AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The New York Times, Israel's Channel 12 television, and other Hebrew media outlets in recent days, in separate reports, announced that Donald Trump has currently decided to refrain from expanding the scope of military operations against Iran. These media outlets have emphasized that a set of security and political considerations has led the White House to avoid entering a broader confrontation.
Concern Over the Erosion of U.S. Military Capability
According to a New York Times report, one of the most important concerns of the U.S. administration is the depletion of Patriot interceptor missiles and ammunition for air defense systems in West Asia. Hebrew media have also claimed that Iran's attacks during recent developments have affected a significant portion of the defense capabilities of the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf region, challenging Washington's military assessments.
Alongside this, concerns about the vulnerability of America's Arab allies, the possible expansion of the war to other parts of the region, and its potential consequences for the global economy and energy markets have also been cited among the factors influencing the White House's recent decision. Some reports also speak of the U.S. administration's concern over the formation of a new wave of instability and humanitarian crises in the region.
Change in Washington's Calculations Toward Tehran
Simultaneously, assessments published in some international media, including CNN, indicate that Iran has been able, by maintaining internal cohesion and enhancing indigenous capabilities, to increase the cost of any large-scale military action for the opposing side. These analyses emphasize that the policy of maximum pressure and military threats, contrary to some predictions, has not led to a change in Tehran's behavior and has even increased doubts about the effectiveness of this approach among American decision-makers.
In this context, the New York Times has reported that a number of Trump's advisors, including Jared Kushner, believe that continuing economic pressure and pursuing diplomatic paths is, under current circumstances, a less costly option than entering a new war in West Asia; an issue that indicates a gap in assessments regarding the future of confrontation with Iran.
The sum of these reports shows that the equations concerning Iran have become more complex in America's strategic calculations than in the past. What emerges from the narrative of Western and Zionist media is that concern over military, economic, and political costs has led Washington, at least at the present juncture, to avoid escalating tensions, and has once again placed the deterrent role and influence of Iran in West Asian developments at the center of attention for international analysts.
Caution Toward Media Narratives and Variable Calculations
However, some observers believe that this collection of reports should be assessed with caution. The experience of regional developments in recent years has shown that the strategic decisions of the United States and the Zionist regime can change within a short period, and any announced de-escalation does not necessarily mean the abandonment of military options. From this perspective, continuous monitoring of field movements, military deployments, and political and media signals is of particular importance.
Furthermore, the possibility of simultaneously employing media atmospherics and cognitive operations aimed at creating miscalculation on the part of the opponent cannot be ignored; an issue that doubles the necessity of maintaining vigilance and avoiding any absolute optimism or pessimism regarding future developments.
In conclusion, despite the recent assessments of Western and Zionist media, the experience of developments in past years shows that media narratives should not necessarily be equated with the final decision of the actors. The New York Times had previously reported in its examination of the 2025 attacks by the Zionist regime on Iran that some of the pre-attack signals were assessed by some observers as psychological operations and a leverage tool in the negotiation process, but ultimately led to military action.
On the other hand, new Axios reports also emphasize that the cessation of U.S. attacks on Iran, more than signifying the end of the military option, can be considered a tactical pause within the framework of strategic reconfiguration. Accordingly, some analysts believe that field movements and media narratives must be monitored simultaneously; because in today's complex conflicts, cognitive warfare and efforts to create miscalculation on the part of the opponent are part of the battlefield.
**************
End/ 345E
