Trump Weighs Big Decision on Iran War as Gulf Leaders Prepare for High-Stakes Meeting

By Daniel Harper | Senior U.S. Military, International Affairs & Geopolitical Correspondent

September 18, 2026

President Donald Trump says he is approaching a “big decision” over the future of the nearly seven-month-long U.S.-Iran war, putting a new focus on a planned meeting with leaders and senior representatives from six Gulf countries in New York next week.

Trump told Axios that he is nearing a major crossroads and is considering whether to resume large-scale military action against Iran. He has not announced a final decision, however. His comments leave open several possible paths, including renewed military pressure, continued operations at the current level, negotiations or a combination of military and diplomatic pressure.

The timing matters. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman are all dealing with the consequences of the wider conflict, although their security relationships and policies toward Washington and Tehran differ.

The Gulf governments are also facing growing risks around energy infrastructure, shipping and the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen has created another pressure point near the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb.

What Trump’s “Big Decision” Means

Trump’s latest language is significant because he has publicly connected the next stage of the Trump Iran war to a major policy choice. He has discussed the possibility of returning to large-scale attacks, but he has not said that he has ordered a new offensive.

That distinction is important. The current debate concerns what Washington does next, not an already announced military decision.

Several broad options are possible. The United States could intensify military operations, maintain its existing posture while applying pressure, pursue negotiations with Tehran, or combine diplomacy with continued military deterrence.

Each approach would carry different consequences for U.S. forces, Iran, Israel, Gulf governments, energy markets and shipping routes. Trump has also said Iran wants a deal but is not ready, leaving diplomacy as a possibility even while military pressure remains on the table.

The Gulf Meeting Could Shape the Next Phase

The planned meeting is expected to take place Tuesday, September 22, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The UN’s 81st General Assembly high-level week begins on September 22, bringing heads of state, government leaders and senior representatives to New York.

The six Gulf Cooperation Council countries involved are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman.

They should not be treated as a single government with identical views. Saudi Arabia has immediate security concerns linked to Yemen. Qatar maintains a major U.S. military relationship while also preserving diplomatic channels. Oman has a long history of communicating with Iran. Bahrain has especially close security ties with Washington, while Kuwait’s geography puts it close to the Iranian coastline. The UAE has its own interests in maritime security, trade and regional stability.

Trump has indicated that he wants to hear where the Gulf governments stand before determining his next steps. That makes the meeting important not because it guarantees a common Gulf position, but because it could give Washington a clearer picture of regional concerns.

Why Gulf States Are Questioning U.S. Security Guarantees

The war has raised questions in Gulf capitals about the scope and limits of U.S. security commitments. Those questions do not mean the Gulf states have abandoned Washington. Most continue to rely heavily on U.S. military cooperation and security partnerships.

The concern is more specific: how much protection can Washington provide if the region faces simultaneous threats from Iran, Yemen and attacks on energy infrastructure?

Gulf governments have faced missile and drone threats, maritime disruption and economic pressure during the conflict. The GCC has publicly condemned Iranian attacks involving Gulf territory and commercial shipping, including incidents in the Strait of Hormuz.

For Gulf leaders, the calculation is therefore complicated. They want deterrence against attacks, but they also have an interest in preventing a wider war that could damage ports, refineries, airports, financial centers and energy exports.

Saudi Arabia’s Request for Help Against the Houthis

Saudi Arabia’s recent request for additional U.S. assistance illustrates that tension.

Reuters reported that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sought U.S. military support from Trump to counter the expanding threat from the Houthis. According to sources cited in the report, Trump declined to authorize direct U.S. strikes against the group, while Washington agreed to provide intelligence and targeting assistance.

That reporting is based on people familiar with the matter rather than a public announcement that the United States has begun direct strikes against the Houthis. The distinction matters because Washington is attempting to support Saudi defenses without necessarily opening another major U.S. military front.

Saudi Arabia is facing a difficult security problem. Its geographic position places it close to Yemen, while its oil infrastructure and Red Sea export routes are central to its economy.

The Houthi Front Complicates Trump’s Iran Decision

The Houthis have become an important part of the wider regional conflict. The movement is closely aligned with Iran, but that does not establish that Tehran directly orders every Houthi military operation.

The group’s growing presence along Yemen’s Red Sea coastline has increased concern about Bab el-Mandeb, one of the world’s key maritime chokepoints. Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia and the Houthis exchanged fresh strikes on September 17 as the conflict created additional threats to global oil supplies.

That creates a difficult question for Washington. If the United States increases pressure on Iran, it could face demands from regional partners for stronger protection against Iranian-aligned groups. Yet expanding U.S. operations into Yemen could create another military commitment while American forces are already engaged against Iran.

Why Saudi Arabia Is Particularly Exposed

Saudi Arabia has several vulnerabilities at the same time. Its border with Yemen creates a direct security concern, while its energy infrastructure and Red Sea shipping routes connect the kingdom to the global economy.

The country’s concerns extend beyond individual attacks. Sustained pressure on pipelines, ports or shipping routes could increase insurance costs, disrupt exports and make alternative transportation routes more important.

Recent GCC statements show how seriously Gulf governments view threats to maritime and energy security. The organization has described attacks on commercial vessels and Gulf infrastructure as threats to regional stability and global trade.

Strait of Hormuz Remains Central to the Energy Crisis

The Strait of Hormuz is another major reason Gulf leaders have a direct stake in Trump’s Iran decision.

The narrow waterway connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and is a critical route for international energy shipments. During the war, shipping through the strait has faced severe disruption and security risks.

Recent incidents involving commercial vessels have reinforced those concerns. The GCC has repeatedly called for freedom of navigation, while Iranian authorities have continued to assert their own security position around the waterway.

For Gulf economies, prolonged disruption can mean higher insurance costs, more expensive shipping and greater uncertainty for oil and gas exports. For Americans, the effects can eventually appear through fuel, transportation and other prices, although individual price movements cannot be attributed to any single event.

Oman Could Matter to Any Diplomatic Track

Oman’s position is particularly important because Muscat has historically maintained channels with both Washington and Tehran. It has previously played a role in facilitating communication between the two sides.

That history gives Oman a diplomatic role that differs from the more security-focused relationships of some other Gulf states. Its participation could therefore matter if Washington and Tehran explore indirect communication or a new negotiating framework.

That does not mean Oman is currently mediating a specific agreement. Its importance lies in the diplomatic access and regional relationships it has built over many years.

Qatar, UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait Have Different Stakes

Qatar has a major U.S. military presence and has also maintained a broad diplomatic role in regional conflicts. Any prolonged U.S.-Iran confrontation therefore creates both security responsibilities and economic risks for Doha.

The UAE faces its own exposure through trade, aviation, energy markets and maritime security. Bahrain has a particularly close defense relationship with Washington and hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters, making regional maritime security especially important.

Kuwait faces a different calculation because of its proximity to Iran and its long-standing role in Gulf security arrangements. These differences make a single unified Gulf position difficult to assume.

The common thread is the need to balance U.S. security cooperation, economic stability, relations with Iran and the risk of becoming a battlefield in a larger conflict.

What Does the Meeting Mean for U.S. Security Guarantees?

The central question for Washington is whether it can reassure Gulf partners without committing itself to unlimited military intervention.

Saudi Arabia’s request for direct action against the Houthis provides a clear example. Riyadh has asked for stronger help, while Washington has reportedly chosen intelligence and targeting support instead of direct strikes.

That approach reflects competing priorities. The United States wants to protect partners, deter attacks and preserve freedom of navigation. At the same time, expanding the number of fronts could increase risks for U.S. forces and make the wider conflict harder to contain.

Trump’s Possible Paths After the Gulf Meeting

Intensify military pressure: Washington could resume large-scale attacks against Iranian targets. That would represent a significant change in the current posture and could produce additional military and regional consequences.

Maintain the current military posture: The administration could continue deterrence, force protection and existing operations without launching a major new offensive.

Pursue negotiations: Washington could seek direct or indirect talks focused on issues such as Iran’s nuclear activities, sanctions, military capabilities and maritime security.

Combine pressure and diplomacy: The administration could maintain military leverage while testing whether negotiations can produce a broader framework.

These are policy paths, not predictions about what Trump will choose.

What Iran Wants From Any Negotiation

Iran’s position has centered on opposition to U.S. military operations and economic pressure, while Tehran has continued to resist demands it considers unacceptable. The nuclear program, sanctions, regional security and the Strait of Hormuz remain central issues in the dispute.

Trump has said Iran wants a deal but is not ready to reach one on terms acceptable to Washington. At the same time, Iran has continued to signal that any diplomatic process would have to address the military and economic pressure being placed on Tehran.

No publicly confirmed settlement has emerged from those differences.

Diplomacy Has Not Disappeared

The prospect of negotiations remains important because previous attempts have failed to produce a durable breakthrough. The earlier U.S.-Iran talks in Switzerland that failed to produce a breakthrough show how difficult it has been for Washington and Tehran to bridge disagreements even when diplomatic channels are open.

That history does not rule out another attempt. It does, however, underline the scale of the disagreements that any future negotiations would have to address.

Sanctions Remain Part of Washington’s Strategy

Military policy is only one part of the U.S. approach. Washington has also expanded economic pressure against Iran, including measures targeting financial networks and other sources of revenue.

The White House announced a major new sanctions campaign in August under the name Operation Economic Outcast, describing it as an effort to isolate Iran economically.

Washington’s use of sanctions and economic pressure alongside military policy adds another layer to any future negotiation. The challenge is balancing pressure on Tehran with the economic and humanitarian consequences that sanctions can create.

What Gulf Leaders Could Ask Trump About

Without assuming private demands, several issues are likely to matter to Gulf governments because of their documented security and economic interests.

• Protection against Iranian retaliation.
• Security for oil and gas infrastructure.
• Freedom of navigation through regional waterways.
• Greater protection against Houthi attacks.
• Clarity over future U.S. military commitments.
• Efforts to prevent uncontrolled regional escalation.
• A diplomatic route toward reducing the conflict.

The challenge for Trump will be balancing those concerns with Washington’s broader objectives toward Iran.

The Economic Stakes Extend Beyond the Gulf

A prolonged war can affect much more than military budgets. Shipping companies face higher insurance and security costs when major routes become dangerous. Airlines can face longer routes and additional operating expenses when regional airspace becomes restricted.

Energy markets are particularly sensitive. Oil prices can respond quickly to threats involving production facilities, tanker traffic or major chokepoints. That can eventually affect gasoline and transportation costs for American consumers.

Yet markets do not move in a simple one-to-one relationship with battlefield events. Supply expectations, inventories, production decisions and investor confidence also influence prices.

What to Watch After the Meeting

• Trump’s announcement on the future direction of U.S. policy toward Iran.
• Public statements from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman.
• Any Iranian response to Washington’s next move.
• Changes in U.S. military deployments or operations.
• Further Saudi-Houthi fighting.
• Developments around Bab el-Mandeb and Red Sea shipping.
• New incidents involving commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Oil-price and shipping-market reactions.
• New U.S.-Iran diplomatic contacts.
• Additional sanctions or economic measures against Iran.

Conclusion

Trump’s big decision on the Iran war is not happening in isolation. The United States is approaching another major policy crossroads while Iran remains engaged in the conflict, Gulf governments face direct security and economic risks, and Saudi Arabia is seeking greater assistance against the Houthis.

The Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz have added another dimension to the crisis. Energy infrastructure, commercial shipping and regional military bases are all exposed to the consequences of further escalation.

The September 22 Gulf meeting therefore matters beyond the immediate question of what Trump decides about Iran. It could provide an important indication of how Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman view their security relationships with Washington at a time when the limits of those partnerships are being tested.

But the meeting itself will not determine the outcome of the war. Trump’s final decision, Iran’s response, the position of Gulf governments and the course of fighting in Yemen and around the region will all shape what comes next.