Saudi Arabia Reportedly 'Furious' as Trump's Iran Policy Veers Between Deal-Making and Devastating Attacks

A veteran Washington analyst has described the current US-Iran confrontation as a volatile mix of military escalation, diplomatic ambiguity and political calculation, warning that genuine negotiations remain distant even as indirect contacts between the two sides continue.

Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center and former director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, offered that assessment during an appearance on France 24's "Spotlight" program, where she spoke with host François Picard about the state of the long-running standoff between Washington and Tehran.

According to Slavin, the recent indirect exchanges between the two governments, mediated by Qatar, have been too narrow in scope and too fragile in nature to deliver any meaningful diplomatic breakthrough, leaving the broader conflict unresolved.

She characterized the current dynamic as "kabuki diplomacy," suggesting that both sides are going through the motions of engagement while carefully positioning themselves so they never appear to be making concessions to the other.

The program was framed around the reported anger of Saudi Arabia, a key Gulf state and longtime US partner, whose leaders are said to be frustrated by what they view as contradictory signals from President Donald Trump's administration.

The headline of the episode captured that frustration: "Saudis 'furious': Trump 'flips & flops' between deals with Iran and 'attacks in devastating fashion.'" The description points to a policy that appears to alternate unpredictably between outreach and confrontation.

That oscillation matters greatly to Riyadh and other Gulf capitals, which sit geographically close to Iran and would bear the immediate consequences of any widening war, whether through attacks on energy infrastructure, disruption to shipping lanes or the risk of regional escalation.

Slavin's core argument is that the appearance of diplomacy has not been matched by substance. She noted that contacts have taken place, but stressed that they have been limited and precarious, unable to grow into the kind of sustained process that could actually bring hostilities to an end.

In her view, the two sides are instead stuck in a cycle of managing threats and escalations rather than resolving the underlying conflict, a pattern that keeps the region on edge without offering a path toward a durable settlement.

A central obstacle, she explained, is domestic politics on both sides. Neither Washington nor Tehran has an incentive to be seen as backing down, because doing so would carry real political costs at home.

For Trump, the analyst said, the price of appearing weak or of caving to pressure would be too steep to contemplate, which pushes his administration toward displays of strength even when it is simultaneously exploring talks.

For Iran, by contrast, continued pressure on global oil markets may create an incentive to wait rather than to compromise, on the calculation that time and economic pain could eventually shift the calculations of its adversaries.

Slavin predicted that diplomacy will remain elusive in the months ahead, with the key question being whether either side can step back from brinkmanship without abandoning the hardline political positions that sustain it domestically.

Despite that grim outlook, she emphasized that the mere fact contacts have occurred at all is significant, since it keeps open a channel that could, under the right conditions, be expanded.

The challenge, she said, is converting those isolated exchanges into a sustained process capable of ending the war, rather than merely managing an endless series of threats and escalations that risk spiraling out of control.

The discussion fits into a broader pattern of recent programming examining the trajectory of US-Iran relations, including segments on Trump's expectations of new talks after rejecting a seven-day truce proposal and on predictions that Washington might ultimately declare victory and withdraw.

Other recent coverage highlighted Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian's defiant address to the United Nations, in which he declared that Iran will never bend at the knee, underscoring how far apart the two sides' public positions remain.

A top Emirati diplomat, Anwar Gargash, also weighed in recently, arguing that Iran had dragged the region into the conflict, a remark that illustrates the deep unease among Gulf states about Tehran's role.

Taken together, the analysis suggests a region caught between the fear of a wider war and the slim hope that fragile, indirect contacts can eventually be transformed into something more durable, even as public posturing on all sides makes that outcome harder to achieve.