In a stunning diplomatic intervention just days ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior officials from four Arab nations personally urged President Trump to delay planned military strikes on Iran, even as the Islamic Republic conducted what may be the deadliest massacre of protesters in its modern history. 

The disclosure exposes the delicate calculus facing Washington as thousands of Iranians lie dead in the streets while America’s closest regional allies counsel restraint. The protests that ignited this crisis began in late December over Iran’s collapsing currency and crushing inflation. They rapidly evolved into the most significant challenge to clerical rule since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. 

What started with merchants and students demonstrating in Tehran has spread to hundreds of cities across all 31 provinces, with protesters chanting “Death to the Dictator” and calling for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s overthrow.

The human toll has been catastrophic. While exact figures are impossible to verify due to a near-total internet shutdown imposed by Iranian authorities on January 8, estimates of the death toll range as high as 20,000, according to monitoring groups, medical professionals inside Iran, and intelligence assessments. 

Iran Human Rights documented at least 3,428 protester deaths through Tuesday, with sources inside Iran’s Ministry of Health reporting that between January 8 and 12 alone, 3,379 deaths were registered. Even as the unrest intensified, regional military realities constrained broader escalation. 

“The reason for Netanyahu’s request to postpone the attack on Iran: a shortage of interceptors and the absence of a U.S. naval force in the Middle East,” defense and intelligence analyst John Wood tells The New York Sun, pointing to Israel’s depleted defensive capabilities after months of absorbing rocket attacks from Iranian proxies.

Amid the deadly unrest, strategic calculations in the region — including United States force movements — have also shaped the response, constrained military options, and influenced allies’ decisions. Over the past six months, the United States repositioned its focus and assets on the Caribbean, culminating in the arrest of dictator Nicolás Maduro earlier this month. 

Why America’s Allies Fear Regime Collapse

The deeper concern driving both Israeli and Gulf Arab opposition to strikes, however, extends far beyond military logistics. Regional leaders worry that sudden regime collapse could unleash chaos with no organized alternative in place. “There is no viable opposition leader in Iran,” Mr. Wood explains, underscoring why regional leaders fear regime collapse despite their hostility toward the Islamic Republic.

This uncomfortable reality shapes every calculation about military intervention. The Islamic Republic has systematically eliminated or exiled credible opposition figures over four decades. 

The Green Movement of 2009 was crushed. What survived is a fragmented landscape of ethnic minorities, secular intellectuals without power bases, and militant groups widely despised by ordinary Iranians. The exiled Pahlavi prince, Reza Pahlavi, has called for protesters to seize city centers, yet his support inside the country has been unclear since his leaving in 1979 at age 18.

The absence of a credible successor government means any successful regime change operation could create a failed state of 89 million people, potentially triggering refugee flows, ethnic separatism, and a power vacuum that extremist groups might exploit. 

Gulf Arab leaders fear that eliminating the current regime without a clear succession plan could create chaos on their doorstep. A wounded but functional Iranian regime, however hostile, at least provides predictability. A collapsed Iran spiraling into Syria-style civil war offers none.

Israeli and Gulf officials also recognize that United States military intervention could paradoxically strengthen Iranian leadership by allowing the regime to portray protesters as American and Israeli agents, a narrative it has deployed since 1999 to suppress dissent.

The Eleventh-Hour Diplomatic Push

Concerns over regional instability and the potential backlash of foreign intervention set the stage for an eleventh-hour diplomatic effort. As Mr. Trump reviewed disturbing footage of past executions in Iran last week and threatened “very strong action,” a coordinated diplomatic effort was quietly underway to forestall American military intervention. 

Mr. Netanyahu spoke with Mr. Trump by phone on Wednesday, just hours before the president appeared to step back from strike threats. The Israeli prime minister urged delay, citing attacks from Iranian proxies and direct Iranian strikes during last summer’s 12-day war.

Israeli officials privately conveyed they did not believe the Iranian regime would collapse quickly without a prolonged campaign. More critically, Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow defense systems require substantial replenishment before Israel could withstand the massive retaliation that American strikes would almost certainly trigger.

At the same time, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Egypt led what one Gulf official described as a “long, frantic, diplomatic last-minute effort” to convince Trump to give Iran a chance to demonstrate good intentions. The four Arab states warned the Trump administration that military action could trigger wider regional conflict, threatening both Washington’s interests and the economic stability of Gulf partners central to Trump’s foreign policy agenda.

These Gulf states also conveyed stark warnings to Tehran that any Iranian attack on American facilities in the region would have serious consequences for Iran’s relations with countries across the Middle East. The coordinated pressure from both Israel and Arab partners created an unusual alliance united by shared fears about what might follow American strikes.

Trump’s Calculation and Iran’s Signal

Mr. Trump last week became fixated on Iran’s executions after being confronted about them during a Michigan factory tour and shown videos of public hangings carried out by crane. He was particularly disturbed by the planned execution of a 26-year-old protester, Erfan Soltani, prompting increasingly aggressive rhetoric and signaling openness to limited military action. 

Iran’s leadership, reading the signals, postponed Soltani’s execution and conveyed through back channels that it would halt protester killings, with Iranian officials later saying Trump had indicated he did not seek war and urged Tehran to avoid attacking American interests.

Despite this apparent de-escalation, Mr. Wood noted that military preparations continue. “The US is building the naval force in the Middle East, and it will take two to three weeks until Trump orders an attack,” he surmises, indicating the strike option remains viable. 

The United States Ship Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, currently positioned in the South China Sea, was ordered around the middle of last week to steam toward the Middle East and would require about one week to reach the region. 

What Happens Next

Following Mr. Netanyahu’s call to Mr. Trump, Israeli officials disclosed that after overnight consultations at military headquarters, they informed Washington that while they support any United States decision, they are not currently pushing for strikes. 

There remains, however, a dispute within Israel’s leadership about the proper approach, with former strategic affairs minister Ron Dermer advocating a more hawkish stance. While Israel signaled caution, the White House moved forward with targeted measures, signaling pressure on Tehran through economic and financial channels.

The Trump administration announced new sanctions on Thursday targeting 18 Iranian individuals and entities allegedly responsible for the crackdown and sanctions evasion on oil sales. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Iran’s leaders had “brutally responded to peaceful demonstrations with violence, from mass shootings in the street to attacks on wounded victims and hospitals.”

Yet, the fundamental question lingers as to whether Mr. Trump will ultimately order the strikes he has threatened, whether Iran will resume killing protesters once international attention fades, and whether the diplomatic intervention by America’s closest Middle Eastern allies has merely delayed or permanently prevented military confrontation. 

For now, the urgent phone calls from regional leaders appear to have succeeded in forestalling immediate action. However, with death tolls mounting and Iran’s regime threatening swift executions, the window for any resolution grows narrower by the day.

“This is the biggest chance we have had to take out the regime,” a 40-year-old teacher from Iran, who asked to be identified only as Mehdi, tells the Sun. “If it doesn’t happen now, it seems as though it will never happen.”