People are wondering and asking what exactly happened after the Iranian president’s announcement on Saturday that there would be no further attacks on Iran’s neighbours, provided those neighbours did not allow attacks on Iran from their soil.

The question arises because that same evening, Iranian attacks were reported on the UAE and other Gulf states. To many observers, the events appeared contradictory. On the one hand, there was a message that seemed to point towards restraint; on the other, the continuation of missile and drone strikes across the Gulf.

Iran’s position, however, had come with a clear condition. Tehran said it would not target neighbouring countries so long as attacks against Iran were not launched from bases located on their territory. In practical terms, this was Iran sending a very direct signal to the Gulf states: the presence of American military bases on their soil had effectively turned those countries into potential targets.

In other words, Iran was saying that the bases were no longer merely instruments of security for the Gulf monarchies. They had become liabilities.

Yet the Iranian president’s statement was still widely interpreted as an opening for de-escalation. It came after intense diplomatic engagement from several regional actors who were deeply alarmed by the widening scope of the conflict.

Among the countries involved in this quiet but urgent diplomacy was Pakistan. Islamabad, along with others, had reportedly impressed upon the Iranian leadership the dangers of allowing the conflict to expand into the wider Muslim world. The argument conveyed to Tehran was simple: continuing attacks on neighbouring states, many of which were Muslim-majority countries, risked undermining Iran’s political position and alienating governments that might otherwise be sympathetic to its predicament.

There were also concerns about the nature of the targets being struck. Several of the locations hit during the exchanges were turning out, in many cases, to be civilian or dual-use facilities. That added another layer of urgency to efforts aimed at persuading Iran to reconsider the trajectory of the conflict.

What followed was a series of frantic meetings, phone calls and diplomatic exchanges. Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia were among those engaged in the back-and-forth discussions aimed at persuading Tehran to scale things back.

Humiliation, in geopolitics, often produces the opposite of restraint

Humiliation, in geopolitics, often produces the opposite of restraint

For a moment, it appeared that the message had got through.

These efforts culminated in Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s announcement on March 7 that Iran would not attack its neighbours unless they allowed attacks on Iran to originate from their territory. The statement lasted just over five minutes, but it immediately drew attention across the region.

Interestingly, the timing overlapped with an incident that had already heightened tensions in the Gulf. Around the same time, Dubai International Airport temporarily suspended operations due to security concerns. Flights resumed shortly after the Iranian president’s address became public, reinforcing the perception that a pause or at least the possibility of one might be emerging.

For observers hoping for a cooling of tensions, the announcement seemed like the first step towards a possible off-ramp.

People familiar with the chain of events suggest that the situation quickly shifted after a message posted by US President Donald Trump on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The post, by many accounts, was perceived in Tehran as deeply insulting. That is because it framed the Iranian president’s statement as a climbdown — implying that Iran had been forced to back off its attacks on neighbouring countries because of US and Israeli military strikes on Iranian targets.

In essence, the message appeared to claim credit for the Iranian announcement.

From Washington’s perspective, this may have been intended as a show of strength or a political victory. But from Tehran’s vantage point, it was something quite different. In the highly sensitive context of regional politics — where public messaging and perceptions of resolve carry enormous weight — portraying Iran’s move as capitulation would almost certainly have been seen as humiliating.

And humiliation, in geopolitics, often produces the opposite of restraint.

It is worth noting that much of the international community had interpreted the Iranian president’s remarks in a very different light. Many saw them as a carefully worded attempt to signal de-escalation while simultaneously reminding Gulf states that American bases on their soil could make them targets in a broader confrontation.

In that sense, the statement was both a warning and an invitation to step back from the brink.

But the situation escalated again almost immediately.

In the same Truth Social message, the US president went further, declaring that nothing short of a complete surrender by Iran would be acceptable. He also warned ominously that something “very hard” would hit Iran over the weekend.

Later that day, the United States and Israel carried out additional strikes on targets inside Iran.

Tehran responded in kind. Missile and drone launches towards neighbouring states continued. Iranian officials also said that one of the facilities hit by US strikes was a desalination plant, a claim that, if accurate, underscores the increasingly civilian nature of some of the infrastructure being affected by the conflict.

Meanwhile, the regional fallout was becoming visible.

A drone strike hit a tower in Dubai Marina, sending shockwaves across one of the Gulf’s most prominent urban centres. Shortly afterwards, the UAE president issued a public statement saying that the country stood united and was prepared to face any challenges.

What had briefly looked like a fragile opening for de-escalation had instead turned into another escalation.

And so here we are: a region still on edge, where diplomatic signals can be undone within hours by a single statement, a single strike or a single perceived insult. The episode serves as a stark reminder that in moments of extreme tension, the line between de-escalation and further conflict can be perilously thin.

© The Friday Times