In a story published on Tuesday, April 7, the New York Times traces how, through a series of secret meetings, Donald Trump ended up committing the United States to the side of Israel against Iran. The American daily recounts a politically and militarily consequential tête-à-tête: on one side, a determined Benjamin Netanyahu seeking American support, on the other, a rather easily convinced Donald Trump, swayed by the promise of a swift, spectacular, and decisive operation. The narrative reveals a decision made in a very exclusive circle, despite doubts and warnings from the administration.
Journalists Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, co-authors of a forthcoming book about the Trump presidency, delve into the sequence of events. Their account shows how the American president gradually dismissed the reservations of his advisors to follow his intuition and, most importantly, the Israeli perspective on the power dynamics with Tehran.
It all begins on February 11, just before 11 a.m., when Benjamin Netanyahu’s black SUV enters the White House gates. The Israeli Prime Minister, advocating for a major offensive against Iran for months, is discreetly ushered inside. According to the New York Times, the ensuing meeting holds significant weight for the events to come.
After an initial exchange in the Cabinet Room, Netanyahu descends to the Situation Room for the core of his visit: a highly confidential presentation on Iran. Donald Trump does not take his usual seat at the table but positions himself on the side, facing the screens. Facing him, the Israeli head of government lays out his arguments.
Displayed on the screen behind Netanyahu are David Barnea, the Mossad chief – Israel’s main intelligence service, and several Israeli military officials. The attendees, including Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, John Ratcliffe, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff, are deliberately kept limited to prevent leaks. Even J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States then in Azerbaijan, could not be present.
Over the course of an hour, Netanyahu argues that regime change in Iran is not only desirable but also within reach. He asserts that the Iranian ballistic missile program can be destroyed in a few weeks, and the weakened regime won’t be able to block the Strait of Hormuz or seriously hit American interests in the region. At the end of this presentation, the American president reportedly responds with a single line, as relayed by the New York Times: “That sounds good.” For Netanyahu, this response seems like a quasi-green light.
The following day, February 12, the conclusions are presented in another meeting in the Situation Room, this time with only American officials present. The Israeli strategy is broken down into four objectives: neutralizing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, degrading Iranian military capabilities, sparking a popular uprising, and establishing a friendly power in Tehran. According to them, the first two objectives are plausible, while the latter two are much less so.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe bluntly summarizes the regime change scenarios presented by the Israelis as “far-fetched,” according to the New York Times. Even though a political upheaval is never entirely impossible during war, the services estimate that it cannot be realistically achieved in this case.
J.D. Vance, back from Azerbaijan, also expresses his skepticism. Initially advocating against strikes, he eventually promises his compliance. Donald Trump then turns to General Dan Caine. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautious, explains that the Israelis tend to “oversell” their plans, exaggerating promises because they know they need the United States. While he doesn’t dismiss the operation, he highlights its blind spots.
Donald Trump, however, appears focused on a different aspect. Regime change? That’s, he says, “their problem.” It’s unclear if he refers to the Israelis or Iranians. Nonetheless, it becomes apparent that his decision won’t hinge on the feasibility of a popular uprising or regime change. What matters to him is the rest: eliminating top Iranian leaders and reducing Tehran’s military capacity.
