NEW REGIONAL ORDER

Senior sources in Tehran said Iran’s negotiating stance has hardened sharply since the war began, signaling that any serious talks could come at a steep price for Trump.

Iran would seek binding guarantees against future military action, compensation for wartime losses and formal control over Hormuz, the sources said.

Any Iranian attempt at controlling the strait would alarm the Gulf states who share the waterway and worry that Iran will seek a new regional hegemony harmful to their interests.

Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman of the Saudi‑based Gulf Research Center, told Reuters the strait “remains a vital strategic and economic route, and its stability is non-negotiable.”

Vali Nasr, an Iranian-American academic and foreign policy expert, said Iran is no longer seeking a return to the pre‑war status quo but a broader settlement — one that would include security guarantees, economic relief and a different balance of power in the Gulf. 

U.S. officials, the regional sources say, appear willing to engage indirectly with Iran through intermediaries, suggesting a potential back-channel for negotiations even as both sides publicly maintain a hard line.

Central to any potential deal, analysts say, is Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guards commander with the stature to negotiate while retaining credibility with hardliners.

Even as Tehran signals openness to talks, its stance remains cautious, projecting deterrence while scarred by the damage it has sustained. This reflects a strategy of showing strength without inviting further destruction, said Iranian‑American historian Arash Azizi.

Any resolution, he adds, would likely require regional buy-in and potentially backing from global powers such as Russia or China.  

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Dubai; Writing by Samia Nakhoul, Editing by William Maclean)