- ‘It’s my sense that Trump prefers a negotiated deal over a military attack,’ says International Crisis Group’s MENA adviser Joost Hiltermann
- Iranian missile stockpile remains robust, notes Jason Campbell, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute
- Delay allows the US to better position its military assets, says Mehran Kamrava of Georgetown University Qatar
ISTANBUL
After days of heightened tensions, the US and Iran have agreed to pursue negotiations – a move experts say shows Washington is holding back from direct military strikes for now, instead opting for diplomacy backed by intensified military pressure.
Analysts argue the cautious posture reflects concern that even a limited attack could trigger a wider regional conflict, exposing US forces and allies to retaliation.
“It’s my sense that (President Donald) Trump prefers a negotiated deal over a military attack on Iran at this point, and that the military posturing is designed to bring Iran to the negotiating table and to make the terms of an eventual deal more favorable to the US,” Joost Hiltermann, International Crisis Group’s special adviser for the Middle East and North Africa, told Anadolu.
According to Axios, the Trump administration has told Iran through multiple diplomatic channels that it is open to negotiations, even as it increases its military presence in the Persian Gulf.
On Tuesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian wrote on US social media platform X that, following requests from friendly regional governments to respond to Trump’s proposal for negotiations, he had instructed his foreign minister to pursue negotiations “provided that a suitable environment exists – one free from threats and unreasonable expectations.”
American media outlets report that senior officials, including US special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, are expected to participate in rare face-to-face talks in Istanbul on Friday. Officials from Qatar, Egypt and other regional states are also expected to attend.
Unofficial reports suggest the negotiations would focus on Iran's nuclear program.
Fear of retaliation
Experts say Washington has so far refrained from striking Iran partly out of concern that Tehran could retaliate against US forces in the region and against Israel.
The Washington Post reported that Gulf countries have warned the Trump administration that Iran’s missiles pose a deadly threat to US allies and bases.
“The Iranian government has been very active in telling regional states that the American bases on their soil are considered American military targets, and they’re not considered sovereign entities,” Mehran Kamrava, a professor at Georgetown University Qatar told Anadolu.
According to Kamrava, the Trump administration wants a quick, decisive outcome that would give the US president a “symbolic victory.” At the same time, he said, Iranian leaders have framed any US strike as a trigger for a broader conflict.
Hiltermann says that while Iran cannot pose a viable threat to the US homeland, it can pose a potent threat to US allies and assets in the region.
“Iran could again strike Israel with missiles, or it could again attack US bases in the region, and/or close both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab.”
Delay as strategy
Analysts say the absence of immediate US strikes may also reflect deliberate timing, allowing Washington to reposition military assets and shape the negotiating environment.
Last week, Trump confirmed that a large US “armada” was heading toward the region, warning Iran to enter negotiations over its nuclear program or face possible military action.
“Certainly, the delay of a possible American attack on Iran is meant to help the US get its military assets in position and to ensure that the US military equipment is well placed,” said Kamrava. “Part of the movement of US military assets could be maneuvering and posturing as negotiations are happening in order to increase pressure on the Iranian government.”
Hiltermann agreed that the pause may be intended to allow time for a negotiating track to begin while increasing US military capacity in the region.
“The risk, of course, is that this kind of posturing can create its own dynamic. For example, if the US sees Iran dragging its feet and conducts a limited strike, Iran responds and then things spiral out of control,” he added.
Calculating Iran’s capabilities
Experts also point to Iran’s remaining military capabilities – especially missiles – as a key factor shaping US caution.
Analyst Jason H. Campbell believes that Iran can give a strong reply as its missile stocks remain “robust.”
According to Campbell, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, prior to the 12-day war with Israel last year, Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal was estimated to be around 2,500. However, he said the Israelis were able to reduce that by roughly half, and also damage or destroy upwards of 50-60% of their launchers.
Even so, Iran still has the region’s largest ballistic missile stockpile, said Campbell, particularly short-range systems capable of reaching US assets in Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iraq from many parts of Iran.
“They have also, with the help of China, been able to get access to material to revitalize their capabilities of building their own missiles,” he added.
Kamrava said Iran may be preparing for endurance rather than a short fight, suggesting the Iranians are counting on a prolonged war of attrition.
While he acknowledged that it is hard to assess Iranian military capabilities in the wake of the 12-day war, he said “it appears from their statements that the Iranian military leadership feels quite comfortable and feels that it can withstand any conflict with the US.”
US goals and constraints
Analysts say Washington’s approach is also influenced by operational constraints and political calculations about what military action could actually achieve.
Campbell said Trump may have concluded he lacked the assets for an immediate strike that could produce fast, decisive results amid the recent protests.
Several carrier strike groups were deployed elsewhere, including two in the Caribbean and others in the Far East, limiting Washington’s ability to launch a rapid operation without repositioning forces.
“His options for an immediate strike were pretty minimal, particularly given what the likely response would have been,” he said.
Although a carrier strike group has now arrived in the Arabian Sea, Campbell noted that the internal situation inside Iran has shifted since the protests peaked.
“Now you don’t have an active protest, you don’t have a situation whereby some sort of a quick US strike will likely have a significant effect on the health of the Iranian regime,” he said.
Monitors say that the majority of protests ended mid-January after the Iranian government launched a violent crackdown. Iran’s presidential office has said 3,117 people were killed during the protests.
Israel’s concerns
At the same time, Campbell said Israel is likely urging Washington to focus on limited strikes, centered on Iranian military capabilities rather than broader political aims.
He added that Israeli planning is also shaped by the strain on air-defense systems during last year’s exchanges. “Israel likely is in (a) replenishment phase,” he said.
“During the 12-day war, the Israelis and the Americans expended a lot of their missile defense interceptors,” said Campbell.
He said the US used roughly a quarter of its THAAD missile interceptors, while Israel’s Iron Dome also depleted a significant share of its defensive stockpiles, making the need to rebuild and replenish those systems a key factor in decisions about any renewed strikes on Iran.
He added that while Israel in general seems supportive of a US strike on Iran, Tel Aviv may not be comfortable going beyond direct military targeting.
“What is not known is whether those strikes were designed to be or would have been designed to be for regime change,” he said. “From an Israeli perspective, the biggest concern by far is Iran’s ballistic missile stock.”
