Trump's Inconsistent Messaging On Iran And The Middle East’s Dirty Secret: A Weak Iran In Present Form Is the Optimal Outcome For Gulf States
Mere days after Trump’s repeated, back-to-back promises to Iranian protesters that he had their back, that the United States was locked and loaded, and that it would come to their aid if protesters were killed, there are now worrying signs of a potential U-turn.
The most significant signal was Trump parroting the talking points of the Iranian regime in response to a question about the deaths of protesters.
As we discussed before, at least 2,000 to 3,000 protesters have been killed, and the numbers appear to be higher than 10,000, according to a variety of reports by Reuters, CBS News, and a number of human rights organizations based outside of Iran.
This was precisely the kind of massacre of civilians that Trump warned against.
He promised to come to their aid.
But now, in response to a question about the deaths of protesters, he said that Iranian officials told him that there were terrorists attacking police officers and that they had to fire back and kill those terrorists.
Now, he said they told me this.
He did not necessarily say that he accepts this version of events, but it is worrying that he is parroting these talking points.
Indeed, Iran is going full Assad mode in blaming everything on so-called terrorists, which is exactly what the Assad regime did from the very outset of its campaign to massacre what were then civilian, peaceful protesters—ultimately resulting in the country’s degradation into civil war.
These very same talking points are now being advanced by Iranian officials.
Just yesterday, Foreign Minister Araqchi was on Fox News and repeated that the individuals who were killed were terrorists who attacked police officers first.
Now, it is entirely possible that in a country of 93 million people, with a deeply unpopular regime, a small group of people may indeed have taken up arms and attacked police officers.
That is plausible.
We are not going to say that there was not a single incident of this ever happening, because we simply do not have evidence in support of such an assertion.
And once again, it is possible that there were underground cells that had been preparing to confront the regime for a very long time and that used this opportunity.
It is also plausible that some of these people were agents from countries that would want to cause this kind of mayhem on the streets of Iran and put even further pressure on the regime.
Indeed, just two weeks ago, former CIA Director and Secretary of State Pompeo declared that Mossad agents would be marching side by side with protesters in Iran.
Is it plausible that some of them may have dispersed arms and instigated attacks on police officers?
We have zero evidence of this, but we also cannot rule it out.
But that is beside the point.
The fundamental truth is that the protests were happening in almost every major city across the entire country.
All available footage of the protests (before the Iranian regime shut down the internet) shows thousands of peaceful protesters with no guns, most of them young Gen Z individuals, many of them women, marching peacefully in the streets of major cities.
They were doing so fully aware that there were CCTV cameras everywhere, and it is common knowledge in Iran that these cameras are capable of AI-based facial recognition.
So even if, let us say, 1 or 2 percent of protesters used the opportunity to attack regime officials (and even if there were indeed casualties among law enforcement agencies) this would still not explain thousands of innocent protesters being massacred.
There is a massive massacre underway: body bags outside morgues, filled with young men and women who were unarmed and who were killed blatantly by the regime.
In fact, it would suit the regime to arm these individuals before releasing their bodies in order to pretend that they were armed and dangerous.
But they did not do this. Why not?
Because they were unarmed and they had no time to create this massive theater.
Because simply, protestors were largely peaceful civilians.
If around 70 regime officials are killed and thousands of civilian protesters are killed, it is very clear what is happening.
This opens up several possible explanations for Trump’s behavior:
1) Cold feet: Trump avoiding an operation that will likely not result in a ‘‘win’’.
The first option is that he has calculated that the protests are dying down and that his involvement will not lead to regime change, and so he wants to de-escalate the situation.
2) Undue external influence from ‘‘allies’’ trying to prevent a regime change operation.
The second option is that he has not made that calculation himself, but that external partners (particularly Arab countries) have intervened.
It has been reported in various news outlets that Gulf countries are deeply worried about Iranian retaliation and have urged him not to attack Iran.
As a result, even though his instinct may be to attack Iran and keep his promise, he is looking for a way to de-escalate and is using the regime’s narrative as an excuse to do so.
Now, when it comes to Gulf/Arab states exerting undue influence, there are a number of reasons why Arab states would oppose an attack on the Iranian regime beyond the mere risk of retaliation and the need for adequate U.S. assistance and preparedness to absorb such retaliation.
Fundamentally, the Iranian regime in its current form (especially following its rapprochement with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE since 2023) actually serves the interests of the Gulf Arab states.
It used to be the case that a powerful Iranian regime, with proxies spread throughout the region, posed a direct threat to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.
Today, however, from their perspective, the primary destabilizing force in the region is Israel.
It is not in the interest of Arab states, first and foremost, to see a regime change in Iran that could potentially result in a pro-U.S., pro-Israeli state emerging: both of which would reduce their own influence, power and leverage in the region.
Secondly, they do not want to see a revolution driven by a popular uprising.
That revolutionary principle in itself is deeply threatening to them, and it is something they profoundly disliked witnessing during the Arab Spring—in Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere.
Fundamentally, the principle of people revolting for ultimate freedom and participatory governance is diametrically opposite of a monarchical political order that Saudis, UAE, Qatar and Bahrainis enjoy.
Third, if the Iranian regime was defeated, the only remaining absolute powers in the Middle East would be countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Bahrain.
From a basic public-relations standpoint, it is not desirable (particularly for an extremely closed political order with minimal civil liberties like Saudi Arabia) to remain among the most backward political systems in the region once Iran is gone.
Fourth, a free and pro-Western Iran would rapidly capitalize on free-market opportunities.
It would be able to trade oil and gas freely, leverage its enormous economic potential, and mobilize its highly educated and young workforce.
Such an Iran of 93 million people would become a major economic competitor to countries like Saudi Arabia, which are currently trying to absorb the bulk of foreign direct investment flowing into the region.
These states want to remain the preeminent economic force.
They already compete with Turkey for talent, manufacturing capacity, and advanced technology, and introducing Iran (with its large, skilled population) into this competitive landscape would be highly undesirable for them.
The fundamental truth is that the current version of the Iranian regime—weak, contained, isolated, and poor, yet still capable of maintaining a functional, informal relationship with the Gulf powers—is best suited to the long-term interests of the Arab states.
This is an Iran that remains a threat to Israel, but not to them.
An Iran that is kept backward, authoritarian, and economically constrained will not exert political pressure on them to democratize, nor economic pressure by competing with them.
So this is not just about immediate defense or retaliation risks.
It is about national security, but also about broader geopolitical, economic, and political interests.
It goes without saying: zero sympathy for the desires of these Arab ‘‘allies’’.
Lindsey Graham (for all his usual lack of nuance and overeagerness towards military solutions) is correct in responding with this:
Lindsey Graham@LindseyGrahamSCAll the headlines suggesting that our so-called Arab allies have intervened on behalf of Iran to avoid decisive military action by President Trump are beyond disturbing. The ayatollah’s regime has American blood on its hands. They are slaughtering people in the streets. If it
Al Arabiya English @AlArabiya_EngSaudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman have convinced US President Donald Trump to “give Iran a chance,” a senior Saudi official says.4:03 PM · Jan 15, 2026 · 1.48M Views9.15K Replies · 9.21K Reposts · 22.9K Likes3) There are simply no good military options available at this very moment.
At least to definitively decapitate the senior leadership.
Perhaps they are very well hidden right now.
Perhaps they are not targetable.
Perhaps there is insufficient intelligence.
And because of this, in order to prevent further executions of protesters, Trump may be delaying further action on the condition that those who have been jailed and face execution will not be executed and that their lives will be spared.
(side note: he apparently received some assurances that these executions were frozen for now.)
4) Deception to secure time to prepare.
The fourth option is that none of this is the case, and that Trump is merely delaying an inevitable attack in order to buy time for U.S. assets to move into place.
Indeed, there are reports that the USS Abraham Lincoln supercarrier is en route to the Persian Gulf from the Pacific, that strike groups are coalescing around the region, and that there are currently insufficient military assets in theater to carry out a significant campaign.
Trump may want to ensure that all bases are prepared for potential retaliation before going all in.
There are also reports that Israel asked him to postpone any attack until air-defense interceptors are replenished.
And we have seen reports that Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar has been evacuated.
Presumably, none of this would be happening if the United States were not seriously considering a significant military campaign.
Certainly, one hopes that it’s the last option - that there will be retaliation for the killing of protesters.
Otherwise, promising them help, calling them to seize institutions, and promising that the help is on the way, and then not doing anything would be an enormous betrayal of Iranian citizens fighting for freedom and for the prestige, influence, and reputation for reliability of the U.S.
