Israel Acknowledges Surprise at Trump’s Iran Strategy Amid Ongoing Negotiations

Israeli officials have expressed surprise and frustration over U.S. President Donald Trump’s inconsistent approach toward Iran, characterized by threats of broad military strikes, last-minute operational halts, and renewed negotiations. This pattern, observed twice within a week, complicates Israeli military planning and suggests Trump currently leans toward seeking a diplomatic agreement with Tehran rather than escalating conflict.

Sources familiar with Trump’s decision-making indicate he is attempting to balance applying enough pressure to break Iranian resistance while avoiding severe disruptions to global energy markets, which could trigger economic turmoil in the U.S. and worldwide. Trump is reportedly weighing three main options: reaching a deal with Iran, maintaining economic sanctions and blockade without an agreement, or intensifying military attacks.

The U.S. president is aware that economic pressure on Iran is already causing fuel shortages, inflation, and public protests. He is considering whether to deepen pressure through military means, economic sanctions, or a combination. This dilemma is shared by Gulf states, which are divided on the best U.S. course of action. Saudi Arabia and other countries urge diplomacy to prevent regional instability and protect energy infrastructure, while the UAE favors a tougher stance.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Bakaei clarified that Tehran’s new maritime route agreement with Oman is unrelated to the reopening or continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran opposes the existing southern route, proposing a jointly agreed third route with Oman.

On July 28, 2026, Trump canceled a planned attack after Iran and other Middle Eastern countries requested a pause, citing progress on "frameworks" for a deal involving the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending Iran’s nuclear threat. However, diplomats caution that no final agreement exists yet, with major disputes remaining over Iran’s control of the strategic shipping lane.

Despite optimistic statements, the gap between preliminary outlines and a formal deal remains wide. Trump continues to hold both options: readiness for unprecedented military action and orders to halt operations, hoping the threat alone will bring Iran to agreement. Israel’s frustration stems from the unpredictability of U.S. actions, which disrupt operational plans and obscure Washington’s future intentions. Yet Israeli officials understand Trump’s complex challenge: how to strike Iran without triggering an energy crisis, alienating Arab allies, or incurring political and economic costs at home. Until Trump finds this balance, the situation is likely to oscillate between attack and diplomacy, between Israeli hopes for decisive action and American desires for a stable resolution.