By Michael Phillips | Republic Dispatch

As tensions spike across the Middle East, regional powers are pressing Washington to step back from the brink.

According to reporting from The Guardian, Axios, and the Associated Press, key U.S. partners in the Gulf—along with Turkey—have privately urged Donald Trump not to authorize military strikes against Iran, even as the administration reviews options in response to Tehran’s escalating actions and internal unrest.

The warnings underscore growing concern that a direct U.S. strike could ignite a wider regional conflict, destabilize fragile economies, and trigger retaliation against American forces and allies.

Regional Allies Push Back

Officials from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Turkey have reportedly communicated their opposition directly to Washington. While these countries are hardly aligned with Tehran ideologically, they share a clear strategic fear: war with Iran would not stay contained.

Many Gulf states host U.S. military bases and critical energy infrastructure that would be immediate targets in any Iranian retaliation. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—vital to global energy markets—would also be at risk, potentially triggering economic shockwaves well beyond the region.

Israel’s Concerns and Strategic Calculus

At the same time, Axios reports that Israel is closely monitoring U.S. deliberations and has voiced concern about the timing and scope of any potential strike. While Israel views Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an existential threat, Israeli officials reportedly worry that unilateral U.S. action—without a broader coalition or clear endgame—could leave Israel exposed to retaliation from Iran-backed proxies such as Hezbollah.

This reflects a deeper tension: Israel wants decisive action against Iran’s nuclear program, but not a regional war that spirals beyond control.

Trump’s Options on the Table

The Trump administration, facing mounting pressure over Iran’s behavior and violent crackdowns at home, is weighing a range of responses. These reportedly include limited military strikes on nuclear or Revolutionary Guard targets, expanded sanctions, cyber operations, and increased support for Iranian protesters.

Yet administration officials have acknowledged the risks. Iran retains significant asymmetric capabilities—from missile forces to proxy militias across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Any strike, even a “limited” one, could rapidly escalate.

A Strategic Crossroads

For now, Trump appears to be listening—at least partially—to allied concerns. The appeals from Gulf states and Turkey highlight a rare moment of regional consensus: whatever Iran’s crimes and provocations, a direct U.S.-Iran war would be catastrophic.

From a center-right perspective, the challenge is balancing strength with prudence. Deterrence matters. Red lines matter. But so does strategic discipline. America’s allies in the region are signaling that while they want Iran checked, they do not want Washington to light the fuse on a conflict that could engulf the Middle East.

Whether Trump ultimately chooses restraint, escalation, or a calibrated middle path will shape not only U.S. credibility—but the stability of the region for years to come.