Report reveals Trump’s winding path from skeptic to backer of Israel’s Iran strike

In the aftermath of Israel’s dramatic aerial assault on Tehran, new details have emerged that illustrate how US President Donald Trump gradually shifted his stance from diplomatic caution to measured military support under persistent Israeli pressure.

According to a detailed report published by The New York Times, the Israeli military began planning its strike on Iran in December, following two seismic shifts in the regional landscape: the effective dismantling of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.

These developments cleared an air corridor that allowed Israel to consider a direct attack on Iran’s nuclear program, unencumbered by the conventional defenses of its regional proxies.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had long argued for a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, warning that waiting too long could allow Tehran to irreversibly cross a threshold. But previous American administrations, including Trump’s own during his first term, had repeatedly pulled back from such a scenario, wary of plunging the region into a wider war.

What changed in 2025, the report said, was a mix of Israeli determination, shifting US political dynamics, and Trump’s own growing frustration with Iran’s apparent diplomatic foot-dragging.

Netanyahu’s Oval Office pitch

When Netanyahu visited the White House in February, he didn’t come empty-handed. Alongside symbolic gifts, the Times said he brought a carefully curated presentation detailing Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israeli intelligence, he claimed, showed Tehran had drastically shortened the timeline to a potential nuclear weapon, though the US intelligence community had not corroborated this in its own assessments.

The premier’s argument was as tactical as it was existential. He insisted that preparing for a military strike would strengthen the diplomatic hand. If Iran believed an attack was imminent, it might be more inclined to make concessions.

But Netanyahu also made clear that Israel would not wait indefinitely for diplomatic tracks to succeed.

Trump, newly elected to a second term on a platform promising to avoid new military entanglements, resisted.

He had appointed his friend Steve Witkoff as a Middle East envoy with the express goal of reaching a negotiated solution with Iran. In fact, in a widely discussed gesture, Trump had even sent a letter directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declaring his desire for peace and a potential deal.

But by May, the writing was on the wall. Trump was growing skeptical about Iran’s seriousness. According to the report, private comments revealed he felt the Iranians were “playing him” in a manner reminiscent of what he had experienced with Russia’s Vladimir Putin during stalled Ukraine ceasefire talks.

A pivotal point at Camp David

On June 8, as tensions escalated, Trump convened his national security team at Camp David. CIA Director John Ratcliffe delivered a sobering assessment: Israel was on the verge of launching a full-scale attack, with or without American support, the Times reported.

The Israeli military, Ratcliffe revealed, already had boots on the ground inside Iran.

Faced with the possibility of being blindsided by a regional war, Trump weighed his options. At one extreme, he could distance the US entirely. On the other, he could join the assault, possibly to the extent of backing regime change in Tehran. Ultimately, he chose a middle ground — providing Israel with “as-yet undisclosed” intelligence support while maintaining the public posture of diplomacy.

The call that followed between Trump and Netanyahu the next day was pivotal, according to the report. The Israeli leader made it clear that the mission was already underway. Trump, impressed by Israel’s meticulous planning and daring execution, told aides privately, “I think we might have to help him.”

From hesitancy to hints of involvement

Initially, the administration remained publicly cautious. The first official comments after the strikes came not from the president but from Secretary of State and acting National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, who stopped short of endorsing Israel’s actions or affirming US involvement.

But as Israeli airstrikes delivered precision hits on Iranian leadership and strategic infrastructure, Trump’s tone began to shift. On Friday morning, as cable networks — especially Fox News — ran near-constant coverage of Israel’s apparent military brilliance, Trump leaned into the narrative. He began hinting to reporters that his administration had played a larger role behind the scenes than previously disclosed.

Privately, the Times said, he entertained the possibility of escalating US involvement further. Discussions addressed the option of authorizing American aircraft to refuel Israeli jets mid-mission and even deploying bunker-busting bombs capable of striking Iran’s hardened underground nuclear facility at Fordo.

The end of diplomacy?

Despite continued gestures suggesting a diplomatic resolution was still possible — Trump floated the idea of sending Witkoff or Vice President JD Vance to negotiate with Iran — the momentum was clearly headed in another direction. The collapse of secret negotiations in Oman and Khamenei’s rejection of a US proposal on June 4 reportedly marked the turning point.

At a time when the more isolationist wing in Trump’s circle, including Vance, was warning about the dangers of spiraling into regime-change war, the president seemed increasingly open to greater military involvement. The gap between intention and reality narrowed rapidly, with Trump drawn toward Netanyahu’s strategic goals and increasingly disillusioned with the path of diplomacy.

Looking ahead

With Israeli strikes on Tehran continuing nonstop and diplomatic efforts appearing increasingly futile, all signs now point to deeper US involvement.

Though Trump has yet to greenlight a military strike, recent deployments of American military assets to the region signal clear operational readiness.

White House officials confirmed that military action was discussed at the highest levels this week, even as Trump continues to publicly insist that the threat of force alone should compel Iran to concede.

Despite signing a G7 statement urging de-escalation, Trump has struck a far more aggressive tone in recent days, publicly calling for the evacuation of Tehran and repeating his unequivocal stance that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon.