It turns out that Trump was off-the-mark. Hours later, the Israelis conducted a major bombing campaign against dozens of Iranian targets purportedly linked to its nuclear, missile and military programs. Dubbed “Operation Rising Lion,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the operation was geared to hit the heart of Tehran’s nuclear capability in order to protect…

President Trump was matter-of-fact when he was asked about the likelihood of an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I don’t want to say imminent, but it looks like it’s something that could very well happen,” he told reporters Thursday afternoon.

President Trump was matter-of-fact when he was asked about the likelihood of an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I don’t want to say imminent, but it looks like it’s something that could very well happen,” he told reporters Thursday afternoon.

It turns out that Trump was off-the-mark. Hours later, the Israelis conducted a major bombing campaign against dozens of Iranian targets purportedly linked to its nuclear, missile and military programs. Dubbed “Operation Rising Lion,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the operation was geared to hit the heart of Tehran’s nuclear capability in order to protect Israel’s survival. “This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat,” the Israeli premier said, adding that Natanz, Tehran’s largest uranium enrichment complex, was targeted as well. Several senior Iranian officials, including Gen. Hossein Salami, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, were reportedly eliminated, although given the fast-moving developments and multiple claims, it’s hard to determine anything with full accuracy.

The Trump administration obviously knew something was up. A day before Israel’s military action, the State Department and Pentagon ordered the evacuation of non-essential diplomatic staff from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad as well as other U.S. military facilities in the Gulf. But being prepared doesn’t necessarily mean the administration will be happy about what Netanyahu has chosen to do. You will hear the usual statements about U.S. support for Israel, and as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in a press release, “Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.” Yet it was Rubio’s assertion that Washington wasn’t involved in this operation that was most interesting, and it demonstrates something that has been clear for quite some time – Trump wants nothing to do with another war in the Middle East, if he can help it.

Three things are notable as developments progress.

First, let’s not sugar-coat it: in launching preventative military strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Netanyahu has essentially killed off Trump’s diplomacy with Iran (or at least set it back significantly). It was becoming increasingly obvious as the weeks went by that Trump and Netanyahu had the same objective – prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon – but diverged on the strategy to achieve it. Trump wanted to try his hand at negotiations with the Iranians, and in April, he dispatched his friend and envoy Steve Witkoff to Oman to get the process moving. Netanyahu, however, has been clear that talking to the Iranians was a waste of time and indeed a hinderance to the military option he has been dreaming about for well over a decade. For Trump, Netanyahu choosing to initiate a conflict three days before Witkoff was scheduled to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in the sixth round is beyond unhelpful – it’s nothing short of sabotage.

Second, whether or not this escalates into a wider war will be determined in large part by the Iranian response. Tehran has taken a big hit, and if past is prologue, the Iranians aren’t going to sit there and nurse their wounds for very long. The Israelis are expecting a strong Iranian counterattack of some kind, as are U.S. defense officials. Iran has a number of ways to retaliate but one of the most likely is an even larger barrage of cruise and ballistic missiles against Israeli cities, above and beyond the limited salvos Tehran conducted during their previous flare-ups with Israel last year. And depending on the strength of Israel’s air defense systems, we could be looking at significant Israeli civilian casualties, which in turn could pressure Netanyahu to authorize even heavier bombing sorties. It doesn’t take a genius to see how this escalates into a big confrontation.

Finally, how will the Trump administration react? We simply don’t know. The U.S. military wasn’t involved in the Israeli airstrikes; Rubio and other unnamed U.S. officials made this point clear. The question is whether the United States will eventually become involved in the event of a drawn-out conflict between Israel and Iran that lasts days or perhaps even weeks. The Israelis are likely banking on U.S. defensive support to shoot down Iranian missiles, and it’s likely Netanyahu will receive it. U.S. logistical and intelligence support for offensive Israeli attacks on Iran, however, shouldn’t be offered. Doing so would in effect reward Netanyahu for torpedoing Trump’s diplomatic efforts, thrust the United States into a war it shouldn’t be fighting and increase the odds of Iran retaliating against the tens of thousands of U.S. troops that are stationed in the Middle East.

All of us will be on tenterhooks over the coming hours and days.

The strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have the potential to reshape the Middle East in profound ways. The implications for regional stability, security, and diplomacy will be significant, and could have far-reaching consequences for the future of the region.

The recent strikes by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the Middle East. A key concern is the potential escalation of violence, which could destabilize the entire region and impact global energy markets. The ripple effects might be felt in neighboring countries, including increased refugee crises and strain on existing resources. Israel’s attack on Iran marks a significant escalation in their long-standing conflict, potentially opening a new chapter in Middle East geopolitics. This development raises questions about the future of regional stability and the potential for further conflict. The attack may also have implications for Iran’s relationships with its neighbors and its role in regional conflicts. In the Middle East, Israeli jets carried out dozens of strikes against nuclear and military sites in Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it “a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival,” adding that the operation would continue “for as many days at it takes to remove this threat.” Israel’s stunning, multifaceted strike against Iranian nuclear, ballistic missile, and regime leadership targets has thrown much into chaos: Iran’s ability to project power, US President Donald Trump’s nuclear diplomacy, and US-Israel regional coordination. Israel’s strikes lay bare the depth of Iran’s miscalculation following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack against Israel. Tehran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, and its key regional ally, the Assad regime in Syria, lie in ruins. Iran’s own state-to-state attacks against Israel in April and October 2024 produced little damage, while Iran suffered significantly from Israel’s October response. Now, with that taboo also in the dustbin of history, Israel demonstrated its full penetration of Iran, and ability to wreak havoc across the Iranian system. Iran has never looked weaker, and its ability to respond meaningfully will be tested. Israel’s closest ally was quick to distance itself from the strike, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that the United States was “not involved.” As reports of the damage rolled in, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, was listed among those killed in the strikes. Israel’s operation came as US-Iranian negotiations on Iran’s advancing nuclear program seemed to have reached an impasse and just after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that Tehran was in breach of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. So how might Iranian forces respond? What will this mean for Israel, Iran’s nuclear program, the US-Israel relationship, and a region already experiencing great upheaval? But the story does not end here. Israel pledges additional attacks, but Iran will now be supremely motivated to sprint to a nuclear breakout at hardened, underground facilities. The United States will surely assist Israel with defense against any Iranian retaliation. But Trump’s dream of a diplomatic resolution that ends Iranian enrichment appears dead. More likely, the US president will be faced with a decision on whether to use the United States’ unique capabilities to destroy Tehran’s underground nuclear facilities and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. The decision will split his advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings, that Netanyahu is attempting to drag him into war. The repercussions on trust and coordination in the US-Israel relationship could be long lasting, with implications for future rounds of conflict with Iran, negotiations on the next US-Israel military assistance agreement, and the wind-down to the war in Gaza. An ‘America first’ president, and an ‘Israel first’ prime minister, who have each made fateful decisions with minimal consultation or taking each other’s interests into account, will coexist uneasily for as many more months and years as they both serve. The question now is not whether, but how, the United States will be dragged into a war it doesn’t want, and that Gulf states fear. Iranian retaliation directly against Israel will not translate into non-involvement from Washington, as Israel will then be drawn into a spiral of retaliation and counter-retaliation—requiring US military supplies, intelligence support, and diplomatic cover. So far, there is no evidence that Gulf states looked the other way as Israel used their airspace for the attacks, and this won’t be very difficult to confirm or deny. Then the question becomes how to protect US troops in the region and how to come to the aid of Guif friends. Given the Trump administration’s close ties to the Gulf, as well as Trump’s personal admiration for certain Gulf leaders, the region will expect the US administration to provide any help they request. Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities was in direct defiance of Trump’s call for caution and negotiation. The United States has been seeking a negotiated solution—one that was not supported by Netanyahu’s government. The Israeli preemptive strike is likely to disrupt Iran’s immediate capacity to develop a nuclear weapons program. However, it remains uncertain whether such an action will effectively deter the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranian regime appears to have been given two choices: abandon its nuclear aspirations or face a lack of intervention from the Trump administration if Israel decided to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel may have advocated for an earlier attack window, while the United States likely attempted to apply diplomatic measures. When diplomacy failed, the United States understandably announced an ordered departure for US embassy staff in Baghdad, while other US diplomatic posts in the region were placed on stand-by for ordered departure. The United States has been seeking a negotiated solution—one that was not supported by Netanyahu’s government. As for the question of likely retaliation—Iran has few good options. Its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies are degraded, and Israel’s Iron Dome can demonstrably defend against missile and drone attacks. Iran is also afraid of a wider war, though those fears are misguided. This will de-escalate quickly, like Trump’s strike on Qassem Soleimani during his first term. The key questions are: What will happen in the coming weeks and months? Does Iran rebuild? Does Israel mow the grass? Or does Iran decide that it is not worth it to spend decades, and billions of dollars, and only have a pile of rubble to show for it?

There were only three possible outcomes in the decades-long battle over Tehran’s nuclear aspirations: allow Iran to go nuclear, negotiate a permanent deal, or military action. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. A permanent deal is highly unlikely—as former US President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal proved. So, military action is the only viable option left. There are three key facilities for Iran’s nuclear opponents to destroy: Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. A US strike would have been more effective as it could have meaningfully degraded all of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, while Israel can destroy the above-ground facilities. The underground facilities are difficult, but don’t count Israel out. No one would have predicted it could take out Hezbollah with walkie talkies last year. Did Israel conduct commando raids or other creative attacks on the underground facilities? If so, this will meaningfully set back Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities was in direct defiance of Trump’s call for caution and negotiation. Regardless of when the Trump administration became aware that the Israeli strike was imminent, questions remain: Will this unilateral action by Israel sufficiently deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions? How might the regime in Tehran respond? Israeli strikes on Iran risk provoking a response from Yemen’s Houthis and potentially upending last month’s bilateral cease-fire agreement between the United States and the Houthis. Moreover, the Houthis have been playing a more prominent role in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” since the October 7 attacks, particularly as other proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah faced leadership losses and setbacks. For the group, renewed confrontation could be an opportunity to reinforce its position within Iran’s network of allies and proxies and claim a major propaganda win—even if it means the end of the cease-fire with the United States. While the Trump administration’s “Operation Rough Rider” imposed meaningful damage on the group, the Houthis have proven their resilience and ability to adapt in the face of continued strikes. They may also calculate that the Trump administration’s decision to pursue a cease-fire is a sign of limited appetite to re-engage in Yemen, especially given that “Operation Rough Rider” cost more than one billion dollars in a month and failed to degrade the Houthis, who have continued strikes on Israeli territory. How will the United States and the Gulf states seek to contain further conflict in the region? What is immediately clear is that economic and security conditions in the Middle East have become more volatile. Just as corners of the Middle East were experiencing some semblance of stability, such as in parts of Syria and Lebanon, this latest escalation has the potential to reverse the region’s recent fragile gains. Beyond the immediate political and military consequences, the most profound impacts will be felt by civilians, particularly those already in humanitarian crises. A prolonged disruption in regional commerce and air travel, alongside rising fuel and food prices, will hit displaced populations, host communities, and those living under the poverty line the hardest. In Syria, where around 90 percent of the population lives in poverty, any shock to commodity prices or aid delivery will be devastating. In Lebanon and Jordan, already overstretched in hosting among the world’s highest refugee populations, the economic fallout may further strain public services and deepen social tensions. The United States has a responsibility to act in ways that reduce harm, avoid a full-scale regional war, and protect civilian lives. That means using its leverage not to escalate but to contain the conflict, pressing all parties, including allies, to prioritize diplomacy over devastation. Failure to do so will not only ignite another war in the region, but it will also exacerbate existing circumstances for fragile communities across the region. Crucially, while the Strait of Hormuz has long symbolized energy risk, it was—and remains—unlikely to be closed. Iran needs the revenue. This gave the Trump administration confidence to confront Iran without fear of major energy disruption. The Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may be reverberating across global energy markets, but the tremors are far more restrained than the stakes might have suggested. Brent crude rose more than 10 percent, yet the per-barrel price remains below eighty dollars, well short of crisis levels. The moment underscores how strategic foresight in energy policy can shape the contours of geopolitical risk in the world’s most volatile corridors. While headlines are focused on missiles and centrifuges, a quieter story lies in the market conditions that made such a strike politically viable. Israel’s actions benefited from the political leeway made possible by Trump’s efforts to “bring down the cost of oil.” It’s not to say the strike wouldn’t have happened otherwise, but—as shown during Trump’s first term—when energy markets can shield consumers from the worst effects of a supply disruption, policymakers have far greater latitude to escalate. In 2018, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and impose “maximum pressure” was rooted in a belief that oil markets could absorb the shock. Internal White House analysis forecasted only modest price increases, with US production gains and global spare capacity acting as a buffer. The start of what is likely to be a multi-day series of Israeli strikes across Iran is an unprecedented exchange in a long history of attacks between the regional rivals. Most importantly, Israel is going alone against Iran. In previous instances, the United States and Israel maintained regular communication and a coordinated defense posture. This coordination was spectacularly successful in the defense of Israel—including in both April and October 2024, which saw unbelievably low casualties and damage in light of the hundreds of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles fired against Israel. This time is different. Trump’s pursuit of Iran nuclear negotiations has created skepticism in Israel. These moves came alongside Trump’s avoidance of an Israel stop during his recent visit to the Middle East, as well as Netanyahu’s Oval Office visit in April, where he left empty handed on both tariff relief and Iran. Finally, Iran will now feel obligated to respond. Depending on the degree of damage that Israel has inflicted, Iran may respond in a way that broadens the conflict and creates collateral damage elsewhere in the region. How this will end is an unknown, but as has been the case in the past, a speedier ending is likely to depend on the United States. The United States wants Arab states to turn on missile and drone detection and mitigation systems and look out for munitions launched from Iran toward Israel, while Iran wants Arab states to consider looking the other way if it stages retaliatory strikes that cross Arab airspace. Arab states have a logical reason to rebuff Iran’s request. Munitions flown into a country’s airspace without coordination with its capital are violations of sovereignty and a threat to its people and infrastructure. Among the many lessons to be drawn from this operation is one about the importance of speaking truth to power. Israel’s recent strikes on Iran mark another instance of its Begin Doctrine in action. This policy, named after former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, involves pre-emptive strikes against nuclear facilities and weapons of mass destruction. First implemented in 1981 with Operation Opera, Israel targeted Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad without US approval. Despite fears of escalation, the attack didn’t provoke a significant response from Iraq, which was already engaged in a war with Iran. Israel applied the doctrine again in 2007, covertly destroying Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor. The operation wasn’t publicly acknowledged until 2018, and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad denied the site’s existence to avoid pressure to retaliate. Now, Israel seems to be invoking the doctrine for the third time, targeting Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure without US backing. However, unlike previous instances, Iran is expected to retaliate, potentially with greater intensity, especially if its regional proxies join the response. The situation is critical, with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff scheduled to meet with Iranian negotiators in Muscat this weekend. The outlook for a deal appears grim following the strikes, and a collapse in negotiations could lead to an unprecedented escalation in the region. The strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have the potential to reshape the Middle East in profound ways. The implications for regional stability, security, and diplomacy will be significant, and could have far-reaching consequences for the future of the region.

Tehran has said it considers Israeli strikes on military leaders and nuclear sites to be a “declaration of war.” A diplomatic de-escalation seems like a distant prospect.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said Israel will suffer a “bitter and painful” fate, following Friday’s attacks on Iranian targets. Iran’s military has warned there will be “no limits” to its response.

Israel’s military has said over 100 targets in Iran were struck overnight, which were followed up later in the day by another series of strikes.

The targets included at least six leading nuclear scientists and four senior members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who were killed in attacks on residential buildings in the capital, Tehran.

Iranian media have reported that the IRGC commander-in-chief, Hossein Salami, was among those killed, along with top Khamenei aide and diplomat Ali Shamkhani, who also led a committee coordinating nuclear talks.

Iran has characterized the Israeli strikes as a “declaration of war.”

Failed nuclear diplomacy with Iran

“The current situation is the result of a lack of effective and functioning diplomacy between Iran and the US in the nuclear negotiations,” Mohammad Sadegh Javadi Hesar, a former Iranian parliamentarian and editor in chief of the dissident Tus newspaper, told DW.

“This situation has created a space in which Israel is behaving undiplomatically and has drawn both negotiating parties into a military confrontation that neither was desired nor is desired by Iran,” he added.

Israel struck several targets in Tehran on Friday Image: MEGHDAD MADADI/TASNIM NEWS/AFP/Getty Images

The US in recent months had restarted negotiations with Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program with the aim of reaching a deal to keep Iran away from developing a nuclear weapon. In 2018, during his first term, US President Donald Trump pulled the US out of a nuclear agreement with Iran that traded sanctions relief for a verifiable Iranian drawdown of uranium enrichment.

Israel views the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat. The Iranian leadership does not recognize the state of Israel and regularly threatens to destroy it.

However, Tehran officially emphasizes that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a different perspective. According to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Iran is enriching uranium to an extent that exceeds that of all other non-nuclear weapon states.

In a resolution on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog declared for the first time in almost 20 years that Iran had violated its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. This provides an opportunity to refer the case to the UN Security Council.

In response to the IAEA’s condemnation of the lack of cooperation, the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Agency jointly announced their intention to build a third uranium enrichment facility “in a safe place.”

Javadi Hesar, an Iran-based political critic, told DW that the IAEA ruling has allowed Israel to legitimize its strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

“Israel can now claim that even the IAEA has determined that the Iranian nuclear program is neither predictable nor controllable. Therefore, it is necessary to strike preemptively and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities out of self-protection,” Hesar said.

“To prevent this escalation from turning into a major war, and to keep the confrontation between Iran and Israel at a low and limited level, the US government — as Iran’s negotiating partner — should quickly condemn Israel’s actions and make it publicly clear that it was not involved in this attack,” he added. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later on Friday said the US was not involved in supporting or orchestrating the strikes.

The Natanz nuclear facility is key to Iran’s nuclear development Image: Maxar Technologies/Handout/REUTERS

IAEA chief Grossi, meanwhile, condemned the attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

On Friday, he stated that, according to the Iranian authorities, the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz had been hit by the Israeli attacks.

Israel claimed the facility had been “significantly” damaged. The IAEA has not seen increased radiation levels at the site.

A second facility in Fordo and the nuclear center in Isfahan were not affected as of Friday afternoon.

How could Iran respond to strikes on nuclear program?

Iran has spread its nuclear facilities over several locations, some of which are in underground bunkers, which makes it difficult to completely destroy them.

If Iran’s nuclear facilities are attacked, Iran has little choice but to strike back for internal political reasons, according to Arman Mahmoudian, Iran expert at the University of South Florida.

He added Iran is concerned about a development similar to the Syrian war, in which Israel destroyed several nuclear facilities under construction.

“Iran feels compelled to send at least a limited but clear countersignal in order to prevent further attacks. Israel, in turn, could expand its operations and target Iran’s electricity and oil infrastructure in order to increase the pressure on Tehran on a daily basis,” Mahmoudian told DW.

Iran’s first reaction was to fire more than 100 drones at Israel, all of which were intercepted outside Israeli territory, according to the Israeli military.

The Iranian armed forces released a statement saying that Tehran had “no restrictions” in its response to Israel’s strikes.

Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh has said that “new” weapons had been tested and handed over to the armed forces. Iran has also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.

What is the role of the US?

US President Donald Trump on Friday took to his Truth Social social media platform and called on the Iranian leadership to make a “deal” and warned otherwise of “even more brutal” attacks.

“There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,” Trump posted.

Trump told US broadcaster CNN on Friday that the Israeli strikes were a “very successful attack” while it was left to Rubio to confirm the lack of US involvement.

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the prime minister will speak with Trump at some point on Friday.

“So far, Iran has not wanted to be drawn into a direct military conflict with the US, which would be an extremely risky undertaking,” said Iran expert Mahmoudian.

“However, there is a difference between the US merely supporting Israel and actively getting involved in a war with Iran,” he added.

To completely destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel would need more advanced weaponry that only the US would be able to provide.

Should such involvement occur, Iranian retaliation would likely also target US facilities in the region, which would further destabilize the already tense situation in the Middle East.

Israel attacks Iran amid growing criticism over Gaza To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

This article was originally written in German.

U.S. President Donald Trump blocked a planned Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, as early as next month, in favor of negotiating a deal with the Iranian regime, the New York Times reported, citing sources in the Trump administration.

According to the report, there were two opposing positions in the administration, one including CENTCOM commander Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, who supported Israel’s plans, and the other that worried over the United States being drawn into a regional war and demanded that diplomacy be given a chance. The Times claimed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hurried visit to the White House earlier this month was to convince the president to approve the attack, an effort that failed.

4 View gallery US President Donald Trump stopped Prime Minister Netanyahu from going ahead with a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities ( Photos: Avi Ohayon, GPO, IDF Spokesperson )

The decision followed months of internal debate in Washington, the report says. Trump ultimately opted to pursue diplomacy at a time when Iran was considered militarily and economically weakened. The debate highlighted the tension between more hawkish officials and those who questioned whether a military strike could realistically halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions without triggering a broader war. For now, the U.S. consensus appears to oppose military action, especially as Iran has signaled openness to negotiations.

According to the Times, Israeli officials had developed a range of plans for a May strike aimed at slowing Iran’s nuclear program by at least a year. Some Israeli officials were optimistic that the U.S. might approve the plans, which, according to sources briefed on the matter, relied heavily on American involvement—not only for protecting Israel from retaliation but also to ensure the operation’s success.

President Donald Trump announces ‘direct’ negotiations with Iran ( Video: Reuters )

Earlier this month, Trump informed Israeli officials of his decision. He later discussed it with Netanyahu during the prime minister’s visit to Washington, where he used a joint appearance in the Oval Office to announce the start of direct negotiations with Iran . The Times said its reporting was based on discussions with U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with Israel’s classified plans and on confidential internal administration deliberations.

At Netanyahu’s direction, the IDF initially prepared a plan combining an aerial strike with a commando raid on underground nuclear sites, possibly involving American aircraft. However, Israeli military officials told their U.S. counterparts that the operation would not be ready before October. Seeking a quicker option, Israel began modifying the plan into a broader air campaign that would still require U.S. assistance.

Initially, several American officials, including General Kurilla and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, were open to considering Israeli proposals. They even explored how the U.S. could potentially support a strike if Trump gave the green light. American officials reportedly agreed that any serious attempt to damage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would require U.S. support.

With White House approval, Kurilla began transferring military assets to the region. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson arrived in the Persian Gulf, joining the USS Harry Truman in the Red Sea. The U.S. deployed two Patriot missile batteries, a THAAD system in Israel, and six B-2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Additional fighter jets were also under consideration for deployment, possibly to Israeli bases.

4 View gallery Vice President J.D. Vance warned against a strike on Iran ( Photo: Leah Millis/Reuters )

While these assets could be used in operations against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen—whom the U.S. began targeting just over a month ago—U.S. officials acknowledged to the Times that the deployments were also part of contingency planning for supporting an Israeli strike on Iran. Even if American planes were not to take part in the initial attack, their presence could help deter or counter an Iranian response.

There were signs Trump was open to a military option. His social media posts reinforced that perception. But even as military assets moved into position, skepticism grew within the administration about the wisdom of backing an Israeli strike. For weeks, officials debated the matter and, earlier this month, opponents of the plan gained the upper hand.

Oval Office meeting, and the reason for Netanyahu’s visit to Washington

The decisive Oval Office meeting came earlier this month. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard presented a new intelligence assessment warning that the concentration of American military forces in the region increased the risk of a broader conflict with Iran—one the U.S. was not seeking. American intelligence also warned that a strike could easily spiral into a larger war. Both Israeli and American officials recently reaffirmed their assessment that an Israeli strike would trigger an Iranian response and likely draw the U.S. into a rapidly escalating conflict.

4 View gallery Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, in a meeting with Iranian commanders

A number of senior U.S. officials backed Gabbard’s assessment. Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance all expressed doubts about the prudence of a strike. Some feared it would lead to a regional war and push Iran to make a final decision to build nuclear weapons. Even Waltz, a leading hawkish voice who had previously argued that Iran was vulnerable, expressed skepticism that an Israeli strike could succeed without U.S. assistance.

The Oval Office meeting occurred shortly after a shift in Iran’s posture. While Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appeared to reject a direct talks proposal Trump sent on March 12, an Iranian official later responded on March 28 with a willingness to engage in indirect talks. A significant debate remains within Trump’s team over the kind of deal Iran would accept, but at that meeting Vice President Vance, backed by others, argued that Trump had a rare opportunity to reach a historic agreement. Administration sources said that if talks were to fail, Trump could then support an Israeli strike.

During a visit to Israel on April 1–2, Kurilla told Israeli officials that the White House wanted to halt preparations for an attack. On April 3, while visiting Hungary, Netanyahu phoned Trump. According to Israeli sources, the U.S. president declined to discuss Iran policy over the phone and invited Netanyahu to the White House. Netanyahu arrived on April 7.

Although the visit was publicly framed as an opportunity to discuss Trump’s new tariffs plan, the key topic for Israel was the proposed strike. Yet, with Netanyahu at his side, Trump used the Oval Office appearance to announce the opening of negotiations with Iran. In private, he told Netanyahu he would not back an Israeli strike in May if talks progressed. The next day, Trump clarified his stance: “If a military solution is needed, that’s what will happen. Israel, of course, would lead it,” he said.

Following Netanyahu’s visit, Trump sent CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Israel. Last Wednesday, Ratcliffe met with Netanyahu and Mossad chief David Barnea to discuss Iran. According to a source familiar with the matter, a wide range of options remains under discussion—including joint covert operations and stricter enforcement of sanctions.

4 View gallery Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump in the Oval Office ( Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images )

Netanyahu initially favored a complex plan combining airstrikes with commando raids—essentially a much more ambitious version of a raid conducted in Syria last September, in which Israeli forces landed by helicopter and destroyed a Hezbollah-linked underground missile facility.

Israeli officials believed that, for such an operation to succeed, U.S. aircraft would need to provide cover fire and defend ground forces. But even with U.S. backing, Israeli officials told their American counterparts that planning such a mission would take months. With Kurilla expected to step down from CENTCOM in a few months, both Israeli and American officials wanted an operation that could be carried out while he was still in command.

Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play : https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store : https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv

After shelving the initial plan, Israel shifted focus to a large-scale air campaign that could be operational by May and possibly last more than a week. In an Israeli strike last year, Russian-made S-300 air defense systems in Iran were destroyed. Any new strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would also need to neutralize remaining Iranian air defenses.

Such a strike would likely prompt a major Iranian response. Iran still possesses a vast arsenal of surface-to-surface missiles capable of striking Israel. In two previous cases last year, following limited Israeli strikes, the Biden administration directed the U.S. military to help defend Israel against Iranian counterattacks. In both cases, the U.S. and its allies intercepted nearly all drones and missiles launched by Iran. A larger Israeli assault on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, officials told the Times, would further destabilize the regime and almost certainly trigger a broader Iranian response.