Edited by: Fern Sidman

In a dramatic shift from the hawkish stance of his first term, President Donald Trump has recently intervened to stop an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites that had been tentatively planned for as early as next month. According to a detailed report by The New York Times, Trump made the decision to prioritize diplomacy over military action, even as Israel finalized operational plans designed to significantly delay Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

This decision followed months of intense debate inside the Trump administration over whether to give Israel the green light for a unilateral or joint military strike. While Iran’s regional power has been eroded in recent months—due to a combination of economic sanctions, internal unrest, and military defeats—Trump has decided to pursue negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program, according to The New York Times.

Israeli officials had been preparing a series of targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, intended to cripple Tehran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon for at least a year, The New York Times reported. These plans were well-developed and rehearsed, and included detailed logistics, targeting assessments, and projections of Iranian retaliation. According to sources briefed on the plans, Israel was increasingly confident it could carry out such a strike, particularly with U.S. intelligence, logistical support, and regional coordination.

However, as The New York Times outlined, the success of the plan was highly contingent on U.S. involvement—not only in assisting with the actual air operation but in protecting Israel from inevitable Iranian reprisal, likely via Hezbollah or long-range missile strikes from Iran itself.

Despite having abandoned the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) during his first term, President Trump has recently shown a marked shift toward diplomacy, according to officials quoted by The New York Times. He has given Tehran a limited window of several months to negotiate a new agreement that would curb its nuclear ambitions and allow for more stringent inspections.

Trump communicated this shift directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a recent meeting in the Oval Office, telling the Israeli leader that the U.S. would not support a strike at this time. According to The New York Times, the meeting served as a pivotal moment in informing Israel that it would have to stand down—at least temporarily.

Speaking in Hebrew after the meeting, Netanyahu signaled cautious acceptance, emphasizing that any future deal with Iran must include provisions for American-supervised dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. He also made it clear that any agreement must permit forceful intervention—”go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment”—if Iran violates the deal.

The decision not to support Israeli military action exposed deep divisions within the Trump administration, The New York Times reported. On one side were longtime foreign policy hawks, who advocated for a joint operation with Israel to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities permanently. On the other were more cautious aides and national security officials, who warned that an attack could trigger a broader regional war, drag the U.S. into another prolonged Middle East conflict, and ultimately fail to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

The decision to hold off came despite favorable conditions for a strike. Iran’s military has been weakened over the past year. Its April missile attack on Israel failed to breach American and Israeli missile defenses, exposing vulnerabilities in Iran’s offensive capabilities. Additionally, Israel’s intensive campaign against Hezbollah, Iran’s key regional proxy, severely degraded the group’s ability to retaliate effectively.

As The New York Times report noted, Israel has been preparing for a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear program for over a decade. Israeli intelligence services have conducted numerous covert operations—from cyberattacks to targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists—to delay the program.

But a full-scale military strike, while always on the table, has long been considered a last resort—one that would require at least tacit U.S. backing to succeed both strategically and politically.

As The New York Times reported, the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government marked a seismic shift in regional power dynamics. Assad, a longtime ally of both Tehran and Hezbollah, had served as a critical conduit for weapons transfers from Iran to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon. With his ouster, that supply line has been severed, dealing a substantial blow to Iran’s capacity to arm and support its key regional proxy.

In parallel, Iranian and Syrian air defense systems were destroyed, along with critical Iranian infrastructure for missile fuel production, temporarily crippling Tehran’s ability to replenish its missile stockpiles.

According to the information provided in The New York Times report, Israeli military officials, acting at the behest of Netanyahu, initially presented a sophisticated dual-pronged operation to their American counterparts. The plan called for a commando raid on Iran’s underground nuclear sites, followed by a strategic bombing campaign targeting Iran’s enrichment infrastructure and support networks.

However, the Israeli military informed their leadership that the commando element wouldn’t be ready until October—a timeline Netanyahu considered too slow. Consequently, Israel began pivoting to an extended airstrike campaign that would require significant U.S. military support, including targeting, intelligence, and possibly aerial refueling capabilities.

Inside Washington, The New York Times report noted a split among officials. While some were cautious about a direct U.S. role, others, such as General Michael E. Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, explored ways to support Israel militarily—if President Trump gave the green light.

In parallel, the U.S. military began repositioning hardware across the region in a move that served dual purposes: to support ongoing operations against Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen, and to prepare for a broader confrontation with Iran if necessary.

Deployments included a second aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, repositioned to the Arabian Sea, joining the USS Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea, the relocation of two Patriot missile batteries and a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to bolster regional missile defense and the deployment of about six B-2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia, a strategic island base in the Indian Ocean. These bombers are capable of carrying 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, essential for penetrating Iran’s deeply fortified nuclear facilities.

Consideration of stationing American fighter aircraft on Israeli soil, enhancing the ability to respond rapidly to retaliatory threats from Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah.

While officially these assets are positioned to counter Houthi threats in the Red Sea, The New York Times report revealed that U.S. officials privately acknowledged their relevance to any future military campaign against Iran.

President Trump’s public posture has been one of diplomatic caution, recently declining to support an Israeli strike in favor of giving Tehran several months to negotiate limits on its nuclear program. But behind the scenes, his administration has moved decisively to build military leverage, suggesting that while diplomacy is the current track, Washington is not ruling out a military option.

On March 17, President Trump delivered a pointed warning—not only to the Houthis, who have been targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea since March 15, but also to Iran, whom the U.S. holds responsible for arming and directing Houthi actions. As The New York Times report noted, the president’s statement emphasized that Tehran would be held accountable for its proxies, signaling the possibility of broader escalation.

The influx of American military power into the Middle East serves multiple purposes, The New York Times report observed. It provides Israel with critical reassurance that, even if U.S. aircraft are not deployed directly in an Iranian strike, the infrastructure to protect Israeli skies from counterattacks is in place. It also delivers a strategic message to Tehran that the United States remains engaged in the region and will act decisively if Iran crosses certain red lines.

On the surface, Trump’s rhetoric has remained forceful. In a fiery social media post cited by The New York Times, the president declared: “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. IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”

That message, published in response to continued Houthi missile attacks on Red Sea shipping and regional U.S. assets, was interpreted by many observers as a clear warning to Iran and its proxies. However, behind the scenes, The New York Times report revealed that Trump has been hesitating to escalate the situation militarily, even as key allies like Israel express growing impatience.

According to The New York Times, Netanyahu personally called Trump on April 3 to press for American cooperation in executing a complex military plan designed to cripple Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli officials had hoped to conduct a joint operation combining airstrikes and commando raids, with U.S. support both in execution and defense.

Trump declined to discuss the Iran issue over the phone but invited Netanyahu to Washington for an in-person meeting. When Netanyahu arrived on April 7, the White House publicly framed the visit as being focused on tariffs and economic issues—but insiders confirmed that the main Israeli objective was to secure American approval for a May strike on Iran.

Instead, while Netanyahu was still in Washington, The New York Times reported that Trump made a public announcement that the U.S. had begun backchannel negotiations with Iran, derailing Israeli hopes for imminent military cooperation.

Trump’s decision to delay was not made in isolation. Intelligence assessments presented by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, warned that escalating the regional military posture could spark a wider conflict—something the U.S. was not prepared to absorb. Gabbard’s concerns were echoed by a number of senior officials, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance.

Even Michael Waltz, the administration’s national security adviser and typically one of the most hawkish voices on Iran, voiced skepticism about the feasibility of Israel’s plan without heavy U.S. involvement.

The internal caution was bolstered by a new diplomatic opening. As reported by The New York Times, Iran sent a letter on March 28 indicating willingness to engage in indirect negotiations via intermediaries. This followed an earlier outreach from Trump in March, in which he proposed direct talks. Though Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, initially dismissed the offer, the subsequent communication from a senior Iranian official marked a shift in tone.

According to the report in The New York Times, Trump’s administration remains divided over what shape a potential deal with Iran should take—or even what the ultimate goal of negotiations should be. Some officials believe that opening diplomatic channels could create a path to a limited arms-control agreement, while others argue that only overwhelming force will compel Tehran to dismantle its nuclear program.

In one high-level discussion, Vice President Vance reportedly told aides that Trump was uniquely positioned to achieve a diplomatic victory: “If the talks failed, Mr. Trump could then support an Israeli attack,” Vance suggested, according to officials briefed on the meeting. This approach, Vance argued, would place Trump in a win-win position: he could either claim a diplomatic breakthrough or justify backing military action as a last resort.

Despite the current pause, The New York Times reported that the U.S. military has continued bolstering its presence in the region, in what officials say is both a deterrent to Iranian aggression and a contingency plan in case diplomacy fails. Recent moves include deployment of a second aircraft carrier, the Carl Vinson, to the Arabian Sea, installation of Patriot missile batteries and THAAD systems in key locations, and the arrival of six B-2 bombers—each capable of carrying 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs—at Diego Garcia, a key U.S. base in the Indian Ocean.

These strategic assets, The New York Times report noted, serve not only as a defensive posture against Houthi attacks but also provide the infrastructure necessary to support Israeli operations or execute independent American strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, if ordered.

In public, President Trump continues to project strength and determination, making it clear that military action is still on the table. As he said after meeting with Netanyahu: “If it requires military, we’re going to have military. Israel will, obviously, be the leader of that.”

But in private, as The New York Times reporting makes clear, Trump is betting—at least for now—on diplomacy, hoping that behind-the-scenes negotiations with Tehran can forestall war and yield a more sustainable solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge.

Whether that bet pays off—or leads to renewed escalation—may soon become one of the defining foreign policy tests of Trump’s second term.

In a major diplomatic and intelligence maneuver aimed at addressing the escalating crisis over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, President Trump has taken the unprecedented step of dispatching CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Jerusalem for high-level discussions with Israeli leadership, according to exclusive reporting by The New York Times. The visit, which occurred last Wednesday, included a pivotal meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and David Barnea, the head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, and marked the next phase in what has become a tense, multilayered debate over how best to contain Iran.

The meetings came in the immediate aftermath of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, where he pressed Trump to back an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in May. While Trump publicly announced the opening of indirect talks with Iran during Netanyahu’s visit—effectively delaying military action—Ratcliffe’s subsequent mission to Jerusalem signals that covert, diplomatic, and military options remain under active consideration.

As reported by The New York Times, Ratcliffe’s discussions with Netanyahu and Barnea covered an expansive list of contingencies: from direct and indirect diplomacy with Tehran to covert sabotage missions backed by U.S. intelligence and even more aggressive sanctions enforcement.

A person briefed on Ratcliffe’s visit told The New York Times that Israeli and American intelligence leaders also explored the feasibility of joint covert operations—including targeted strikes, espionage campaigns, and high-risk sabotage of nuclear infrastructure inside Iran.

While the CIA, National Security Council, and Department of Defense declined to comment, Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the National Security Council, emphasized the administration’s overarching message: “President Trump has been clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and all options remain on the table. 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.”

According to The New York Times, Netanyahu has spent nearly two decades lobbying successive American presidents—George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump—to authorize or support direct action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. But he has been repeatedly rebuffed, leading Israel to focus instead on covert sabotage, including cyberattacks, explosions at Iranian facilities, and the assassination of nuclear scientists.

Those efforts, while disruptive, have not prevented Iran’s nuclear program from advancing to its most dangerous phase yet, U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources confirmed. Iran is now believed to be capable of producing six or more nuclear weapons within months, a timeline that has alarmed Western and Israeli defense officials alike.

Netanyahu initially proposed a combined airstrike-commando operation modeled on a successful raid Israel conducted in Syria last September, The New York Times revealed. That mission saw Israeli helicopters insert special forces into a Hezbollah missile production bunker after airstrikes cleared the area of anti-aircraft defenses. The Israeli teams planted explosives and successfully destroyed critical equipment used to manufacture precision-guided missiles.

However, U.S. officials expressed skepticism that such a strategy could work in Iran, given that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is dispersed and fortified, with much of its highly enriched uranium hidden in hardened underground bunkers at multiple sites across the country.

Israeli defense planners believe that success against Iran would require U.S. military participation, particularly access to America’s most powerful conventional weapon: the 30,000-pound GBU-57 “bunker buster” bomb, which Israel does not possess. This weapon is considered essential to penetrating Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites, particularly Fordow, which lies beneath a mountain and is immune to conventional Israeli munitions.

In the proposed May operation, Israeli forces wanted American aircraft to neutralize Iranian air defenses and provide air cover for Israeli commandos tasked with destroying facilities and collecting intelligence. But The New York Times reports that key U.S. officials, including CIA Director Ratcliffe and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were concerned that such action would require a long-term military commitment and potentially spark retaliatory attacks by Hezbollah or the Houthis, who are already launching missiles at shipping lanes in the Red Sea.

While Netanyahu pressed for action, the Trump administration received a surprising development: On March 28, a senior Iranian official sent a letter back to Washington signaling willingness to engage in indirect negotiations over its nuclear program. The overture came after Trump had sent a previous letter proposing direct talks, which was reportedly rebuffed by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The existence of even indirect communication gave ammunition to White House officials pushing for diplomacy over military engagement, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, all of whom expressed reservations about the strike.

Yet, as The New York Times report noted, even the most dovish among Trump’s aides emphasized that this diplomatic window is not indefinite. Should Iran stall or continue expanding its enrichment capabilities, the White House has made clear that military action remains a viable outcome.

This latest chapter is reminiscent of repeated Israeli attempts over the years to secure American backing for direct action on Iran. Netanyahu’s frustration, as outlined by The New York Times, stems from a long-standing belief that only a decisive strike—preferably backed by U.S. power—can halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

So far, Trump’s team is treading a fine line: keeping Israel close, ensuring Iran feels pressure, but resisting being pulled into an immediate military conflict that could destabilize the entire Middle East.

At the center of the planning effort is General Michael E. Kurilla, the current head of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), whose term is expected to end in the coming months. As The New York Times reported, both Israeli and U.S. officials are eager to implement any joint operation while Kurilla is still in command, given his experience with the region and established rapport with Israeli defense counterparts.

After shelving a complex commando-style operation—which would have involved elite Israeli forces infiltrating Iranian nuclear bunkers—Netanyahu and Israeli military leaders pivoted to a plan that centered on a sustained aerial bombardment lasting more than a week. As The New York Times report detailed, the shift in strategy was prompted by logistical constraints and U.S. skepticism that special forces alone could neutralize Iran’s deeply fortified and widely dispersed enrichment infrastructure.

Instead, the new plan would begin with targeted strikes on Iran’s remaining air defense systems, particularly after a successful Israeli operation last year that destroyed the Russian-made S-300 surface-to-air missile batteries Iran had acquired to shield its most sensitive sites. The follow-up attacks would open a corridor for Israeli fighter jets to target nuclear facilities, including the underground enrichment plant at Fordow, centrifuge production centers, and uranium stockpiles nearing weapons-grade purity.

While Israel can initiate a campaign independently, The New York Times report makes clear that American assistance would be crucial at multiple levels—for defensive cover against Iranian retaliation, intelligence support, and possibly strategic bombing coordination. U.S. aircraft, particularly those equipped with bunker-busting munitions, would be indispensable in striking targets buried deep beneath Iranian mountains.

However, as of now, no final commitment from Washington has been made. President Trump, who recently approved indirect talks with Tehran, is balancing diplomatic overtures with deterrent signaling. While Trump has made it clear that “all options remain on the table,” according to his National Security Council spokesman, the administration appears to be pursuing parallel tracks: preparing for military action while allowing space for diplomatic engagement.

This dual-track approach reflects an understanding, as emphasized in The New York Times report, that any Israeli strike—especially if it successfully degrades Iran’s nuclear capacity—would likely trigger a retaliatory missile barrage from Iran or its regional proxies such as Hezbollah or the Houthis, potentially igniting a broader war.

Iranian leadership has not been passive in the face of growing threats. As The New York Times reported, Iranian officials from the president to the foreign minister and military commanders have publicly vowed that Iran would respond forcefully to any military aggression from Israel or the United States.

On April 6, Brigadier General Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, issued a stern warning: “Our response to any attack on the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty will be forceful and consequential. We do not want war, but we are prepared to defend our people and our facilities with every tool at our disposal.”

The general also emphasized Iran’s preference for diplomacy, signaling a continued willingness to engage in indirect talks with the United States—a gesture that U.S. and Israeli officials must now weigh against the ticking nuclear clock.

According to The New York Times, Prime Minister Netanyahu is pushing for rapid action, citing both Israel’s strategic window and mounting concerns that Iran’s enrichment program is nearing a point of no return. Israeli intelligence assessments suggest that Iran could accumulate enough weapons-grade uranium for six or more bombs within months, and that dispersal of key components across various sites makes delays increasingly costly.

Netanyahu’s insistence on action before May reflects both a sense of political urgency—fueled by his hawkish base—and military calculus, as each passing week allows Iran to fortify its defenses, relocate materials, and entrench its infrastructure more deeply.

The window of opportunity is further narrowed by the impending rotation of General Kurilla, whose rapport with the Israel Defense Forces and regional familiarity make him an optimal partner for any joint operation. The New York Times report noted that U.S. and Israeli officials view Kurilla’s continued leadership as a stabilizing force capable of navigating the complexities of a potential joint strike while maintaining coordination across U.S. assets stationed in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and beyond.

Kurilla’s departure could introduce uncertainty into U.S.-Israeli military planning and complicate an already fraught decision-making process.

As The New York Times reported, the conversation between Israel and the United States about striking Iran is no longer theoretical. Concrete plans have been developed, intelligence has been exchanged, and military assets are being repositioned across the region. But the window for decisive action is narrowing, as Iran continues its enrichment and the political winds in both countries shift.

With diplomatic talks progressing slowly and Tehran reaffirming its red lines, the next few weeks will likely determine whether this standoff is resolved in the negotiating room—or on the battlefield.