Senior Israeli officials claim that the details reported overnight by The New York Times regarding an Israeli plan to strike Iran's nuclear facilities were "inaccurate, to say the least." According to their assessment, the source of the leak was American, not Israeli, and may have come from officials within the US administration seeking to block any possibility of military action against Iran.
According to these officials, there are elements in the US administration who strongly oppose any American military intervention in Iran, and who also object to an Israeli strike that could provoke an Iranian response and lead to regional escalation. The assessment is that the leak was intended either to pressure President Donald Trump into taking offensive action or to embarrass him in front of his right-wing support base.
The officials emphasized that "the prime minister, government officials, and those close to them had no connection to this publication, which, as noted, is inaccurate, and the operational details it includes are also incorrect."
Fierce disagreements in Trump's circle
According to the New York Times report, Israel had formulated a plan in recent months to strike Iran's nuclear facilities as early as May. The plan, the report said, was supposed to include extensive US support but was blocked by President Trump, who preferred to try to reach a new agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.
The report described how the decision was made following intense internal disputes among Trump's advisors, between proponents of military action against Iran and senior officials who feared a descent into full-scale war in the region. Sources familiar with the decision-making process in the White House said that the hawkish camp, led by some of the president's security advisors, pushed to approve the Israeli plan and even advocated for active US involvement. Meanwhile, others - mainly in the State Department and the intelligence community - voiced strong opposition to a military move and warned of uncontrollable escalation in the Middle East.
According to the paper, the disputes within the Trump administration reflected an ongoing tension between two policy schools - one favoring a tough, even military stance toward Iran, and the other preferring diplomatic channels and negotiation. Trump himself, who took a hardline approach toward Tehran during his previous term, is now showing a more complex approach that combines threats with a willingness to reach an agreement.
The New York Times reported that the Israeli plan included the possibility of a commando operation combined with airstrikes, but was later adapted into a version that relied solely on aerial attacks. Almost all versions of the plan required US participation or assistance, both to ensure the mission's success and to help shield Israel from an Iranian response.
The report noted that Israel had hoped US support would include aircraft, defense systems, and intelligence sharing, and at one point even considered the deployment of American strike aircraft in Israel.
