Category: Middle East

Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.

Almost all of the plans would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.

For now, Mr. Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action. In his first term, he tore up the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration. But in his second term, eager to avoid being sucked into another war in the Middle East, he has opened negotiations with Tehran, giving it a deadline of just a few months to negotiate a deal over its nuclear program.

Earlier this month, Mr. Trump informed Israel of his decision that the United States would not support an attack. He discussed it with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when Mr. Netanyahu visited Washington last week, using an Oval Office meeting to announce that the United States was beginning talks with Iran.

In a statement delivered in Hebrew after the meeting, Mr. Netanyahu said that an agreement with Iran would work only if it allowed the signers to “go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision with American execution.”

This article is based on conversations with multiple officials briefed on Israel’s secret military plans and confidential discussions inside the Trump administration. Most of the people interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss military planning.

Israel has long planned to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, rehearsing bombing runs and calculating how much damage it could do with or without American help.

But support within the Israeli government for a strike grew after Iran suffered a string of setbacks last year.

In attacks on Israel in April, most of Iran’s ballistic missiles were unable to penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Hezbollah, Iran’s key ally, was decimated by an Israeli military campaign last year. The subsequent fall of the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria eliminated a Hezbollah and Tehran ally and cut off a prime route of weapons smuggling from Iran.

Air defense systems in Iran and Syria were also destroyed, along with the facilities that Iran uses to make missile fuel, crippling the country’s ability to produce new missiles for some time.

Initially, at the behest of Mr. Netanyahu, senior Israeli officials updated their American counterparts on a plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites with a bombing campaign, an effort that the Israelis hoped would involve American aircraft.

But Israeli military officials said the commando operation would not be ready until October. Mr. Netanyahu wanted it carried out more quickly. Israeli officials began shifting to a proposal for an extended bombing campaign that would have also required American assistance, according to officials briefed on the plan.

Some American officials were at least initially more open to considering the Israeli plans. Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, both discussed how the United States could potentially support an Israeli attack, if Mr. Trump backed the plan, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

With the United States intensifying its war against the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen, General Kurilla, with the blessing of the White House, began moving military equipment to the Middle East. A second aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, is now in the Arabian Sea, joining the carrier Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.

The United States also moved two Patriot missile batteries and a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, known as a THAAD, to the Middle East.

Around a half-dozen B-2 bombers capable of carrying 30,000-pound bombs essential to destroying Iran’s underground nuclear program were dispatched to Diego Garcia, an island base in the Indian Ocean.

Moving additional fighter aircraft to the region, potentially to a base in Israel, was also considered.

All of the equipment could be used for strikes against the Houthis — whom the United States has been attacking since March 15 in an effort to halt their strikes against shipping vessels in the Red Sea. But U.S. officials said privately that the weaponry was also part of the planning for potentially supporting Israel in a conflict with Iran.

Even if the United States decided not to authorize the aircraft to take part in a strike on Iran, Israel would know that the American fighters were available to defend against attacks by an Iranian ally.

There were signs that Mr. Trump was open to U.S. support for Israeli military action against Iran. The United States has long accused Iran of giving the Houthis weapons and intelligence, and of exercising at least a degree of control over the group. On March 17, as Mr. Trump warned the Houthis in Yemen to stop their attacks, he also called out Iran, saying that it was in control of the Houthis.

“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN,” Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post, adding, “IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”

There were many reasons that Israeli officials expected Mr. Trump to take an aggressive line on Iran. In 2020, he ordered the killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s most elite military unit. And Iran sought to hire hit men to assassinate Mr. Trump during last year’s presidential campaign, according to a Justice Department indictment.

But inside the Trump administration, some officials were becoming skeptical of the Israeli plan.

In a meeting this month — one of several discussions about the Israeli plan — Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, presented a new intelligence assessment that said the buildup of American weaponry could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want.

A range of officials echoed Ms. Gabbard’s concerns in the various meetings. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and Vice President JD Vance all voiced doubts about the attack. 

Even Mr. Waltz, frequently one of the most hawkish voices on Iran, was skeptical that Israel’s plan could succeed without substantial American assistance.

The recent meetings came shortly after the Iranians said that they were open to indirect talks — communications through an intermediary. In March, Mr. Trump had sent a letter offering direct talks with Iran, an overture that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, had appeared to reject. But on March 28, a senior Iranian official sent a letter back signaling openness to indirect talks. 

There is still significant debate within Mr. Trump’s team about what kind of agreement with Iran would be acceptable. The Trump administration has sent mixed signals about what kind of deal it wants, and what the consequences for Iran would be if it failed to agree.

In one discussion, Mr. Vance, with support from others, argued that Mr. Trump had a unique opportunity to make a deal. 

If the talks failed, Mr. Trump could then support an Israeli attack, Mr. Vance said, according to administration officials.

During a visit to Israel earlier this month, General Kurilla told officials there that the White House wanted to put the plan to attack the nuclear facility on hold.

Mr. Netanyahu called Mr. Trump on April 3. According to Israeli officials, Mr. Trump told Mr. Netanyahu that he did not want to discuss Iran plans on the phone. But he invited Mr. Netanyahu to come to the White House.

Mr. Netanyahu arrived in Washington on April 7. While the trip was presented as an opportunity for him to argue against Mr. Trump’s tariffs, the most important discussion for the Israelis was their planned strike on Iran.

But while Mr. Netanyahu was still at the White House, Mr. Trump publicly announced the talks with Iran.

In private discussions, Mr. Trump made clear to Mr. Netanyahu that he would not provide American support for an Israeli attack in May while the negotiations were playing out, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

The next day, Mr. Trump suggested that an Israeli military strike against Iran remained an option. “If it requires military, we’re going to have military,” Mr. Trump said. “Israel will, obviously, be the leader of that.”

After Mr. Netanyahu’s visit, Mr. Trump assigned John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, to travel to Jerusalem. Last Wednesday, Mr. Ratcliffe met with Mr. Netanyahu and David Barnea, the head of the Mossad spy agency, to discuss various options for dealing with Iran.

In addition to talks and strikes, other options were discussed, including covert Israeli operations conducted with U.S. support and more aggressive sanctions enforcement, according to a person briefed on Mr. Ratcliffe’s visit.

Brian Hughes, a National Security Council spokesman, said the administration’s “entire national security leadership team” was committed to Mr. Trump’s Iran policy and efforts “to ensure peace and stability in the Middle East.”

“President Trump has been clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and all options remain on the table,” Mr. Hughes said. “The president has authorized direct and indirect discussions with Iran to make this point clear. But he’s also made clear this cannot go on indefinitely.”

The White House and the C.I.A. did not respond to requests for comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence referred questions to the National Security Council. The Defense Department declined to comment. Mr. Netanyahu’s office and the Israel Defense Forces also declined to comment.

In pressing Mr. Trump to join in an attack, Mr. Netanyahu was replaying a debate he has had with American presidents over nearly two decades.

Blocked by his American counterparts, Mr. Netanyahu has instead focused on covert sabotage operations against specific facilities and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. While those efforts may have slowed the program, it is now closer than it has ever been to being able to produce six or more nuclear weapons in a matter of months or a year.

American officials have long said that Israel, acting alone, could not do significant enough damage to Iranian nuclear sites with only a bombing campaign. Israel has long sought America’s largest conventional bomb — a 30,000-pound bunker buster, which could do significant damage to key Iranian nuclear sites beneath mountains.

Israel considered various options for the May strike, many of which it discussed with American officials.

Mr. Netanyahu initially pushed for an option that would have combined airstrikes with commando raids. The plan would have been a far more ambitious version of an operation Israel carried out last September, when Israeli forces flew by helicopter into Syria to destroy an underground bunker used to build missiles for Hezbollah.

In that operation, Israel used airstrikes to take out guard posts and air defense sites. Commandos then rappelled to the ground. The teams of fighters, armed with explosives and small arms, infiltrated the underground facility and set explosives to destroy key equipment for making the weaponry.

But American officials were concerned that only some of Iran’s key facilities could be taken out by commandos. Iran’s most highly enriched uranium, close to bomb grade, is hidden around the country at multiple sites.

To be successful, Israeli officials wanted American planes to conduct airstrikes, protecting the commando teams on the ground.

But even if U.S. assistance was forthcoming, Israeli military commanders said that such an operation would take months to plan. That presented problems. With General Kurilla’s duty tour expected to conclude in the next few months, Israeli and American officials wanted to develop a plan that could be carried out while he was still in command.

And Mr. Netanyahu wanted to move fast.

After shelving the commando idea, Israeli and American officials began discussing a plan for an extensive bombing campaign that would have started in early May and lasted more than a week. An Israeli strike last year had already destroyed Iran’s Russian-made S-300 air defense systems. The bombing campaign would have had to begin with striking remaining air defense systems, allowing Israeli fighters to have a clearer path to hitting the nuclear sites.

Any Israeli attack on nuclear sites would prompt a new Iranian missile barrage against Israel that would require American assistance to rebuff. 

Senior Iranian officials, from the president to the head of the armed forces and foreign minister, have said that Iran would defend itself if attacked by Israel or the United States.

Brig. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, the head of Iran’s Armed Forces, said in a speech on April 6 that Iran did not want war and wanted to resolve the standoff with the United States through diplomacy. But he warned: “Our response to any attack on the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty will be forceful and consequential.”