- Israel has not dismissed the possibility of a limited strike on Iran.
- Trump indicates he’s “not in a rush” to back military intervention.
- Tehran warns that an attack would elicit a “severe response.”
Despite President Donald Trump advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. is currently hesitant to support a military strike on Iran, Israel is not ruling out options for targeting Iran’s nuclear installations in the forthcoming months, according to an Israeli official and other sources briefed on the matter.
Israeli leaders are committed to thwarting Tehran’s aspirations for a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu has emphasized that any discussions with Iran must culminate in the complete surrender of its nuclear ambitions.
In recent months, Israel has put forth various proposals to the Trump administration regarding potential strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, including options with timing set for late spring and summer, as indicated by several sources.
These plans encompass a combination of air raids and special operations, which could potentially delay Tehran’s capacity to weaponize its nuclear program by months, or possibly by a year or longer.
The New York Times reported that Trump conveyed to Netanyahu during a White House meeting earlier this month that the focus should be on diplomatic negotiations with Iran and expressed reluctance to endorse a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities at this time.
However, Israeli officials are now contemplating the possibility of executing a limited attack on Iran that would necessitate less direct support from the U.S. Such an operation would be considerably smaller than the original proposals presented by Israel.
It remains uncertain when or if Israel will proceed with such an attack, particularly as nuclear deal discussions are set to begin. Undertaking this action could alienate Trump and jeopardize broader U.S. support for Israel.
Earlier versions of these plans were shared with the Biden administration last year, according to two former senior officials from that administration. Almost all suggestions required considerable U.S. backing, including direct military involvement or intelligence-sharing. Israel has also sought assurances from Washington to assist in its defense should Iran retaliate.
Upon request for a comment, the U.S. National Security Council pointed to Trump’s recent remarks, where he stated he hasn’t discouraged Israel from acting but isn’t “in a rush” to advocate for military intervention against Iran.
“I believe Iran has the potential to be a great nation and to live peacefully,” Trump said. “That’s my first preference. If another option arises, it could prove disastrous for Iran, and I believe they are ready for dialogue.”
The office of the Israeli Prime Minister did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A senior Israeli official informed Reuters that no definitive decision regarding an attack on Iran has been made yet.
A high-ranking Iranian security official indicated that Tehran is aware of potential Israeli military strategies and warned that any assault would trigger “a strong and unwavering response from Iran.”
“We have reliable intelligence indicating that Israel is planning a significant attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, stemming from discontent with the current diplomatic approach and Netanyahu’s perceived need for conflict as a means of political survival,” the official told Reuters.
Response from the Biden Administration
Netanyahu faced pushback from the Biden administration when he introduced an earlier version of his proposal. Former Biden officials noted that Netanyahu was seeking U.S. leadership in conducting airstrikes, but the Biden White House conveyed that it did not find an attack advisable unless Iran escalated its nuclear activities or expelled inspectors.
Biden administration officials also raised concerns regarding the feasibility of the Israeli military executing such an operation effectively.
Experts and former officials have long maintained that Israel would require substantial U.S. military assistance—along with weapons—to effectively dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities, many of which are protected by underground structures.
Even the scaled-back military strike that Israel is considering would still necessitate some level of American support—particularly in terms of bombers capable of deploying bunker-busting munitions—which are required to target deeply buried facilities. Furthermore, Israel would require assurances from Washington for assistance in self-defense against potential Iranian retaliation.
Any military action would involve significant risks. Military and nuclear experts assert that even a robust strike would likely only cause a temporary setback to a program that the West alleges is aimed at developing a nuclear bomb, a claim Iran denies.
In recent discussions, Israeli officials informed Washington that they believe U.S. negotiations with Iran should not advance to a substantive agreement unless there is a guarantee that Tehran will not be able to develop nuclear weapons.
“This could be achieved via an agreement, but only if it mirrors the Libyan model: they come in, destroy the facilities, dismantle all equipment, under American oversight,” Netanyahu remarked following his discussions with Trump. “The alternative is that they [Iran] prolong the negotiations, leaving the option for military action on the table.”
From Israel’s vantage point, this may represent an opportune moment to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.
A senior Israeli official, while speaking to reporters recently, acknowledged the growing urgency to act before Iran strengthens its air defenses. However, the official declined to disclose a potential timeline for Israeli military actions, expressing that such discussions would be “futile.”
