The attack presents Trump with an acute dilemma. Any military retaliation could derail the fragile diplomatic process that his administration has championed as a signature foreign policy achievement. Yet failing to respond to an attack that wounded American service members risks appearing weak to domestic critics and emboldening Iranian hardliners who oppose any accommodation with Washington.

European allies have urged restraint on all sides. A senior EU official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters in Brussels that "we are at a critical juncture where miscalculation by either party could lead to a wider regional conflict that serves no one's interests."

For Kuwait, a longstanding American ally that has hosted US forces since the 1991 Gulf War, the strike represents an unwelcome reminder of its vulnerability to Iranian military power. Kuwait City issued a carefully worded statement condemning "all acts of aggression" without naming Iran directly, reflecting the delicate balancing act small Gulf states must perform between rival regional powers.

The incident has drawn sharp criticism from Congressional hawks who have long opposed any nuclear agreement with Tehran. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) called the attack "predictable" and demanded immediate military strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities.

This reporter covered the negotiation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which Trump abandoned during his first term in office. That agreement took years to construct and unraveled in months. The current talks face even steeper obstacles, not least because they occur against a backdrop of active military hostilities rather than the relative calm that prevailed a decade ago.

Iranian state television has not acknowledged the Kuwait attack, though hardline media outlets in Tehran have praised recent "defensive operations" against American positions in the region. The Revolutionary Guard, which operates independently of Iran's civilian government, has repeatedly vowed to expel US forces from the Middle East entirely.

Oil markets reacted nervously to news of the attack, with Brent crude prices rising 3.2% in early trading on concerns that escalation could threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass daily.

The broader question is whether diplomacy can proceed even as military confrontation continues—or whether the two tracks are fundamentally incompatible. History offers few encouraging precedents.