The American newspaper The New York Times, known for its bias against both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, has published a dramatic article claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was preparing to launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities as early as May — but was persuaded by U. S. President Trump to wait until negotiations were concluded.
Although the credibility of such reports — especially from a publication that has become a mouthpiece for the most radical progressive factions openly hostile to both Trump and Israel — may be questioned, today’s article immediately triggered a wide response in Israeli political and defence circles.
According to the article, the details were relayed to the newspaper by anonymous senior American officials. They stated that Israel was seriously preparing for a large-scale military operation involving special forces. The plan included deploying significant contingents to Iranian nuclear sites, combined with airstrikes aimed at neutralising air defence systems and Iranian ground troops guarding these facilities. Some of the infrastructure was to be destroyed by air raids, and some by commandos supported by the air force.
Israel anticipated that the U. S. would also participate in the operation — both through fighter aircraft providing cover for Israeli forces and by sharing intelligence, deploying anti-missile systems to intercept Iranian rockets, and using American aviation to repel potential attacks on Israeli territory.
However, it became clear that the preparation for such a large-scale operation would take several months. Nonetheless, Netanyahu, eager to capitalise on an extremely favourable military and political climate, insisted on launching the strike as soon as possible. As a result, the initial plan was revised: the special forces operations were cancelled and replaced with a planned minimum week-long campaign of intensive bombing.
These plans were postponed, however, after most senior U. S. officials expressed opposition to an immediate strike, asserting that all diplomatic avenues should first be exhausted and that military options should only be considered if those efforts failed.
The New York Times claims that about two weeks ago, Netanyahu discussed the matter with Trump by phone. Trump reportedly responded that telephone communication was not suitable for discussing such a sensitive issue and invited the Israeli prime minister to the White House. Netanyahu indeed flew straight to Washington from Europe, immediately after concluding a visit to Hungary. Officially, the meeting was said to be about discussing U. S. tariffs on Israeli goods and other current issues.
However, as the article underscores, the true aim of the visit was to convince Trump and the U. S. leadership of the urgent need to strike Iran.
During those meetings, according to the publication, Trump and his administration officials insisted on the importance of a diplomatic approach. Moreover, Trump reportedly announced the start of dialogue with Iran during the very talks with Netanyahu. This approach, it should be noted, aligns with the official U. S. position: first seek dialogue, and only if it fails, resort to a military solution.
This morning in Israel saw a wave of reactions to the explosive article. Some were predictably politicised, while others were more substantive. Several experts harshly criticised the leak, believing that it disclosed details of Israeli operational plans and could lead to increased security measures at Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the deployment of additional ground troops to prevent possible commando raids.
At the same time, there were suggestions that the leak to The New York Times may have been orchestrated by Netanyahu himself — or even by Trump — deliberately, to exert pressure on the Iranian leadership.
It is important to note that despite the stated commitment to diplomacy, the U. S. — under Trump’s directive — continues to deploy significant forces to the region. According to the same article, this is being done in case diplomacy fails and a military option becomes necessary. In such a scenario, Israel would likely lead the attack, with the U. S. providing full support.
It is also worth recalling that Trump has publicly stated he has a “deadline” for how long he is willing to continue negotiations. If Iran delays the process, he said, he will resort to a military scenario.
In addition, The New York Times claims that the CIA director, who recently visited Israel, discussed with the head of Mossad plans for covert operations against Iran and the tightening of sanctions.
Conclusion: The New York Times article by no means rules out a future Israeli strike. On the contrary, it clearly indicates that Israel is seriously preparing. However, at this stage, Trump prefers to give diplomacy a chance and is seeking a new nuclear agreement. Only if negotiations fail and sanctions do not achieve their intended effect will military action be considered.
Another crucial point: from a strategic standpoint, the present moment indeed appears to be the most favourable time to strike Iran. The Syrian army has been effectively disabled: its air force and air defence systems have been destroyed. Hezbollah has suffered devastating losses, Hamas is nearly completely neutralised, and all of Iran’s long-range air defence systems were knocked out during a recent Israeli strike.
Against this backdrop, Netanyahu’s eagerness to launch a strike promptly and exploit this strategic window seems entirely logical. However, it appears the U. S. administration currently favours a different approach: focusing on diplomatic resolution and achieving a new nuclear agreement with Iran through negotiations and painful sanctions. These sanctions are already significantly impacting Iran’s economy, leading to a steep decline in the value of the Iranian rial in recent months.
And perhaps the most important point: the confrontation between the U. S. and Iran has reached its climax. The situation has entered a critical phase — either the negotiations succeed, or a military strike will occur. From our perspective, this is not merely a geopolitical development — it is one of the signs of Redemption, as indicated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the King Moshiach, based on the words of our sages.
As stated in the Talmud: “If you see kingdoms fighting with each other — await the coming of Moshiach.” And also: “Who strikes Egypt through their firstborn — for His mercy endures forever.” That is, the One who strikes the modern “Egypt” (in the spiritual sense — Iran) does so through the “firstborn of the nations of the world” — namely, the United States of America, which has already inflicted a powerful economic blow on Iran and may soon resort to decisive military action. Therefore, all that is happening only strengthens within us the inner anticipation and fervent prayer — that we may merit true and complete Redemption very soon, immediately.