#israel + #iran

Similar to IDF's current Gaza model, the defense establishment intends to destroy villages near the Israel-Lebanon border, and establish permanent military outposts in the area between the border and the Litani River

The defense establishment's perception is that all of these villages are used by Hezbollah for activities against Israel, and therefore they must be completely destroyed to prevent Hezbollah operatives from returning to the area.

Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Tuesday that all houses in Lebanese villages near the Israeli border will be demolished "like in Rafah and Beit Hanoun," referring to areas in the Gaza Strip where the IDF carried out widespread demolitions of homes during the war.

more than 600,000 Lebanese residents who have been evacuated will not be allowed to return to south Lebanon "until the security and safety of northern residents are guaranteed." The defense minister said that following the IDF's operation in Lebanon, Israeli troops will continue to be stationed in a "security zone" inside Lebanese territory to defend against anti-tank missiles and to maintain security control of the area south of the Litani River.

Italian ‌Prime Minister Giorgia ‌Meloni said on Tuesday that her government has halted the automatic renewal of a military Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Israel, as Italy has become increasingly critical of Israel’s wars and killing of civilians.

According to Haaretz, the MoU includes the exchange of military equipment and cooperation on military research, though an Italian source told the Israeli newspaper that Meloni’s announcement reflected a policy already in place.

The source said that Italy halted military cooperation with Israel shortly after October 7, 2023, though according to reports from last year, Italy suspended weapons exports to Israel but was still fulfilling previous arms deals. Meloni has been under significant pressure from her opposition and from Italian citizens to cut ties with Israel. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani visited Lebanon on Monday, where he slammed Israel’s “unacceptable attacks by Israel against the civilian population” and said it called for the avoidance of “another escalation like the one in Gaza.” When asked if Italy would take a similar step toward the US, the source speaking to Haaretz said that Italy was still assessing the impact on Iranian civilians in the US bombing campaign in Iran, which started with the bombing of an elementary school, which slaughtered more than 100 children.

The US wants a clear and enforceable commitment that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons – or even the capability to do so quickly.

Washington and Tehran signed a nuclear deal in 2015 under US President Barack Obama. The agreement put a limit on Iran’s uranium enrichment of 3.67 percent in return for sanctions relief. But Trump, who succeeded Obama, withdrew Washington from the deal three years later and slapped sanctions back on Iran. Since then, Iran has accelerated its uranium enrichment to 60 percent. To make an atomic bomb, 90 percent enrichment is required.

During Israel’s 12-day war on Iran in June, the US carried out air strikes on Iran’s three main nuclear sites, after which Trump claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme had been obliterated. But eight months later, he started a war against Iran by saying one of his main goals was to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The war was launched while talks mediated by Oman were under way between Iran and the US. Oman had said a short time before the attacks began that a deal was “within reach”.

Iran is pushing for a broader regional ceasefire, including an end to fighting involving its allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed support for Washington’s decision to suspend the strikes on Iran, he said the ceasefire will not extend to Israel’s ongoing military operations in Lebanon.

Hours into the ceasefire, which began on Wednesday, Israel carried out dozens of attacks across Lebanon, killing more than 300 people in one day.

However, Tehran insisted the ceasefire included Lebanon, citing Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s ceasefire announcement on X, which unequivocally stated this was the case.

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!” posted President Donald Trump on Easter Sunday. In case one thought that was an impulsive utterance, it’s notable that the president in apparently prepared remarks a few days earlier said, “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.”

Such rhetorical statements – if followed through – would amount to the most serious war crimes – and thus the president’s statements place servicemembers in a profoundly challenging situation.

Iranian power plants and other critical civilian infrastructure are protected from attacks by the law of war the United States helped craft after World War II. Such an object can lose its protection only if it is used for military purposes by the enemy and its destruction “offers a definite military advantage.” Even then, such an object can be attacked only if, after a case-by-case rigorous analysis, the “concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” outweighs the civilian suffering that is expected to result. (Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I art. 52, art. 57; DOD Law of War Manual, § 5.6, § 5.12).

Despite those well-settled legal parameters, President Trump has repeatedly threatened to obliterate such infrastructure without regard to the law’s high demands. His comments are blatant expressions that he is willing to turn the United States into a rogue State like Iran and Russia, one that rejects the fundamental legal restraints that protect innocent non-combatants like children, and the Iranian civilian population itself.

U.S. military commanders have sworn to obey the Constitution and only those orders from their superiors that are lawful.  Threats to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages” and to show “no quarter, no mercy” are plainly illegal.  Trump’s outrageous statements gravely threaten our military professionals’ bedrock moral and legal principles, ones enshrined in the law of war that they’ve been trained to follow their entire careers.

the DOD Law of War Manual’s note on targeting civilian infrastructure states: “Diminishing the morale of the civilian population and their support for the war effort does not provide a definite military advantage. However, attacks that are otherwise lawful are not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale.”  DOD Law of War Manual, § 5.6.  Such “morale bombing” has been rejected for many decades; it had gained support during World War II only to be roundly rejected by Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.  The idea of using civilian pain in order to effectuate political goals would rightly stoke criticisms that the United States’s use of military force against civilian targets equates to acts of sheer terrorism. (See Additional Protocol I art. 51(2) (“Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”) (emphasis added); DOD Law of War Manual, § 5.2.2 (“Measures of intimidation or terrorism against the civilian population are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”) (emphasis added).

The Pew survey released on Tuesday reported that overall, 60% said they have an unfavorable view of Israel. In 2022, only 42% of Americans held negative views of Israel.  There was a sharp divide between Democrats and Republicans. 41% of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Israel; that number is double with Democrats. There was also a large split between younger and older Americans. 70% of Americans under 50 had an unfavorable view of Israel, including 57% of Republicans.

On Tuesday, Trump announced a new ceasefire with Iran. Within hours, Israel violated the ceasefire with a massive round of strikes on Lebanon.

US officials were aware that a statement from Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on the US-Iran ceasefire that was issued on Tuesday included a truce in Lebanon as part of the deal, according to media reports. The New York Times reported that the US had already seen and signed off on Sharif’s statement before he posted it

A diplomatic source familiar with the negotiations leading up to the ceasefire announcement told ITV News that Iranian and Pakistani officials ended the talks with the understanding that the US was aware that the truce also applied to Lebanon, contradicting claims from Trump and Vice President JD Vance that it did not.

Israel not only continued its attacks on Lebanon, but it also dramatically escalated the bombardment, launching a new military operation dubbed “Operation Eternal Darkness” and killing hundreds of people across the country. According to NBC News, Trump asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scale down the attack, but heavy Israeli strikes continued on Thursday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed in a statement on Wednesday that the ceasefire must include Lebanon or the deal will be off. “The Iran-US Ceasefire terms are clear and explicit: the US must choose—ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both,” Araghchi wrote on X. “The world sees the massacres in Lebanon. The ball is in the US court, and the world is watching whether it will act on its commitments.”

The two-week pause in the fighting was announced by Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif - who has been serving as mediator between the warring parties. Sharif said the US and its allies "have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere".

The guns were supposed to have fallen silent. It was, after all, just hours after US President Donald Trump had announced that a two-week ceasefire had been agreed to halt the war in the Middle East. But just as the region was breathing a sigh of relief, Israeli jets conducted a 10-minute blitz across Lebanon - a massive aerial attack that killed at least 303 people and wounded 1,150 others, according to Lebanon's health ministry. Local and Western condemnation was swift and widespread, but no criticism came from the US against its ally in this war. Iran said this was "a blatant violation" of the ceasefire deal and has asked the US to halt the Israeli "aggression".

In Lebanon, opponents and supporters of Hezbollah are coming together in anger, united in the view that what happened here was unacceptable and unjustifiable.

This last bit may be Israel’s goal:

Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian denounced the "blatant violations" by Israel, which, he added may render negotiations "meaningless".

Israel’s Channel 12 cites a security official as saying that the Iranians demanded extending the ceasefire to Lebanon, where Israel has been invading the south of the country.

US President Donald Trump says he has agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, paving the way for a temporary cessation of US-Israeli strikes in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Tehran has also accepted the truce, adding that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz during the two-week period would be possible in coordination with Iranian armed forces. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the ceasefire deal, says the agreement between Iran and the US, along with their allies, also includes “Lebanon and elsewhere” and is effective immediately. He also confirmed that talks between Iran and the US will begin in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers condemn Trump’s threatening rhetoric towards Iran, calling for his removal from office despite the announcement of the ceasefire deal. The US oil benchmark plunged more than 17 percent after the ceasefire announcement while major stock markets in Japan and South Korea opened strongly.

Every US presidential administration since President Nixon has maintained an understanding with Israel under which the US and Israel do not acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and the US doesn’t pressure Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The ambiguity has allowed the US presidents to provide military assistance without worrying about the 1976 Symington Amendment, a foreign assistance law that prohibits aid to countries that traffic in or receive nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside of international safeguards.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which is estimated to be somewhere between 70 and 400 nuclear warheads, is almost always missing from the conversation in US media coverage and political discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, which has never been used to develop weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory of the NPT, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader killed by an Israeli strike on February 28, had maintained a Fatwa banning the development of nuclear weapons.

According to Israel's Channel 12, Iran must fulfil a number of demands for the war to end.

The proposals request that Iran must "commit never to pursue nuclear weapons", pledge to dismantle nuclear facilities and to hand over the enriched amounts of uranium it possesses to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, which is to monitor the issue going forward. According to the proposals, Iran would agree that its missile programme be limited in range and quantity. Additionally, Iran would stop funding regional proxies - Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran would also be required to reopen the Strait of Hormuz so it could function as a "free maritime corridor". Closure of the strait - through which a fifth of the world's oil and gas supplies pass - has sent prices spiking and led to fears of recession in the world economy. All international sanctions would be lifted on Iran, the plan says. Full sanctions were reimposed last November after Iran suspended inspections of its nuclear facilities in the wake of Israeli and US bombing of several of its nuclear sites and military bases.

According to Press TV, Iran has listed five conditions to end the war. They include a complete halt to "aggression and assassinations by the enemy". Other Iranian conditions include "concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed on the Islamic Republic", though it is unclear what guarantees could be provided and which countries would take part - or monitor their observation. On the economic front, Iran is also demanding the payment of war damages and reparations, as well as the right to remain solely in charge of the Strait of Hormuz.

Writing in the Economist, Badr Albusaidi, the Omani minister who mediated the latest nuclear talks between Iran and the US, offered an unusually damning assessment of events leading up to the US and Israel’s bombing of Iran and the war it has triggered across the Middle East.

“It was a shock but not a surprise when on 28 February – just a few hours after the latest and most substantive talks – Israel and America again launched an unlawful military strike against the peace that had briefly appeared really possible,” Albusaidi wrote.

According to Albusaidi, Iran and the US had been on the “verge of a real deal” in nuclear negotiations held in Geneva in February, describing the talks as “substantive”.

Sources said the Iranians had agreed to highly significant concessions including a reduction and pause on their enrichment of uranium and also offered the US the chance to participate in a future civil nuclear programme, in exchange for a lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets.

Albusaidi blamed “Israel’s leadership” for persuading Trump to join the war on the false basis that Iran’s regime would offer an “unconditional surrender” after the assassination of its supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

“The American administration’s greatest miscalculation, of course, was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place,” he wrote. “This is not America’s war, and there is no likely scenario in which both Israel and America will get what they want from it.”

In comments to reporters last Thursday, Albusaidi said the US was intent on causing irreversible damage to international law and helping Israel re-order the Middle East to its own benefit.

“Oman’s view is that the military attacks against Iran by the United States and Israel are illegal and that for as long as they continue to pursue hostilities, those states that launched this war are in breach of international law,” he said.

Though they speak of the war’s failure—the lack of strategy, the lack of preparation, the absence of an end goal, and the confusion surrounding its objectives—very few in mainstream media have taken what should have been the obvious moral position: that the war itself is criminal, unjustifiable, and illegal under international law.

That position should have been obvious the moment the first bomb was dropped over Tehran. The aggression—particularly while negotiations between Iran and the United States were underway under Omani mediation—was ethically indefensible.

Any remaining doubt should have disappeared when US-Israeli strikes hit civilian areas, including schools and residential districts in the city of Minab in southern Iran, killing hundreds of civilians, mostly children and women.

This moral silence is not new. In fact, it has often been masked by a familiar rhetorical device: the selective invocation of women’s rights. 

In nearly every US war on Arab and Muslim countries, women’s rights have featured heavily in the propaganda used to justify war. The vast majority of mainstream media organizations, think tanks, human rights groups, and activists—even those who rejected military interventionism on principle—agreed at least on that particular premise: the urgency of women’s rights.

The same scenario was repeated in Gaza during the ongoing genocide, where UN agencies estimate that women and children make up roughly 70 percent of the more than 72,200 Palestinians killed since October 2023. According to data compiled by ‘UN Women’ and Gaza’s health authorities, the total includes an estimated 33,000 women and girls.

Yet mainstream media continues to center Israeli claims about abuses of women’s rights by Hamas in Gaza, as if the tens of thousands of women killed and maimed by Israeli bombardment were not even worthy of serious consideration.

The same pattern is now repeating itself in Iran. The administration of Donald Trump—a man known for his degrading views and actions toward women—has been allowed, along with war criminal Netanyahu, to frame the war against Iran as a struggle for women’s rights and liberation.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” That sentence alone is politically explosive. It does not merely criticize tactics. It indicts the rationale of the war itself. Then Kent went further. “Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran,” he wrote. And then the bluntest line of all: “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.”

Someone in his position had access to intelligence, internal deliberations, threat assessments and strategic discussions that the public will never see in full. When such a figure concludes that there was “no imminent threat,” that judgment is not casual. It does not prove everything, but it gives weight to the suspicion that the public case for war was not merely weak, but manufactured.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation on Tuesday, citing his concerns about the justification for military strikes in Iran and saying he “cannot in good conscience” back the Trump administration’s war.

“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent said in a statement posted on social media, making claims President Donald Trump has denied.

Kent, a former Green Beret and political candidate with connections to right-wing extremists, was confirmed last July on a 52-44 vote. As head of the National Counterterrorism Center, he was in charge of an agency tasked with analyzing and detecting terrorist threats.

Although the country suspended its formal nuclear weapons program in 2003,[47] in December 2024, the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA reported enrichment to levels approaching weapons-grade. It also found an unprecedented stockpile of highly enriched uranium without a credible civilian purpose, giving Iran the capacity to produce enough fissile material for multiple bombs on short notice.

In 2015, however, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed, imposing strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.[58] In 2018, the United States withdrew from the agreement, with President Donald Trump stating that "the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction: that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program".[59] The US also contended that the agreement was inadequate because it did not impose limitations on Iran's ballistic missile program,[60] and failed to curb its backing of proxy groups.

The first round was held on April 12, 2025, in Muscat, Oman... An Iranian news outlet reported that during the talks in Oman, Iran proposed a three-step plan to reach a deal with the United States:

Iran would agree to temporarily lower its uranium enrichment to 3.67% in return for access to frozen financial assets in the United States and authorization to export its oil.
Iran would permanently halt high-level uranium enrichment, restore inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA, and commit to implementing the Additional Protocol, allowing for surprise inspections at undeclared sites. These steps would be taken if the United States lifts further sanctions and persuades Britain, Germany, and France not to trigger the snapback of UN sanctions against Tehran.
The U.S. Congress would approve the nuclear agreement and Washington would lift both primary and secondary sanctions, while Iran would transfer its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to a third country.[90]

Iran had reportedly also proposed steps to deescalate tensions, including a pledge to disarm and freeze the activities of Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hashd al-Shaabi.[91]

On May 1, defense secretary Hegseth posted that Iran will pay for supporting Houthis attacks on merchant ships in Red Sea crisis. President Trump warned of secondary sanctions on entities buying any oil or petrochemicals from Iran. Rubio warned to walk away from nuclear enrichment. Araghchi canceled the May 4 meeting citing a "technical reason".[107][108][109] Trump has called for the full dismantling of nuclear enrichment.[110] Iran then unveiled a new ballistic missile and threatened to hit US military bases.[111][112] Revolutionary Guard General Salami warned that IRGC would open hell gates on invaders.[113]

The fourth round of negotiations, originally scheduled for May 3, 2025, in Rome, was postponed amid rising tensions. Iranian officials cited U.S. sanctions, military action against the Houthis, and what they described as "contradictory behaviour and provocative statements" by Washington as contributing factors, while stating that a new date would depend on the U.S. approach.

On May 7, 2025, ahead of the 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, U.S. officials reported that president Donald Trump had decided that United States federal agencies would refer to the Persian Gulf as the "Arabian Gulf" or the "Gulf of Arabia" and had plans to make it official during a planned visit to Saudi Arabia later in May.[116][117] This plan received outrage and condemnation from Iranians and the Iranian government.

According to unnamed Iranian officials, Iran proposed a joint nuclear-enrichment project with regional Arab states and U.S. investment as an alternative to dismantling its nuclear program. U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff denied this was being discussed. The plan's feasibility remained uncertain given regional tensions and the lack of diplomatic ties between Iran and the U.S. for 45 years.[

On May 14, 52 senators and 177 congressmen wrote a letter to Trump to reject any deal that would allow Iran to continue uranium enrichment, stating that no agreement should leave open a path to nuclear weapons.[140] On May 14, Iran ratified the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime as part of its efforts to meet the FATF Action Plan requirements for improving its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing system.

Khamenei advisor Shamkhani responded to Trump's offer and said that the Iranian government was ready to sign the nuclear deal in exchange for the quick removal of all financial sanctions,[145] whilst at the same time criticizing Trump's rhetoric and ongoing threats, saying: “He speaks of an olive branch, but we see only barbed wire.”[145] Trump confirmed that the U.S. was very close to reaching a nuclear deal with Iran and that he preferred a peaceful solution over military action.[146] However, Iranian officials denied having received a new U.S. proposal and insisted they would not give up their right to enrich uranium.

The Trump administration has increasingly demanded that Iran abandon uranium enrichment, making this a central issue.[

On May 20, CNN reported Israel was preparing to strike Iranian nuclear facilities,[154] an action that would mark a clear break with Trump's efforts.[154] Iran warned that any Israeli attack would be met with a “devastating and decisive response.”[155] The day after, the U.S. imposed new measures targeting Iran's construction sector, linked to the IRGC, and restricted 10 materials tied to its nuclear and military programs.

The fifth round of talks, held on May 23 in Rome, ended without a breakthrough, though both sides agreed to continue discussions. U.S. officials described the talks as constructive but emphasized that significant differences remained, particularly over the demand from the U.S. that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintained that while it was open to limiting enrichment levels, giving up enrichment entirely was unacceptable and would collapse the negotiations.

In the weeks leading up to the fifth round, tensions between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had increased over the U.S. decision to engage in nuclear talks with Iran, which Israel viewed as a serious threat to its security and regional interests.[159] Israel strongly opposed the negotiations, lobbying against diplomatic efforts and threatening unilateral military action, including potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a position critics warned could endanger diplomacy and heighten regional tensions.

On June 2, Reuters reported that Iran was preparing to decline the U.S. proposal.[167][168] After speculation that Iran might be allowed limited uranium enrichment under a possible deal, Senator Schumer demanded that Witkoff testify before Congress to clarify whether any such side agreement existed.[169] The administration publicly maintained that Iran would not be permitted to enrich uranium.[169] Trump also declared firmly that the deal would prohibit it.[170] Khamenei responded that uranium enrichment is central to Iran's nuclear program and he rejected U.S. demands to halt it.[171]

On June 9, Iran rejected the Trump administration's proposal for a new nuclear deal but announced plans to present a counteroffer through Omani mediators. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei called the U.S. proposal unacceptable and not aligned with the ongoing negotiations. The main points of disagreement included Iran's right to continue domestic uranium enrichment, the handling of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, and the conditions for lifting sanctions against Iran. While Trump demanded the full dismantlement of Iran's enrichment program, Iranian leaders insisted that enrichment was non-negotiable. The latest U.S. offer reportedly included assistance in building nuclear power reactors and allowed limited enrichment until a regional consortium facility becomes operational.[174][175] A central demand from Iran was that sanctions relief must bring tangible economic benefits. Baghaei emphasized that this includes guarantees of restored banking and trade ties with other countries before any sanctions are lifted.[174][176] He also urged the international community to address Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal and prevent it from derailing negotiations.

On June 12, 2025, IAEA found Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years.[180] The IAEA stated that Iran's repeated failure to fully address questions about undeclared nuclear material and activities amounted to non-compliance.[181] It also raised concerns over Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, which could be used for both reactor fuel and nuclear weapons.[181] Iran dismissed the resolution as politically motivated,[181] and declared plans to build a new enrichment site and install advanced centrifuges.[182]

Beginning on June 13, 2025, Israel struck multiple targets across Iran[183] with the stated goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.[184] The attacks damaged key nuclear facilities and killed several of Iran's top military leaders.[185][186][187] Among those injured was Khamenei's political advisor Ali Shamkhani, who oversaw negotiations between the United States and Iran.

On June 21, following orders from Trump, the U.S. bombed the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, the Natanz nuclear facility, and the Isfahan nuclear technology center in Iran.[196] On June 24, Trump declared a ceasefire.[

Afterwards, U.S. envoy Witkoff stated that the U.S. and Iran were engaging in both direct and mediated discussions aimed at returning to negotiations for a comprehensive peace agreement.[200] He also emphasized that the American position requires Iran to halt all uranium enrichment—a stance the White House had not consistently maintained during earlier rounds of negotiations.

Iranian government hardliners criticized the negotiations, while the government offered to dilute the remaining 60% enriched uranium in exchange for all sanctions being lifted.[

On March 2, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff revealed that Iran began recent nuclear talks by insisting on its "inalienable right" to enrich uranium, rejecting a US proposal for zero enrichment, and even boasting that its 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium could produce 11 nuclear bombs.[236][237] Some experts suggested that the US negotiators misunderstood the Iranian proposal, including Iran's offer to suspend uranium enrichment for several years and why Iran did not trust the US offer of nuclear fuel fuel supplies.[238]

On Saturday, February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a series of strikes against Iran, targeting key officials, military commanders, and facilities. Iran responded by launching strikes against Israel and American military bases in the Middle East, as well as civilian targets.[252][253] Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of Iranian officials, including the Minister of Defense Aziz Nasirzadeh, and the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Mohammad Pakpour, were killed in the strikes.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the morning of Feb. 11, determined to keep the American president on the path to war.

For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive against Iran. But Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the Iranians over the future of their nuclear program, and the Israeli leader wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans.

Over nearly three hours, the two leaders discussed the prospects of war and even possible dates for an attack, as well as the possibility — however unlikely — that President Trump might be able to reach a deal with Iran.

Days later, the U.S. president made clear publicly that he was skeptical of the diplomatic route, dismissing the history of negotiating with Iran as merely years of “talking and talking and talking.”

Asked by reporters if he wanted regime change in Iran, Mr. Trump said it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen.”

Two weeks later, the president took the United States to war. He authorized a vast military bombardment in conjunction with Israel that swiftly killed the country’s supreme leader, pummeled Iranian civilian buildings and military nuclear sites, thrust the country into chaos and triggered violence across the region, leading to the deaths so far of six U.S. troops and scores of Iranian civilians. Mr. Trump has said more American casualties are likely as the United States digs in for an assault that could last weeks.

The U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime. During a meeting at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in December, Mr. Netanyahu had asked for the president’s approval for Israel to hit Iran’s missile sites in the coming months.

Two months later, he got something even better: a full partner in a war to topple the Iranian leadership.

Israel was also not ready for the military campaign that Mr. Netanyahu had discussed with Mr. Trump during the Mar-a-Lago meeting in December. It needed more time to bolster its supply of missile interceptors and to deploy air defense batteries across Israel.

On Jan. 14, Mr. Netanyahu called Mr. Trump and asked him to delay any military strike until later in the month, when Israel’s defense preparations were complete. Mr. Trump agreed to wait.

The two leaders would speak several times in the weeks that followed. Mr. Netanyahu also conferred with Mr. Vance, Mr. Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the lead White House negotiator with Iran. Top Israeli military and intelligence officials flew to Washington, and Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, communicated regularly with Adm. Brad Cooper of U.S. Central Command.

There were few voices lobbying against military action. One exception was Tucker Carlson, the right-wing podcaster and close ally of the president, who has met with him in the Oval Office three times in the past month to argue against an attack.

He outlined the risks to U.S. military personnel, energy prices and Arab partners in the region if the United States went to war with Iran. He told the president that he should not be boxed in by Israel, arguing that its desire to attack Iran was the only reason the United States was even considering a strike. He encouraged Mr. Trump to restrain Mr. Netanyahu.

The president said he understood the risks of an attack, but he conveyed to Mr. Carlson that he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch.

In the briefing, Mr. Rubio argued that, no matter if Israel or the United States struck first, Iran would respond with a powerful barrage of weapons against U.S. bases and embassies. It was logical then, Mr. Rubio said, that the United States should act in concert with Israel, since America would be dragged in anyway. And Israel, Mr. Rubio said, was determined to act.

This logic sat poorly with some Democrats, who thought the Trump administration was letting Mr. Netanyahu dictate American policy — and was making a circular argument that the United States had to attack because its military buildup could prompt Iran to strike.

The Iranians presented the Americans with a seven-page plan with proposed levels of future nuclear enrichment, numbers that alarmed Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner.

The Americans still wanted the Iranians to commit to zero enrichment, and proposed giving them free nuclear fuel for a civil nuclear program, but the Iranians refused, a U.S. official said. After the talks ended, Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner told Mr. Trump they did not think a deal could be reached.

House Speaker Mike Johnson clarifying that the US involvement in the Iran war is to support Israel:

Mike Johnson: “This was a defensive measure…If Israel fired upon Iran and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then [Iran] would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets."