The United States cancelled the strikes on Iran at the request of the Persian countries. And here's why

US President Donald Trump said he canceled a new attack on Iran planned for Tuesday at the request of the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. According to him, serious negotiations are underway now, and the United States is counting on an agreement that will be acceptable to Washington. Why Trump decided to listen to the position of regional players right now is in the Izvestia article.

The growth of internal discontent

• The cancellation of the strikes is partly due to growing dissatisfaction with the war within the United States: according to a New York Times/Siena poll, 64% of Americans consider the decision to go to war with Iran to be a mistake. At the same time, Trump's approval rating for the presidency is 37%, which creates problems for Republicans before the midterm elections.

• Political disputes over the war with Iran have also intensified in the US Congress: Democrats are preparing an initiative that should formally restrict the president from continuing hostilities. Earlier in the House of Representatives, an attempt to adopt an anti—war resolution ended in an actual split in half - 212 by 212 votes.

• If Congress passes a law ending the war, Trump can use the right of veto, but this will increase the political crisis in Washington. In this scenario, the White House will not receive additional financial support, and Trump wants to request another $100-200 billion for the war against Iran by the end of the year. As a result, the administration will find itself under increasing internal pressure, limited resources, and an ongoing standoff with Iran.

What was achieved at the meeting between Trump and Xi in Beijing. Analysis

Controlled escalation

• Some of the Gulf states are interested in continuing the confrontation, but without a sharp escalation (we wrote more about the benefits of regional players here). The total losses of Arab countries can range from $120 to $194 billion of GDP. Despite this, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE benefit from rising energy prices. After the start of the war, the forecast for Brent oil prices for 2026 rose from $63 to $82 per barrel. In a negative scenario, analysts assume a jump to $200.

• Rising oil prices play into the hands of the United States for two reasons. The United States is consistently among the top three world leaders in crude oil exports, second only to Saudi Arabia and Russia, so the energy crisis brings additional revenue to the budget. Secondly, expensive oil is hitting Washington's main competitor, Beijing. In 2025, exports of crude oil and condensate from the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz amounted to about 15 million barrels per day. Asia, primarily China and India, accounted for about 80% of shipments.

• There is another side to this coin: dialogue with China and other Asian countries is important for Arab countries precisely because of their role in oil purchases. In this regard, they are trying to maintain it and conduct their own diplomacy in isolation from the position of the United States. The Middle East is gaining more independence and becoming more multipolar.

• Arab States are also trying to avoid a sharp escalation due to the risk of retaliatory strikes. If the United States can keep the conflict under control and weaken Iran at the same time, the Gulf states will continue to gain economic and political advantages.

The war in Iran brought Russia additional oil revenues. What you need to know

• Trump has consistently opposed large-scale wars, repeatedly stating that such military campaigns harm the interests of the United States. Therefore, requests from the Persian Gulf countries to avoid a strong escalation are becoming a convenient political argument for avoiding the expansion of the conflict.

Division of responsibility

• The United States is gradually moving away from its role as the sole guarantor of security in the Middle East and moving towards a model where responsibility is shared with its allies. This process began under former US President Barack Obama after the war in Iraq (2003-2011) and during the conflict in Afghanistan (2001-2021), which required huge costs and caused fatigue among the US population from long operations. At that time, the idea was reinforced in Washington that the allies should be more responsible for their own security.

• Under Donald Trump, this approach has become tougher: the United States retains protection, but requires more engagement, spending, and political responsibility from partners. A striking example is the pressure on NATO countries to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP. As a result, the United States is now postponing military action and explaining this with requests from countries in the region so that the decision to start or suspend it looks like a collective one.

Different vision of the operation

• The Persian Gulf countries are also gradually moving away from the previous model of unconditional support for the United States. The turning point was the American initiative "Project Freedom" on May 4, 2026, in which American forces were supposed to escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz after disruptions in maritime traffic. Iran saw this as an escalation, and the Gulf states saw it as a risk of direct attack on themselves. Saudi Arabia refused to allow the United States to use its airspace and bases, Kuwait also denied access, and Qatar restricted operations from the Al-Udeid base, the largest American facility in the region. Without this support, the mission became impossible and was suspended after escorting only two U.S.-flagged vessels.

Gasoline prices are threatening the political situation in the United States. What you need to know

• In fact, the Gulf states blocked Washington's major military initiative for the first time, and then restored cooperation only under limited access conditions, which showed the end of automatic military coordination. Against this background, a new model of relations between the United States and the countries of the Middle East is being formed, which can be described as "transactional neutrality."

• Iran is also ready to retaliate in the event of a new escalation, including attacks on the oil infrastructure of the Gulf countries and attempts to exert pressure through strategic sea routes such as the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, through which about 10% of world trade passes. This increases the risk of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait becoming involved in a direct conflict, which is why they are trying to contain Washington.

• The Gulf countries are increasingly proceeding from the logic of their own interests. The reason for this shift is related to an asymmetry of risks: the United States can conduct operations and then withdraw, while the Gulf countries remain close to Iran and become the primary target of retaliatory strikes. As a result, military cooperation turns into an exchange of services, where every US action is assessed by the Gulf countries in terms of direct risks to the region.

What does this mean?

• The Arab monarchies are increasingly pursuing an independent foreign policy and building their own system of regional diplomacy, no longer limited solely to Washington's line. Against this background, Trump's statements about "requests" look politically convenient for the United States, as they allow, on the one hand, to show themselves to be a strong leader and advocate for a diplomatic solution, on the other hand, to avoid escalation that will lead to a drop in ratings. At the same time, the United States is increasingly pushing its allies to become more independent and is trying to distribute among them some of the political and military responsibility for the situation in the region.

When writing the material, Izvestia took into account the opinions of:

● Political scientist, Americanist Malek Dudakov.