A planned US military strike on Iran was called off at the eleventh hour after direct appeals from Gulf Arab states, a senior UK diplomatic source has confirmed. The operation, which was authorised by President Donald Trump in retaliation for the downing of an American drone, was halted following a backchannel communication relayed through British diplomats.
The Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, expressed grave concern that any US military action would destabilise the region and endanger their own security. Their intervention, channelled via London, underscored the delicate balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the reluctance of key allies to see a full-scale confrontation between Washington and Tehran.
The UK source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the backchannel had been established weeks earlier to manage crisis communications. When the US prepared to launch strikes on 11 June, Gulf leaders urgently requested that Britain intercede. The request was passed to the White House, where it contributed to the president's decision to stand down.
President Trump initially confirmed on Twitter that strikes had been “cocked and loaded” but were called off because they would have resulted in “disproportionate” casualties. He made no mention of Gulf pressure, instead citing his concern for Iranian lives. However, the UK source clarified that the Gulf states’ appeal was a significant factor, alongside advice from military and intelligence officials.
The incident lays bare the fragile dynamics of the US-Iran standoff. Gulf states, while broadly supportive of the US campaign of maximum pressure, have no desire to be caught in the crossfire of a direct war between their patron and their neighbour. Their economies rely on oil exports, and any conflict would risk closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global crude.
Britain’s role as a diplomatic intermediary is consistent with its historical position in the region. The UK maintains close intelligence and military ties with both Washington and the Gulf monarchies. The backchannel was first reported by the Sunday Times, which obtained details from a Whitehall source.
The confirmation of the backchannel raises questions about the extent of British influence over US military decisions. While London has long acted as a bridge between America and the Middle East, the intervention on this occasion appears to have been decisive. It also highlights the limits of Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy: even his closest allies in the Gulf are willing to circumvent him when they perceive a threat to their own interests.
The Iranian regime, for its part, has shown no public appreciation for the Gulf states’ role. However, Tehran is aware of the divisions within the anti-Iran coalition and may seek to exploit them. The aborted strike has left the region in a state of heightened tension, with both sides claiming victory. Iran boasts that its air defences forced the US to back down, while Washington insists that it exercised restraint.
The episode is a reminder that major power rivalries in the Middle East are rarely straightforward. The US military remains the dominant force in the region, but it operates within a network of allies whose interests do not always align. For now, the Gulf states have succeeded in averting a war they did not want. But the underlying causes of the crisis, including Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its proxies in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, remain unresolved.
