President Donald Trump once again stunned the world by abruptly canceling a planned military strike against Iran, which had been touted as the "most intense bombing" campaign yet. Just hours earlier, he had threatened to "hit Iran hard," but on August 1, he announced the suspension of the attack, citing a preliminary framework for a deal had been reached. This marks another dramatic U-turn, raising questions about whether a full-scale war in the Middle East can be avoided and if negotiations between the two nations can succeed.

Reports had swirled over the weekend that the U.S. and Israel were preparing a massive assault, targeting energy infrastructure like power plants and oil refineries, potentially cutting off electricity to Tehran. The U.S. Central Command had drafted a plan for 10-14 days of intense bombing to degrade Iran's missile capabilities. On July 31, Trump convened an emergency meeting at Camp David to discuss the military plan. An Israeli official assessed that Trump was closer than ever to approving a major strike. On August 1, the U.S. State Department issued a security alert, urging citizens to leave the Middle East. Yet, Trump pulled back, claiming he acted at the request of "Iran and other Middle Eastern countries." He added that a preliminary agreement had been reached, encompassing Iran's immediate and full opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the end of nuclear threats. Iranian military officials dismissed this as a "lie."

Why the sudden retreat?

According to experts, Trump's explanation is a convenient excuse, but the real reason lies in the military, diplomatic, and political pressures facing the U.S. Militarily, the effectiveness of strikes is limited, and Iran has proven resilient. Despite a new wave of U.S. attacks since the end of the MOU, Iran has not been subdued. Even if the U.S. escalates to targeting energy facilities, Iran is unlikely to yield, while the U.S. would face continued costs in funds, ammunition, and personnel. A report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows that U.S. air defense missile stocks are dwindling, with Patriot missiles below 1,000 and THAAD missiles around 250. The U.S. has spent $375 billion on the war, with 18 soldiers killed. "Diminishing marginal benefits are a key concern for Trump," says Ding Long, a professor at Shanghai International Studies University. Trump himself admitted during the Camp David meeting that it's hard to predict how many strikes would be needed to achieve results, and he praised Iran's "toughness."

Diplomatically, the peace faction has gained the upper hand. Gulf states, fearing the spread of war, have lobbied to de-escalate the conflict, opposing Israel's push for escalation. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman expressed concern over the U.S. plan in a phone call with Trump, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit failed to sway Trump. Domestically, anti-war sentiment is rising, especially among the MAGA base, who are against breaking Trump's campaign promises. A Reuters/Ipsos poll shows only one-third of Americans support military action against Iran. Politically, with midterm elections 100 days away, Republicans fear that prolonged conflict and rising oil prices will hurt their chances. "Continuing the fight offers no advantage and only damages Trump's credibility, threatening the GOP's election prospects," Ding notes.

Is Iran gaining the upper hand?

The recent round of conflict began in late June with ship attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. After declaring the end of the MOU and restarting hostilities, Trump unilaterally called a ceasefire on July 24, only for Iran to strike U.S. targets in Jordan, prompting a fresh U.S. response. Now, Trump has paused new plans. Ding argues that the U.S. logic is to "beat and negotiate," using military superiority to force Iran to the table, while Iran's strategy is to rebuild deterrence to prevent future U.S. or Israeli attacks. Iran has chosen to resist firmly, regardless of costs, exploiting the U.S. desire to withdraw. Currently, Iran holds advantages in morality (fighting a defensive war), geography (large territory and population for sustained defense), and strategic leverage (controlling the Strait of Hormuz to drive up global energy prices). In contrast, the U.S. has limited options, and military strikes, economic sanctions, or tariffs are unlikely to succeed against Iran's deterrence strategy. "In a sense, Trump has been scared off by Iran's determination to see this through," Ding says.

Uncertainty persists

The future remains uncertain. With Trump canceling the strike and calling for a deal, the war, now in its sixth month, may not easily find an exit. Experts warn that negotiations are extremely difficult due to eroded trust from previous rounds of talks, broken agreements, and renewed hostilities. Iran's demand for full control over the Strait of Hormuz is unacceptable to the U.S. and regional states. However, a temporary transit agreement could be a sign of de-escalation. Military actions may still occur, as Trump's policies are unpredictable. "The stalemate of talking while fighting, or not talking and not fighting, will likely be the norm, with conflict long-term but unresolved," says Ding. The regional situation is also growing more complex, with Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and non-state actors like Houthi rebels becoming involved. There are signs of a "dual strait linkage" between the Bab el-Mandeb and Hormuz straits, and a "two-war linkage" between the Ukraine conflict and the U.S.-Iran conflict. For now, parties remain cautious, trying to avoid a wider conflagration.