-Analysis-
LOS ANGELES — U.S. President Donald Trump knew about the Israeli attacks. It was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who informed him of the plan to strike Iran on Friday. So Washington was not caught off guard, although the first reaction from the White House, issued through Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, took a clear step back.
In a brief statement, the head of U.S. diplomacy stressed that the operation had been carried out “unilaterally” and that the United States had no involvement. “Our priority is to protect American forces in the region,” Rubio added.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
The most telling line, however, is this: “Israel warned us that it believed this action was necessary for its defense.”
Before the strikes began, Trump administration officials reached out to allies in the Middle East to emphasize two points: The United States had no hand in the operation, and the goal remained to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table. The sixth round of talks is set for Sunday in Oman, and Trump, speaking to Fox News last night, made it clear he still sees a meeting as possible. The Security Council was set to convene in the Situation Room at 11 a.m. on Friday, Washington time.
Over the past few weeks, there had been plenty of signs pointing toward an imminent strike. It was no secret that Netanyahu wanted to act, and he had repeatedly expressed to the Americans his distrust of the diplomatic process. Then, this week, his envoys showed U.S. leaders what they claimed was evidence of the ayatollahs’ nuclear progress. Trump had long drawn a red line at the point where Tehran might acquire enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran now possesses enough material for at least 10 nuclear devices.
What Washington knew
Washington has been gradually pulling back in anticipation of an Israeli strike. A battery of anti-drone systems was redeployed from Ukraine to the Middle East. As early as May, U.S. officials had been briefed on Israel’s plans. Within the administration, opinions were split between those who took Netanyahu’s threats seriously and those who remained skeptical. Then, on Wednesday, came the clearest signal yet that the crisis was about to escalate: a coordinated decision by the State Department and the Pentagon to evacuate all non-essential U.S. personnel from the region.
Worldcrunch 🗞 Extra!
Counterpoint • In a different article in Italian daily La Stampa, journalist Giordano Stabile argues that the United States was not involved in Israel’s attack on Iran, and that the strike was way less effective than what it seems. A truly large-scale operation would have required American F-15 and F-35 bombers, supported by radar and refueling planes, which only Washington could (and did not) provide.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now hopes Tehran’s hardliners will respond forcefully, reframing Israel as a nation under attack. But early signs point to a restrained response targeting military sites only. Stabile also believes the operation is a diplomatic failure: Israel’s strike on Iran has left Netanyahu more isolated than ever, with limited strategic payoff. While the killing of Iranian commanders like Hossein Salami delivered a symbolic blow, the nuclear program remains largely intact, with core facilities buried deep underground and untouched by the attack.
Diplomatically, Netanyahu appears cornered. The Gaza war has eroded Western support, and the closure of Israeli embassies highlights his growing international isolation. Without a major Iranian reprisal, Israel’s image as the aggressor may be hard to shake. — Gabriele Magro (read more about the Worldcrunch method here)
Just hours before the attack, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee spoke of a long night ahead at the embassy. Once again, U.S. diplomats had alerted certain allies (although it is not known which ones) that a strike was imminent.
It is hard to imagine Israel pulling off such a complex operation, which targeted a range of facilities from nuclear and missile infrastructure to key elements of Iran’s defense apparatus and leadership, including the head of the Revolutionary Guards, without at least a quiet nod from Trump.
How far is the United States prepared to go?
According to La Stampa, it was Trump himself who gave Netanyahu the green light on Wednesday. There had been talk of “limited actions” aimed at forcing Iran back to the negotiating table. But judging by the scope of the strikes, this can hardly be called “limited.”
Two looming questions
Two major questions now loom. First, how far is the United States prepared to go? What kind of support and capabilities will it bring to the table to defend Israel? Trump has already warned that U.S. Central Command is standing by. The second question is more delicate: by signing off on such a sophisticated and aggressive operation, is the real goal just a return to diplomacy, or is something bigger in play: perhaps regime change?
Such an outcome would surely please the Trump administration’s most hardline faction, whose leading voice, at least in the Senate, is Rubio. During his Jan. 16 confirmation hearing for secretary of state, Rubio made clear the stark divide he sees between “the aspirations of the Iranian people” and the regime, arguing that U.S. policy should focus on curbing the regime’s destabilizing influence while supporting the legitimate desire for political change.
It may not be a coincidence that the American “silent consent” for the Israeli blitz came just as Rubio gained a level of influence in the foreign policy and security establishment that no one has held since the days of Henry Kissinger.
