Trump Halts Israeli Strike on Iran as War Plans Leak
Executive Summary
Israel had prepared to launch a major strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, with operations ranging from commando raids to joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes, before President Donald Trump called off the plan. The abrupt decision to pursue nuclear diplomacy instead came amid escalating tensions with Iran and internal U.S. debate over the risk of regional war. A bombshell leak of the operation’s details to the New York Times—including timing, methods, and coordination—has sparked accusations within Israel, damaged trust with Washington, and potentially compromised future military action.
Analysis
Since Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel in October 2024, Jerusalem has been actively preparing to strike back at Tehran’s nuclear program. Following successful IDF operations in Syria and Yemen, Israel’s confidence in its ability to neutralize Iran’s underground facilities grew significantly. Intelligence and military planners reportedly saw the opportunity for a high-success, low-surprise assault—ideally with American cooperation.
Israel’s preferred scenario involved U.S. protection and involvement, particularly to help defend against inevitable retaliation from Iran. Multiple top Israeli officials, including air force leadership, believed they could independently execute the attack, but U.S. missile defense and airpower would dramatically improve its chances and reduce the strategic fallout.
Initially encouraged by Trump’s campaign rhetoric urging a strike, Israel hoped for a green light after his election victory. Trump, however, changed course, favoring diplomacy and nuclear talks with Tehran. He ultimately sent CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Kurilla to personally instruct Israel to stand down. CIA Director John Ratcliffe was also dispatched to Tel Aviv for follow-up discussions on covert options short of open conflict.
Reports now confirm that the New York Times received sensitive information detailing “core” aspects of Israel’s strike plans, including deployment mechanisms, timing windows, and the potential for hybrid operations involving both airstrikes and special forces. Senior Israeli officials now believe that the leaks—possibly originating from within the U.S. government—have gravely harmed operational secrecy and strategic coordination with Washington.
The backlash has been swift and intense. Opposition leaders in Israel accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of leaking the plans for political cover, though U.S. bylines on the article suggest American sources were more likely. The leak has also exposed diverging threat assessments and policy preferences between the Trump administration and Israeli leadership, particularly over Iran’s underground facilities like Fordow and Natanz.
If ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations produce a weak or “mediocre” deal, Israel may feel compelled to act unilaterally—though this path would come with greater military and political risks. The leaks may also limit Israel’s future operational flexibility, as Iran is now aware of the level of Israeli preparedness and the methods under consideration.
In the meantime, Netanyahu’s government is facing a strategic dilemma: wait and hope Trump’s diplomacy stalls Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or resume planning for a strike without U.S. involvement. Either path is fraught with uncertainty—and now, thanks to the leaks, far more exposed than Israel would have liked.
