By: Fern Sidman

By the time dawn broke over the Persian Gulf on Thursday, it had become clear to senior diplomats that something extraordinary had occurred in the shadows. As the world’s media braced for the possibility of American strikes on Iran amid the regime’s violent crackdown on mass protests, a quiet but coordinated diplomatic intervention — orchestrated by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, and the United States — had begun to cool what many feared was a march toward regional conflagration.

According to multiple officials cited in a report on Thursday in The Jerusalem Post, envoys from Doha, Riyadh, and Muscat had spent days working “behind the scenes” to defuse tensions between Washington and Tehran. Their objective was unambiguous: prevent a military confrontation that could have ignited the Middle East at its most volatile moment in years.

That these Gulf monarchies — themselves hardly uniform in outlook — aligned in such an effort speaks volumes about the perceived gravity of the moment. As The Jerusalem Post reported, these diplomatic overtures were not symbolic. They were urgent, granular, and conducted under the intense pressure of unfolding events inside Iran.

The Jerusalem Post report revealed Thursday that officials in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman acted as intermediaries between the Trump administration and Iranian leaders, each deploying their distinct channels of influence. A Reuters report added that Egypt, long a discreet regional broker, had also entered the fray, lending its considerable diplomatic infrastructure to the initiative.

These countries share little beyond geography and a common dread of war in the Gulf. Yet they converged on the same conclusion: an American strike on Iran — however limited — would reverberate across their borders, destabilizing energy markets, inviting Iranian retaliation, and risking an uncontrollable escalation.

The effort came as President Trump was weighing his options in the wake of Iran’s ferocious suppression of nationwide protests — unrest widely described as the most serious challenge to clerical rule in decades. It was within this charged context that Gulf emissaries began urging restraint, relaying messages of de-escalation, and pressing both Washington and Tehran to step back from the precipice.

Perhaps the most consequential development, first reported by the Pakistani outlet Dawn and cited in The Jerusalem Post report, was President Trump’s direct communication to Iranian leaders. According to Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, Trump conveyed that the United States would not attack Iran — provided the Islamic Republic reciprocated with restraint.

It was a stunning revelation, one that reframed the global narrative almost overnight. Only days earlier, Trump had openly threatened “very strong action” should Iran continue executing protesters. Now, he was signaling a pause, an opportunity for Tehran to recalibrate.

This was not a concession, Trump insisted, but a conditional reprieve. The Jerusalem Post report emphasized that the message was couched in unmistakably stern language: Washington would hold fire, but only if Iran demonstrably de-escalated its internal repression.

The diplomatic pivot became public on Wednesday evening, when Trump emerged in the Oval Office to deliver remarks that reverberated across capitals.

“We were told that the killing in Iran is stopping, and there’s no plan for executions,” he said, according to The Jerusalem Post report. “I’ve been told that on good authority. We’ll find out about it. I’m sure if it happens, I’ll be very upset.”

The president repeated the claim with characteristic emphasis, asserting that he had received assurances from “very important sources on the other side” that a wave of executions scheduled for that day would not proceed.

While skepticism lingered — Iranian authorities have a long history of opacity — the statement marked a dramatic shift in tone from the previous week’s brinkmanship. It also provided political cover for the Arab mediators, who had staked their reputations on the possibility that dialogue, not detonations, could forestall disaster.

The most tangible evidence that pressure was yielding results came just hours later. On Thursday afternoon, Trump posted triumphantly on Truth Social that Fox News had reported Iranian protester Erfan Soltani would no longer face execution.

“FoxNews: ‘Iranian protester will no longer be sentenced to death after President Trump’s warnings. Likewise others,’” Trump wrote, as quoted by The Jerusalem Post. “This is good news. Hopefully, it will continue!”

Soltani, a 26-year-old demonstrator, had been sentenced to death only a day earlier — a chilling symbol of the regime’s determination to crush dissent. That his execution was reportedly halted represented not only a humanitarian reprieve but a diplomatic inflection point.

The Jerusalem Post report highlighted the broader implications: if Trump’s warnings could spare one life, they might yet stay the hand of the executioner elsewhere.

Not everyone in Washington, however, was prepared to interpret these developments as a retreat. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a hawkish stalwart on Iran, swiftly moved to reframe the narrative.

In a blistering post on X, Graham rejected headlines suggesting Trump was backing down from striking the Islamic Republic, dismissing them as “beyond inaccurate.”

“The circumstances around the necessary, decisive action to be taken against the evil Iranian regime have nothing to do with President Trump’s will or determination,” Graham wrote, according to The Jerusalem Post report. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Graham concluded with a cryptic admonition to “stay tuned,” preserving the aura of imminent action even as diplomacy appeared to gain traction.

His intervention served a dual purpose: reassuring allies that deterrence remained intact while warning Tehran that Washington’s patience was finite.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the Arab states’ involvement was driven by cold strategic calculus rather than altruism. Qatar hosts the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command at Al Udeid; Saudi Arabia and Oman sit within easy range of Iranian missiles; Egypt depends on regional stability to safeguard its fragile economy.

An American strike on Iran — even a calibrated one — would likely provoke retaliation against U.S. bases, shipping lanes, or Gulf infrastructure, plunging the region into chaos.

By working through their established back channels, these governments sought to leverage their residual credibility in Tehran — particularly Oman’s longstanding role as a discreet interlocutor — to convey that restraint was in everyone’s interest.

Throughout the crisis, The Jerusalem Post has emphasized that this episode illustrates the evolving architecture of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Gone are the days when Washington and Tehran communicated solely through megaphones. In their place is a labyrinth of regional actors, each maneuvering to prevent catastrophe.

The newspaper also noted the delicate balance Trump has attempted to strike: threatening overwhelming force while dangling the possibility of de-escalation if Iran moderates its behavior.

This duality — carrot and cudgel, reprieve and retribution — is the essence of Trump’s approach to Iran. Whether it will succeed remains an open question.

For now, the killing in Iran appears to have slowed, and at least one condemned protester has reportedly been spared. But as The Jerusalem Post report cautioned, the situation remains fluid.

Iran’s leadership has not formally acknowledged any change in policy. Its security forces remain deployed across major cities, and the underlying grievances — economic collapse, political repression, social alienation — have not been addressed.

The Gulf states, meanwhile, continue to operate quietly in the background, aware that the reprieve they have helped engineer may prove ephemeral.

As one regional diplomat told The Jerusalem Post on condition of anonymity, “We did not solve the problem. We bought time.”

Whether that time will be squandered or transformed into something enduring is now the defining question of this fragile moment — a moment shaped not by bombs or bravado, but by whispers across the Gulf.