The White House has reversed a planned military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities after direct intervention from Gulf states, UK diplomatic sources have confirmed. President Donald Trump’s decision, communicated late on Wednesday, follows intense behind-the-scenes lobbying from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, who warned that any escalation would destabilise regional energy markets and trigger a wider conflict.
Data from the International Energy Agency shows the Gulf states supplied 18% of global crude oil in Q1 2025. A retaliatory Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which carries a fifth of the world’s petroleum, would cause an immediate spike in fuel prices, according to a leaked briefing from the UK Foreign Office. The economic calculus, it seems, outweighed military options.
Dr. Maria Jabeen, a geopolitical risk analyst at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, described the cancellation as “a rare victory for realpolitik over brinkmanship”. The original plan involved precision strikes on three uranium enrichment centrifuges near Natanz, which Iranian scientists had restarted in breach of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Satellite imagery from Planet Labs confirmed increased activity at the site earlier this month.
“The Gulf states have effectively acted as a firebreak,” Dr. Jabeen said. “They understood that a single bomb could ignite a regional inferno, threatening their own diversification plans and net-zero targets.” The UAE alone has invested $165 billion in renewable energy projects since 2020, and Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 depends on stable oil revenues to fund its solar and hydrogen initiatives.
UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, who was briefed on the strike plans via the Five Eyes intelligence network, is understood to have urged restraint. His office released a statement emphasising “diplomatic channels” and the “de-escalation of rhetoric”. Chancellor Rachel Reeves had warned that a conflict would undermine the government’s fiscal rules, given that inflation could rise by two percentage points according to Treasury models.
Opposition from European allies was also swift. French President Emmanuel Macron argued that a strike would fracture the already fragile Iran deal negotiations, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz pointed to the risk of Iranian proxies attacking NATO assets in the region. The joint pressure appears to have swayed Trump, whose decision-making style is often transactional.
Environmental implications are sobering. A military exchange would release substantial carbon emissions from burning oil infrastructure, according to a 2024 study in Nature Climate Change. The wartime destruction of refineries and pipelines could also release toxic pollutants into the Gulf, exacerbating ocean acidification in a marine ecosystem already stressed by rising temperatures.
The temporary defusing of this crisis offers a breathing space for climate diplomacy, but the underlying tensions remain. Iran’s nuclear programme continues to accelerate, and the United States maintains a carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. For the planet’s climate trajectory, a conflict now would be catastrophic, diverting trillions from clean energy investments into destruction. The Gulf states may have saved the world from an immediate disaster, but the long-term hazard of nuclear proliferation and fossil fuel dependence remains unaddressed.
