President Donald Trump’s public threats against Iran have prompted urgent diplomacy across the Middle East as regional capitals scramble to prevent a military confrontation. On January 28, Tehran’s diplomats reached out to several governments after Mr. Trump warned on social media that a large U.S. fleet was en route to the region and that “time is running out” for Iran to return to talks. Tehran’s United Nations mission responded in kind, saying Iran remains willing to negotiate on the basis of mutual respect but would respond with decisive force if attacked.
Turkey, Qatar and Egypt led calls for de‑escalation, urging Washington and Tehran to reopen dialogue rather than resort to force. Ankara’s foreign minister told Qatari television that disputes with Iran should be resolved through a step‑by‑step return to nuclear talks, and Turkish officials warned that foreign intervention could spark instability or a refugee outflow. Doha’s prime minister‑foreign minister emphasized support for measures that reduce tensions and seek peaceful settlement.
Regional hedging has become explicit: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said they would not permit their airspace or territory to be used for strikes on Iran. Egypt’s foreign minister spoke with both Iran’s and the U.S. envoy’s offices calling on both sides to cool the rhetoric and create conditions for renewed talks. On the ground, pro‑Iranian demonstrations in Lebanon underlined the sectarian and proxy dynamics that could draw neighbouring states deeper into a wider confrontation.
The military build‑up is clear. U.S. Central Command has announced the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is deploying to the Middle East, and U.S. officials have discussed a range of possible strikes — from attacks on Iranian nuclear sites to strikes targeting senior leaders — though no final decision had been taken. Tehran’s foreign minister warned that Iran’s armed forces are “ready to pull the trigger” and pledged that any coercion would be met with an unprecedented response. Iran’s currency has weakened substantially amid the uncertainty.
The clash of signals — maximalist U.S. rhetoric, Iranian vows of firm retaliation, and regional efforts to dampen escalation — presents a hazardous mix. Gulf states that benefitted from quieter U.S. policy in recent years now find themselves balancing ties with Washington against the immediate risks of spillover. For the global economy and energy markets, the prospect of military strikes near major shipping lanes raises the stakes considerably.
If diplomacy does not gain traction, the immediate risks are twofold: tactical miscalculation that triggers counter‑strikes and an accelerated collapse of any remaining incentives for Iran to pursue negotiated limits on its nuclear programme. The diplomatic window for a mediated de‑escalation is narrow, and the positions taken publicly by Washington and Tehran suggest both deterrence and signaling are at play as much as an appetite for open war.