What Was Trump Thinking When He Ordered the Strike on Iran?

OPINION / FINE PRINT — “I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done.”

That was President Trump last Saturday night during his announcement of the U.S. attacks earlier that evening on three of Iran’s nuclear sites.

It should remind people how important Netanyahu and the Israeli military were in Trump’s off-and-on military and diplomatic decision-making during the weeks leading up to the attack.

Perhaps one key was Trump’s acceptance of Netanyahu’s claim that Iran was very close to having a nuclear weapon, which was done publicly last Tuesday. On Air Force One heading home from the G7 meeting, Trump was asked how close he thought Iran was to getting a bomb and he replied, “Very close.”

At that time, the U.S. intelligence community had assessed that Iran, although increasing the level of uranium enrichment to over 60 percent – with 90 percent needed for a bomb – had not decided to build a bomb.

When Trump was told that his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had two months earlier testified to Congress that Iran had not yet decided to build a bomb, he replied, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.”

For me that was another Helsinki moment – taking me back to the July 2018 press conference in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, after the two leaders had met together. Trump was asked if he believed his own intelligence agencies or the Russian president when it came to the allegations of Moscow meddling in the U.S. 2016 elections.

Trump replied, “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.” And Trump still believes it today.

The Cipher Brief has been talking with the foremost experts on the region since the surprise U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities- including former National Intelligence Manager for Iran at ODNI and energy expert Norm Roule and former CIA Director General David Petraeus (Ret.) – about what comes next in Iran. Watch the interviews exclusively on The Cipher Brief’s YouTube Channel and subscribe to make sure you stay up to date on how the experts see events unfolding.

Another key to the close Trump/Netanyahu partnership, I believe, is the timing of Israel’s initial unilateral attacks on Iran, beginning on June 13.

Back in March, Trump announced that he had written a letter to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying he wanted to start new nuclear negotiations with Iran. But, Trump warned, that failure to reach agreement within 60 days once negotiations began could result in serious military consequences for Tehran.

Those negotiations began on April 12, and after five rounds of talks, on June 9, Iran rejected the Trump administration’s proposal for a new nuclear deal which prohibited Iran from domestic uranium enrichment, removed Iran’s current stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, and the set conditions for lifting sanctions on Iran.

During that April-to-June two-month negotiating period, things were going on secretly. In Israel, its military and intelligence agencies were preparing complex plans for attacking Iran’s top military personnel, offensive missile units, air force and air defenses and radar systems.

Joint Chief Chairman Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, during a Sunday press conference, talked about the U.S. preparation activities.

“In just a matter of weeks, this [bombing Iran nuclear sites] went from strategic planning to global execution,” Caine said. He added, “More than 125 U.S. aircraft participated in this mission, including seven B2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens and dozens of air-refueling tankers a guided-missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.”

Another indication that U.S. planning for the Iran attack went on during the nuclear negotiations came from what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said when he appeared with Caine at Sunday’s press conference.

“Iran found out that when POTUS [President of the United States] says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation. Otherwise that nuclear program, that nuclear capability, will not exist,” Hegseth said.

On June 13, one day after the Trump negotiation deadline, Israel attacked Iran with

fighter-bomber aircraft and armed drones that had been smuggled into Iran. They incapacitated many of its air defenses and offensive missile system and killed top generals and scientists. In a telephone interview with Reuters, Trump said, “We knew everything [about the Israeli attack], and I tried to save Iran humiliation and death. I tried to save them very hard because I would have loved to have seen a deal worked out.”

Caine said on Sunday, “Israel had an incredible military success especially at the beginning and ongoing in degrading Iranian capabilities in degrading Iranian launchers…It’s been incredible to watch what our ally Israel has been able to do.”

He later added, with reference to the U.S. bombing in Iran, “We took advantage of some of the preparatory work [by the Israelis] that’s been done over the past week and a half in terms of axis of approach” to Iran targets. He added, “I won’t get into the particulars, but as the secretary [Hegseth] said, it was a U.S. strike. We made sure we were not in the same piece of airspace…That was the extent of it.”

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Another aspect of events surrounding the attack, is the impact on future diplomacy by some of Trump’s actions.

For example, the strike plan was largely in place when Trump issued his statement last Thursday about how he might take up to two weeks hoping to get back to negotiations before he decided to go to war with Iran. At the time, U.S. Air Force refueling tankers and fighter jets had been moved into position, and the military was working on providing additional protection for American forces stationed in the region.

There is talk that Trump had the option of calling off the attack at the last minute. But it’s more likely that the President saw the two-week negotiation statement as his attempt to distract the Iranians from U.S. military preparations.

It’s also worth noting Trump’s use of Truth Social harsh messaging when he claims to be seeking negotiations. For example, on last Tuesday, June 17, Trump wrote, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.”

That is not likely to bring Iran negotiators to the table. Nor would another message Trump sent out the same day: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

There was one lighter, but interesting, moment during Sunday’s Hegseth/Caine press conference.

Since April, the acting Defense Department Inspector General has been reviewing Hegseth’s use of Signal messaging to describe U.S. military strikes against Houthi militants in Yemen to non-military individuals.

In his opening statement, Caine said at one point, “I am particularly proud of our discipline related to operational security [secrecy of plans], something that was of great concern to the President, the [Defense] Secretary, [Central Command Commander] General [Erik] Kurilla and me. And we will continue to focus on this.”

The IG report is due out shortly.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief