US-Iran Tensions: Trump Delays Strike, G7 Pushes for Strait of Hormuz Reopening

President Donald Trump's announcement of suspending a new military strike against Iran was not just a passing decision in the course of the weeks-long ongoing war, but rather revealed a broader dilemma: Does the postponement of the attack open a real window for a political agreement, or does the decision fall into a familiar pattern of high-stakes threats followed by last-minute retreats?

The irony is that Trump presented the suspension as a response to Gulf mediation, which believes that "serious negotiations" are underway and that an "acceptable" agreement could be reached soon. However, at the same time, he kept the threat alive, directing the army to prepare for a "large-scale attack" if negotiations do not yield results.

Herein lies the significance of the moment: Washington does not seem to be in a position of full military decisiveness, nor in a position of mature political settlement, but in a middle ground where calculations of deterrence, oil prices, allied pressures, and the limited ability of air power to impose complete political surrender intersect.

Avoiding the Cost of Payment

Despite the harsh blows that targeted Iran's leadership, military, and naval structures, it still retains painful pressure tools, such as missiles, drones, and the ability to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, and the threat of transferring tension to Bab el-Mandeb... Therefore, the request to postpone the strike does not necessarily mean that Tehran has made fundamental concessions, but rather it may be buying time to re-engage in a more costly regional war.

Farzin Nadimi, a senior fellow specializing in Iranian affairs at the "Washington Institute for Near East Policy," places this factor at the core of the decision's interpretation. He told "Asharq Al-Awsat" that "there are military reasons behind postponing the strike" related to Iran's threats and the possibility of casualties and damage to American forces, in addition to other Iranian responses. In his opinion, Trump "may prefer not to renew the military operation if a minimum of conditions can be achieved while reducing risks," but "the possibilities of military action seem equal to the chances of a diplomatic solution."

A Gap in Priorities

Leaks suggest an exchange of proposals and counter-responses through intermediaries, including Pakistanis, and discussions that include the nuclear file, opening the Strait of Hormuz, lifting some restrictions or sanctions on Iranian oil, and perhaps sending part of the enriched uranium stockpile abroad. However, the problem is not the absence of negotiation ideas, but their ordering...

Iran wants, according to leaks, an agreement that begins with stopping the war and the blockade, and then leaves the nuclear file – the most sensitive – for a later stage. Washington, on the other hand, wants a simultaneous agreement that solidifies the results of the war: long-term restrictions on enrichment, guarantees against acquiring nuclear weapons, and perhaps commitments related to missiles, proxies, and the opening of "Hormuz." This gap makes talk of "real progress" conditional, not certain.

It is most likely that Trump, under pressure from energy prices and the upcoming midterm elections, has begun to narrow the scope of his practical demands. Instead of insisting on simultaneity regarding changing Iran's regional behavior, dismantling its missile capabilities, and ending the network of proxies, the public focus has become clearer on the "nuclear file" and "Hormuz." This does not mean that the other conditions have disappeared, but the administration may be forced to distinguish between what it wants to achieve politically and what it can impose militarily.

Between Deterrence and the Limits of Power

Several American media outlets and newspapers question the White House's narrative, not necessarily just because they politically oppose Trump; rather, because the course of the crisis itself provides reasons for this doubt. The president set deadlines, issued threats, and announced that the war was nearing its end, then returned to extending the deadlines. Moreover, Iran, despite significant losses, has not yet accepted conditions it considers humiliating, nor has it abandoned its key assets in "Hormuz" or "missile deterrence."

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the "American Enterprise Institute," goes further in his conversation with "Asharq Al-Awsat"; he believes that Trump "is improvising as he goes," "despite having teams capable of planning complex strategies." He says that "what often drives the president is his feeling that Iran is personally insulting him, which may push him to deeper strikes focused on the nuclear file, or even targeted assassinations, but it does not lead to a cohesive strategy."

This assessment is harsh, but it touches upon a real dilemma in crisis management: Trump wants to appear as a president who does not back down, but he also wants to avoid an open war that is unpopular domestically and depletes ammunition and raises fuel prices... He wants to declare victory, but he has not yet obtained a surrender document... He wants to use force to produce an agreement, but he faces an adversary accustomed to absorbing pressure and redefining loss as resilience.

Therefore, the issue cannot be reduced to "the victory of diplomacy" or "Trump's weakness." The suspension reflects a mutual balance: Washington fears the cost of escalation, and Tehran fears a more destructive strike.

Simultaneous Concessions

Trump's violent reaction to the media reflects his known sensitivity to any portrayal of him as hesitant or unable to impose his conditions. But the more important question is: "Is the media's doubt based on facts or political calculations? The closest answer is a mix of both, with a clear preference for facts in this case," according to Farzin Nadimi. He adds that "the facts say that American-Israeli strikes have weakened Iran militarily, but they have not resolved the political dilemma."

And the facts say that oil prices and American economic concerns have become factors in the White House's calculations. And the facts also say that Iran has not yet made a concession that amounts to full acceptance of American conditions, and that intermediaries are talking about partial formulas more than a final deal.

As for the political dimension, it appears in the way these facts are read within Washington... Trump's opponents see every retreat as evidence of chaos. His supporters see every postponement of the strike as a smart maneuver that gives the opponent a last chance. But between the two readings, the truth seems more complex: Trump uses the military threat as a negotiating tool, but he has not yet succeeded in turning it into a final agreement.

Iran also uses its ability to disrupt energy and respond regionally to reduce the impact of American pressure, but it cannot ignore the cost of war and blockade on it either.

For this reason, the postponement of the strike does not necessarily reveal the imminent conclusion of an agreement that satisfies everyone; because such an agreement assumes simultaneous concessions that have not yet appeared. But it does not mean a free retreat either. It is rather an attempt to manage a dilemma: keeping the stick raised without using it immediately, giving intermediaries a short opportunity, reassuring markets and allies, while maintaining the image of a president who can return to bombing "at any moment."

Finance ministers of the "G7" renewed their affirmation of reopening the Strait of Hormuz to address ongoing global imbalances, while the US representative called for "stricter" measures to disrupt what he described as "Iranian financing networks."

The West has been trying for weeks to reach practical ideas to liberate navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is subjected to a double blockade by Washington and Tehran, but political differences between Europe and the United States hinder reaching common ground.

A joint statement from the group, following its meeting in Paris on Tuesday, said its member states are committed to "multilateral cooperation to address the risks threatening the global economy."

The ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, and the United States called on all countries to avoid imposing arbitrary restrictions on exports. All countries to avoid imposing arbitrary restrictions on exports.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called on his allies on Tuesday to take stricter measures to disrupt Iranian financing networks, saying his country would remove "outdated" names from the sanctions list to facilitate the task of financial institutions in eliminating complex terrorism financing schemes.

During a speech prepared for delivery at a conference on combating terrorism financing following the meeting of finance ministers and financial officials from the G7 countries in Paris, Bessent affirmed that the participants need to "stand with us with all their might" against Iran.

Bessent confirmed in statements to reporters that the United States is determined to implement the "maximum pressure" policy to stop the financing of Iranian military and terrorist activities, pointing out that this approach aims to weaken Iran's capabilities without relying solely on military options.

Bessent affirmed that "the Treasury Department will update its sanctions structure to make it more effective, because our enemies are adapting and innovating by creating new shell companies," according to his words.

Following the meeting, the US Treasury Department website showed on Tuesday that the United States had imposed new sanctions on Iran.

For his part, Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in statements to reporters that "the G7 is united on the necessity of opening Hormuz and stopping the fighting."

Safe Passage

The final statement affirmed the group's commitment to ensuring the stability of energy markets and supporting the most vulnerable countries by strengthening the role of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The statement also urged "a swift return to free and safe passage" through the Strait of Hormuz, where navigation remains severely restricted after the de facto blockade imposed by Iran at the beginning of the conflict.

Observers said that the G7 meeting dealt with relief with the announcement by US President Donald Trump of stopping a planned attack against Iran on Tuesday and responding to the request of the Gulf countries to give diplomacy a chance to reach an agreement limiting the Iranian nuclear program.

The finance ministers discussed other issues related to the necessity of diversifying supply chains for rare earth elements and critical minerals, to reduce reliance on China.

Representatives from Gulf countries participated in some sessions to discuss the crisis, and Syria and Ukraine also participated in parts of the discussions, along with officials from Brazil, India, and South Korea.

The involvement of a wider spectrum of countries in discussions related to the future of navigation in the Middle East is seen as a reflection of an urgent need to break the political deadlock, explore alternative options, and increase pressure on the two parties to the blockade in "Hormuz"; Washington and Tehran.

Analysts say that the group's meeting in Paris may give the French presidency a diplomatic boost to reach a common approach that would reopen Hormuz, despite the differences in approach between the United States, which focuses on the military option and sanctions, and the European approach, which focuses on achieving a balance between economic and diplomatic pressures.

However, the discussions, described by French Finance Minister Roland Lescure as "difficult," reflected real challenges in unifying policies across both sides of the Atlantic, with the American administration's tendency to apply the "America First" slogan in some files.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the United States may have to strike Iran again, and that he was only an hour away from deciding to launch a strike before he postponed the attack.

Trump told reporters at the White House: "I was an hour away from deciding to attack today."

Trump said that Iran's leaders are begging for an agreement, but a new American attack will happen in the coming days if an agreement is not reached.

He added, "Well, I mean, I'm saying two or three days, maybe Friday or Saturday or Sunday, or something like that, maybe early next week, a limited timeframe, because we can't let them get a new nuclear weapon."

Trump said on Monday that he had temporarily halted planned attacks on Iran after Tehran sent a new peace proposal to Washington, and that there was now a "very good chance" of reaching an agreement that would limit Iran's nuclear program.

Under pressure to reach an agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key supply route for global oil and other commodity supplies, Trump had previously expressed hope that an agreement would be reached soon to end the conflict, and had threatened strong strikes on Iran if Tehran did not reach an agreement.

In a social media post, Trump said that the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE had asked him to postpone the attack because "an agreement will be reached, and it will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as to all Middle Eastern countries and beyond."

Speaking later to reporters on Monday, he said the United States would be satisfied if it could reach an agreement with Iran that prevents Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Trump told reporters: "It seems there is a very good chance of reaching a solution. If we can achieve that without bombing them heavily, I will be very happy."