The decision that will shape the Middle East: Trump must choose between escalation and settlement
US President Donald Trump faces a strategic decision between expanding the campaign against Iran or returning to a path of settlement. His decision could have far-reaching consequences for Israel, the Gulf states, and regional stability.
Donald Trump's decision to postpone a broader attack against Iran at this stage reflects the debate taking place within the US administration. Alongside the desire to continue exerting military pressure, voices warning against the expansion of the war are growing. US military commanders, led by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have warned of a significant depletion in interceptor stocks and the need to manage an "ammunition economy," a reality that could undermine the United States' ability to defend its allies if the conflict expands.
Against this backdrop, the assessment is that there is a growing understanding within the US security establishment that the operational model of recent weeks has exhausted itself. If the administration does not intend to significantly expand the campaign, it is difficult to see how continuing the same policy will change Iran's behavior or lead it to make concessions.
Hence, Donald Trump faces a strategic dilemma. On one hand, he can choose escalation, but without any certainty that Iran will surrender even if it suffers heavier damage. Such a move could further exacerbate the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, raise energy prices, and jeopardize regional stability, especially against the backdrop of the deterioration between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis.
On the other hand, Donald Trump can return to a path of settlement. However, here too the price is clear: it is likely that Iran will insist on its demand to maintain its status in the Strait of Hormuz, alongside the fulfillment of the economic commitments included in the memorandum of understanding, including the release of funds promised to it. Politically, this is not an easy decision for a president who does not want to be seen as someone who was forced to compromise after months of confrontation.
Israel and the Gulf states are awaiting the decision in Washington, as each of the options carries dramatic consequences for their security. Most Gulf states would prefer to see an end to the escalation, but they are no less concerned about the reality that will be created the day after and the price they will be required to pay as part of any future settlement.
At the same time, the Yemeni arena continues to serve the Iranian strategy. The Houthis seek to exploit what they view as Saudi weakness, and are increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia through attempts to damage shipping lanes and tanker traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in order to lift the Saudi blockade on them. In doing so, they also place Riyadh before a dilemma similar to that of President Donald Trump: whether to strive for a settlement despite the political price, or to respond militarily and risk another campaign that is not guaranteed to be decided in their favor.
For Israel, the meaning is also clear. The decisions that will be made in Washington and Riyadh will directly affect regional stability and Iran's ability to continue exerting pressure through its proxies, and in a direct context — the likelihood of escalation between Israel and members of the "axis of resistance."
At the same time, it seems that Tehran continues to exploit its hold in Iraq to enable activity against regional targets, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, using militias and proxy elements operating outside its territory.
Ultimately, Donald Trump's decision will not only determine the continuation of the campaign against Iran. It will shape the balance of power in the Middle East in the coming years, and will decide whether the region will move toward another broad escalation or toward a settlement that will require all parties to accept significant compromises.
