International journalist Sakina Datoo and political commentator Syed Mohsin Abbas discussed why US President Donald Trump ultimately refrained from launching a broader military attack on Iran.
Both argued that Washington's repeated threats were not backed by the military capability or strategic conditions needed for a sustained escalation, and that the risks of provoking a wider regional confrontation outweighed any potential benefits.
Datoo argued that a major US strike was never a realistic option because Iran had made it clear it would retaliate by targeting critical infrastructure in Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states.
She maintained that attacks on essential facilities, such as desalination plants, would have catastrophic consequences for Persian Gulf countries, making such an escalation unacceptable even to US regional partners.
She noted Trump's threats were largely a negotiating tactic influenced by pressure from pro-Israel interests, rather than a genuine intention to wage a larger war.
Abbas, meanwhile, echoed the view that the US was bluffing, arguing that Iran's intelligence network was closely monitoring American military movements and had prepared appropriate responses.
He contended that the US faced constraints in its stockpiles of advanced weaponry and lacked the capacity to sustain a prolonged campaign. At the same time, Iran could replenish its supply of lower-cost drones and missiles more rapidly. According to Abbas, these military realities made a full-scale attack increasingly unlikely.
Overall, both analysts concluded that Trump's decision to call off a broader strike reflected a strategic assessment rather than a sudden change of policy.
They argued that the combination of Iran's credible deterrence, the risk of regional escalation, and US military limitations made a wider conflict too costly, leaving Washington to rely on threats and limited military actions instead of a full-scale offensive.