Has Trump Stopped Fighting?

President Donald Trump's decision to halt U.S. airstrikes against Iran may appear surprising after nearly two weeks of sustained military operations. Yet a closer examination of the nature of the conflict and its objectives suggests that the decision may actually be consistent with the logic that shaped the campaign from the outset, rather than representing a retreat from it.

Regime change in Iran or the occupation of Iranian territory was never the principal objective. Instead, the campaign sought to reduce Tehran's ability to threaten maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and to raise the cost of using this vital waterway as a tool of political and economic leverage.

As the strikes continued, Washington appears to have concluded that it had generated sufficient military pressure to justify giving diplomacy another opportunity. This helps explain why the suspension of operations has been described as a temporary pause rather than a definitive end to the conflict.

There are also practical military considerations. Prolonged air campaigns tend to produce diminishing military returns over time while simultaneously increasing political and operational risks. Every additional day raises the possibility of an incident that could trigger an escalation neither side actually seeks. From this perspective, stopping at the moment when policymakers believe they have delivered their intended strategic message may be more effective than continuing until the gains are exhausted.

But could the reported crash of an American aircraft near Qeshm Island have influenced the decision?

At present, there is no verified evidence to support such a conclusion. Iranian media outlets and several news platforms circulated reports claiming that an American aircraft had crashed over or near the island. However, the reports have not been confirmed by Washington, nor has any independently verifiable evidence emerged. Consequently, the alleged incident cannot be regarded as a confirmed reason for suspending military operations.

Nevertheless, the mere possibility that the United States may have lost an aircraft highlights an important point. If it were eventually confirmed that such a loss had occurred, it would indicate that the costs of continuing the campaign were beginning to rise and that—even with overwhelming military superiority—the United States was not operating without risk or consequence.

More likely, however, Trump's decision reflected broader strategic calculations rather than a single incident. Domestic pressures within the United States had intensified as oil prices rose and the conflict's effects on global trade became more pronounced. At the same time, regional mediators—particularly Oman and Qatar—were actively promoting a new diplomatic opening. Meanwhile, Washington had not yet achieved conditions that would justify escalating to a full-scale war, nor was Iran in a position to impose its own terms.

The author therefore argues that Trump chose to pause at a point where he believed the United States had secured maximum leverage for future negotiations without becoming entangled in a far more costly phase of the conflict. His objective appears to be keeping military power as an instrument that supports diplomacy rather than allowing it to become a strategy in its own right.

If ongoing mediation efforts succeed in transforming this pause into a genuine negotiating process, the decision will have accomplished its intended purpose. If diplomacy fails, however, it is entirely possible that military operations will resume. The underlying causes of the conflict have not disappeared—they have merely entered a new phase of political testing.

Originally published in Al-Masry Al-Youm (Egypt).