Trump Says He Called Off More Bombing, Diplomatic Breakthrough Possible After Night of Renewed Warfare
President Trump has posted on Truth Social that he is calling off another night of attacks against Iran in light of diplomatic progress that appears to have proceeded even through a new, dangerous military exchange. According to the President, “Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening. Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others. The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized.” Prior reporting from Amwaj Media had noted that Qatar was playing a critical mediation role and that an agreement had been queued up and could be finalized as soon as today.
.jpg){kind=link}
The news follows significant military exchanges. Overnight, the United States carried out a new wave of attacks against targets inside Iran, including areas in southern Iran and locations around Tehran, Karaj, Qazvin, and Hormozgan. Iranian officials condemned the strikes as a violation of international law and argued that the ceasefire established earlier this year has effectively become meaningless. Tehran stated that its response would continue under the principle of self-defense.
Iran responded by launching missile and drone attacks against U.S.-linked military positions across the region. Iranian sources claimed strikes against American facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jomdan, and Iraq. Jordan announced that it intercepted 20 Iranian missiles, while Bahrain reported damage to homes and vehicles from the debris of intercepted drones and confirmed that an 11-year-old girl was injured. Kuwait also reported engaging hostile aerial targets. Some Iranian claims regarding significant damage to U.S. military facilities and aircraft remain unverified.
The confrontation has also expanded into the maritime domain. U.S. forces have reportedly targeted several commercial vessels accused of transporting Iranian oil or violating the American blockade. India has strongly protested after three Indian sailors were killed in a strike on a tanker near Oman and has accused the United States of targeting additional vessels carrying Indian crew members. These incidents illustrate that the conflict is no longer solely a bilateral confrontation between Washington and Tehran. It is increasingly affecting third countries, civilian shipping, and international energy security.
President Trump’s rhetoric throughout the military exchanges further escalated tensions. He repeatedly threatened to strike Iran “very hard,” suggested that the United States could seize Kharg Island and other Iranian oil infrastructure, and claimed that much of Iran’s military capability has already been destroyed. Kharg Island is particularly significant because it serves as the primary export terminal for the vast majority of Iran’s crude oil exports. Any attempt to attack or seize the island or other Iranian territory would trigger a fierce battle.
At the same time, the President appears to be pursuing a form of coercive diplomacy. The logic behind the strategy is straightforward: apply overwhelming military, economic, and psychological pressure on Iran in order to force Tehran to accept a political agreement on terms favorable to Washington. The assumption is that the costs of continued resistance will eventually outweigh the costs of compromise.
However, the previous rounds of military confrontation involving Iran, the United States and Israel did not produce a stable political outcome. Instead, each cycle of escalation was followed by retaliation, disruption to regional security, threats to energy supplies, attacks on military assets, and growing risks to civilians and commercial shipping. Rather than forcing a quick concession, military pressure repeatedly expanded the scope of the conflict.
Additionally, Iran has demonstrated a significant degree of resilience. Despite sanctions, military strikes, attacks on infrastructure, and repeated claims by U.S. and Israeli officials that its military capabilities have been severely degraded, Iran has continued to retaliate, challenge its adversaries, and impose costs on regional actors and global markets. This does not mean that Iran possesses military parity with the United States. Rather, it suggests that Iran is not an actor that can easily be coerced into accepting unfavorable terms through military pressure alone.
The recent attacks have also strengthened voices inside Iran that argue the previous ceasefire was a mistake. Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, recently argued that Iran should have continued military operations while simultaneously pursuing negotiations. According to this perspective, Tehran weakened its bargaining position by reducing military activity before securing meaningful concessions.
Similar arguments have appeared across Iranian state media. Some commentators have openly questioned the timing of the ceasefire, arguing that it was accepted precisely when President Trump was threatening strikes against Iran’s electricity infrastructure and other critical facilities. In their view, accepting a ceasefire under those circumstances may have convinced Washington that military threats are an effective tool for extracting concessions from Tehran.
One of the most notable examples came from Iranian television analyst Hadi Masoumi Zare, who argued that Iran failed to impose sufficient costs on the United States during the previous conflict. According to his argument, if greater American casualties had been inflicted during the war, Washington’s calculations today might be very different. While such comments do not necessarily reflect official government policy, they reveal a growing current of opinion that views restraint and de-escalation as strategic mistakes rather than successes.
Whether these voices represent a majority position within Iran’s leadership remains unclear. However, their growing visibility highlights a fundamental challenge for coercive diplomacy. Military pressure does not always produce moderation. In many cases it produces resistance.
Given the expected impact of coercive diplomacy on decisionmaking in Iran, the latest strikes may have less to do with the terms of the Iran negotiations and more on domestic politics inside the United States. Striking a deal with Iran could entail significant concessions from the United States that could be fiercely opposed by a significant section of the Republican Party’s foreign policy apparatus. With Trump’s announcement of a new breakthrough, the optics of bombing Iran hard and demonstrating bellicosity could make hawkish attacks on the Trump administration more difficult to land, given that he has run the Iran hawk playbook before pivoting to a possible deal.
It remains far from clear at this juncture whether Trump’s pullback on strikes will hold and whether there will be a new announcement of a deal. However, with the threat of war looming for Iranians, Americans and others across the globe, the decisions made or not made at the negotiating table in the hours and days to come will likely prove highly significant.