President Donald Trump abruptly paused a two-week bombing campaign against Iran on Friday, prompting Tehran to signal it will halt retaliatory operations as long as the U.S. ceasefire holds.
The sudden shift in military posture follows 13 consecutive nights of U.S. air strikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure, according to Reuters. The Pentagon suspended the campaign late Friday, leaving Saturday and Sunday without reported U.S. attacks. A senior Iranian official confirmed that Tehran has held fire for two days in response.
Stockpile Pressures and White House Debate Over Escalation
Behind the decision to halt the bombing runs lay intense internal friction among top presidential advisers regarding America’s military readiness. During a White House meeting on Friday, Pentagon Chief of Staff Dan Caine and Vice President JD Vance both raised serious reservations about escalating the conflict further, CNN reported.
Caine warned Trump that continuing the campaign risked heavily depleting critical U.S. munitions stocks, particularly interceptors required to safeguard American troops stationed across the region. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz echoed those logistical strains during an appearance on Fox News, noting that prior military assistance to Ukraine had already drawn down munitions stockpiles. We inherited a difficult situation with many of our munitions having been given over in Ukraine,
Waltz said.
Advisers also cautioned Trump against targeting critical civilian infrastructure such as bridges, roads, and power plants, warning that widespread destruction could cause massive civilian casualties and potentially constitute war crimes. Despite those warnings, Trump defended the administration’s broader strategy while signaling a pivot toward negotiations.
“President Trump has always been consistent in saying he prefers a diplomatic solution, but he continues to retain all options if Iran continues terrorist activities in the (Strait) of Hormuz or against allies.”
Steven Cheung, White House Communications Director
Tehran Expresses Skepticism Amid Regional Shipping and Border Fallout
While diplomatic channels remain active—including Omani-led negotiations in Tehran regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—Iranian officials remain deeply wary of Washington’s intentions. The senior Iranian official speaking to Reuters described the U.S. pause as tactical rather than genuine, noting that Iran has accumulated enough bitter experience with what it sees as U.S. deception.
The two-week military exchange has already reverberated far beyond the primary combat zone.
Simultaneously, the conflict’s geographic footprint expanded on Saturday. Yemen’s Houthi movement launched attacks on Saudi Red Sea oil targets for the first time in years, threatening a second major global energy chokepoint. Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Ministry lodged a formal protest accusing Ukraine of executing a Caspian Sea strike on an Iranian commercial vessel that resulted in casualties, a development acknowledged by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who praised the success of long-range strikes against military cargo transports.
Disputes Over the Strait of Hormuz Agreement
Diplomatic friction persists over the implementation of a post-war memorandum intended to restore normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the United States of violating the agreement by encouraging ships to use an alternative southern shipping corridor before the expiration of a one-month implementation period that designated Iran as the authority for clearing and routing maritime traffic.
When Article 5 says Iran will make the arrangements, it means Iran determines the route and the necessary mechanism,
Araghchi said in an interview with the state-run Iran newspaper. He maintained that Tehran conveyed its objections through Qatari and Pakistani mediators but saw no goodwill in America’s behavior.
As the temporary halt in U.S. air strikes enters its third day, both governments continue to weigh the balance between renewed military escalation and a durable negotiated framework for the Persian Gulf.
Related reading