ISLAMABAD: In a dramatic turn of events late on January 14, 2026, UnitedStates President Donald Trump reportedly authorised but then abruptlycancelled military strikes on Iran, minutes before execution, averting whatcould have been a major escalation in the Middle East. The decision cameagainst the backdrop of widespread anti-government protests in Iran, wheresecurity forces have killed thousands, prompting Trump to threatenintervention if executions proceeded. Iranian airspace, briefly restricted,has since reopened, while US forces at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar wereordered to stand down after partial evacuations. This last-minute reversalhas left tensions high but war averted for now, raising questions aboutWashington’s strategic calculus in supporting Iranian protesters withouttriggering full conflict.
The primary factor influencing President Trump’s decision was theassessment from senior military advisers that any strike would not delivera decisive blow capable of toppling the Iranian regime. Reports indicatethat options presented to the White House, including targeted airstrikes onleadership or facilities, were deemed insufficient to achieve regimechange. Previous US actions, such as strikes on nuclear sites in June 2025,failed to dislodge the government despite significant damage. Adviserswarned that limited operations might strengthen regime cohesion through arally-around-the-flag effect, leaving the clerical leadership intact andpotentially prolonging the crisis without benefiting protesters.
A second critical reason centred on the risk of severe Iranian retaliationand the vulnerability of US regional assets. Intelligence suggested Tehrancould respond forcefully against American bases, including Al Udeid, whichhosts thousands of troops and was previously targeted in symbolic missilestrikes. With major carrier strike groups repositioned elsewhere—such as inthe western Pacific or near Venezuela—the US lacked sufficient defensiveinterceptors and rapid-response forces to fully protect personnel andallies. This constrained posture, exacerbated by recent drawdowns,heightened concerns that a strike could expose forces to unacceptable riskswithout adequate reinforcement timelines.
The third compelling factor was the reported assurances from Iraniansources that lethal crackdowns and planned executions had ceased, providingTrump an off-ramp to de-escalate. The president publicly stated thatkillings were stopping and no executions were imminent, based oninformation from important channels in Tehran. This development, combinedwith the postponement of a high-profile protester execution, allowed theadministration to claim partial success in deterring further repressionwhile avoiding military commitment. Domestic political considerations,including public opposition to another overseas conflict following recentoperations, further reinforced caution.
These elements collectively underscore the complexities of US policy towardIran amid ongoing unrest. While protests continue to challenge the regime,Washington’s reluctance to engage militarily highlights limitations inachieving transformative outcomes through force alone. The episodeillustrates a delicate balance between rhetorical support for democraticaspirations and pragmatic avoidance of broader war.
Read Top Stories
Source:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/15/iran-protest-killings-trump-tehran-claims-no-executions
Protests
ogimageimage-name