The Washington Post reveals the behind-the-scenes story of Donald Trump’s decision last Wednesday not to launch airstrikes against Iran, after consultations and pressure.

Key factors in the decision were the cancellation of scheduled executions in Iran and concerns about destabilizing the Middle East.

U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, urged restraint and diplomacy, fearing instability in the region.

Trump concluded that the consequences of the strikes would outweigh the benefits after a cost-benefit analysis.

Diplomatic pressure from various countries and messages from Iran encouraged Trump to suspend the attacks, although options remain open.

As the American newspaper recalls, it was late Wednesday morning, and much of the Middle East and official Washington seemed certain that the U.S. President would give the green light for airstrikes against Iran, in a second significant demonstration of American military power just weeks after the bold Delta Force raid in Venezuela to capture Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

That day, the Pentagon announced that the guided-missile destroyer USS Roosevelt had entered the Persian Gulf, U.S. allies had been warned that an American attack was likely, personnel at the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar had been ordered to evacuate, and Trump had promised Iranian protesters that “help is coming.”

The Turning Point

The first shift came when Steve Witkoff informed Trump that the Iranian government had canceled the scheduled executions of 800 people—a fact confirmed a day later by U.S. intelligence agencies.

According to the article citing 12 current and former U.S. and Middle Eastern officials, “Trump’s rapid change of stance reflected intense internal and external pressures as the U.S. President faced the unpredictable possibility of destabilizing another Middle Eastern country and even the limitations of the vast American military apparatus.”

Pentagon officials worried that the “fire” Washington would ignite in the Middle East was not ideal to repel the expected large Iranian counterattack. Israel shared the same concern, while U.S. allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, contacted the White House to call for restraint and diplomacy, fearing not Iran as much as instability in their region.

Most importantly, the article notes, Trump may have realized that strikes on Iran would be chaotic and could cause economic turmoil, broader war, and threats to the 30,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East—unlike the “one-off” operations for destroying drug trafficking boats, capturing Maduro, combating ISIS fighters in Syria, or dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.

“He wants [operations like] Venezuela. This would be more chaotic,” said a former U.S. official.

Although the attack seems ruled out for now, Trump and his senior advisors keep their options open—and may be buying time—as the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln heads to the Middle East.

“Cost-Benefit Analysis”

The article also presents different views within Trump’s team.

Vice President J.D. Vance, long cautious about foreign entanglements, supported attacks on Iran, citing the limit Trump had set warning Iran not to kill protesters and which had to be enforced.

On Tuesday night in the Oval Office, CIA Director John Ratcliffe—a hardliner on Iran—used a secure iPad intended for presidential intelligence briefings to show Trump secretly obtained videos depicting regime violence against Iranian protesters and bodies in the streets.

Other Trump advisers—including Steve Witkoff and Chief of Staff Suzie Wiles—called for cautious moves. Witkoff had personally heard Arab allies’ concerns in the region and wanted to avoid another round of violence.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued for waiting and letting economic sanctions on Iran work.

Ultimately, after viewing presentations from the Defense Department and U.S. intelligence on attack options, Trump concluded there were no benefits and that the consequences would be too severe.

“Would an attack have led to regime change? The answer is clearly no. The negative impacts of any strike outweighed the benefits in terms of punishing the regime. And I mean, ultimately it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” said an official who spoke to the Washington Post.

The Araghchi Message and the Bin Salman Call

The situation was further “smoothed” by a message from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Witkoff as Tehran sensed the U.S. moving military assets, making an attack seem imminent.

After being briefed on this message, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he had learned the executions would stop.

But it wasn’t just Iran urgently communicating with the White House to halt the planned attack.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and other Arab allies united to urge Trump to maintain diplomatic options with Iran.

“The message to Washington was to avoid military action. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Egypt agreed that there would be consequences for regional security and the economy, which would ultimately affect the U.S.,” an official said.

In this context, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called Trump to share his views, as he and other Arab leaders worried about how Iran would respond if attacked by the U.S.

Iran had begun warning Gulf states that its reaction would not be as measured as after the U.S. strike on its nuclear facilities in June, when Iran announced its intentions and then launched about a dozen missiles at Al Udeid airbase, according to many officials. There were also fears that Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah, might launch their own attacks, posing a serious risk without a U.S. naval air group in the region.

Concerns from Israel

Israel was not ready either, especially without strong U.S. naval support. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump on Wednesday, asking him not to attack because Israel was not fully prepared to defend itself, according to a source close to the White House.

A key factor contributing to Israel’s vulnerability was the absence of significant U.S. military resources on which Israel increasingly relied to fend off Iranian retaliation.

Throughout Wednesday, Washington’s Arab allies were uncertain if their efforts would succeed. However, one factor in their favor was Trump’s uncertainty that the military options before him would have decisive and predictable results without problematic regional consequences—or damage to his exceptional record of swift, clean use of U.S. military force, a senior Arab diplomat said.

Diplomatic pressure encouraged Trump to back down, according to a Saudi diplomat, two European officials, and someone familiar with the matter.

At the Pentagon on Wednesday, senior aides were ready to stay late awaiting U.S. strikes. Around 3:30 p.m., they received news that they could go home as usual.

Vance ultimately agreed with the president’s decision to suspend the strikes, according to someone familiar with the process.

The Danger Has Not Passed

The president will have another chance to approve strikes on Iran in the next two to three weeks, when U.S. assets headed to the region will be in place, helping to alleviate Israel’s concerns about its defense, officials said.

The threat level is not expected to ease soon: U.S. Central Command has been ordered to plan staffing for 24-hour high-level support “for the next month,” a person monitoring the situation told the Washington Post.