US preparations for Iran strikes more extensive than acknowledgedTrump’s decision to back Israel came amid frustration with diplomatic process, pressure from political alliesIsrael planned Iran strikes with or without US support, officials sayBy Gram Slattery, Phil Stewart, Steve Holland and Jonathan LandayWASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - Roughly one month ago, from the stage at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran that would prove prophetic.“We’ll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or nuclear attack,” Trump told the crowd, sending a message to the leadership in Tehran.“The time is right now for them to choose. Right now. We don’t have a lot of time to wait. Things are happening at a very fast pace.”That May 13 ultimatum received little attention at the time.But behind the scenes, the president already knew an attack on Iran could be imminent - and that there might be little he could do to stop it, according to two U.S. officials.By mid-May, the Pentagon had begun drawing up detailed contingency plans to aid Israel if it followed through on its long-held ambition to strike Iran’s nuclear program, the officials said. And the U.S. had already diverted thousands of defensive weapons away from war-torn Ukraine toward the Middle East in preparation for potential conflict, according to a Western source familiar with the matter and a Ukrainian source.The Pentagon declined to comment for this story.This account of the weeks and days leading up to Trump’s decision to throw his support behind Israel’s bombing campaign is based on interviews with over a dozen administration officials, foreign diplomats and Trump confidantes, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.The picture that emerges is that of a long, secretive preparation process and a president who for weeks found himself torn between diplomacy and supporting military action - and was ultimately persuaded in part by an ally whose actions he did not fully control.While Trump has long described himself as a peacemaker - dispatching Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to the region several times to try to seal a diplomatic accord - he had several trusted political allies pushing him to back an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.And U.S. intelligence had indicated a unilateral Israeli strike was possible, even likely, even if Trump wanted to wait, according to two U.S. officials.While it is unclear if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Trump’s more hawkish allies ever got him to a “yes” to Israel’s plans, by the days leading up the strike he was at least not a “no,” according to two senior U.S. officials and a senior Israeli source.That stance, people familiar with the dynamics said, helped tip Israel into action.Seven days into the Israel-Iran conflict, Trump is left with a dilemma, said Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat who has advised six secretaries of state on Middle East policy.He can try again to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran, allow Iran and Israel “to fight it out,” or he can enter the war with U.S. airstrikes on the deeply buried Fordow enrichment plant, a step that would have unknown consequences for the region.Trump “let it (the Israeli attack) happen,” said Miller. “He got on the tiger and he’s riding it.”The White House, the Israeli prime minister’s office and Iran’s delegation to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment. Tehran has consistently said its nuclear program is designed for peaceful purposes only, a conclusion Washington has rejected.<h3>THE COMING STORM</h3>One of the first hints that Trump might sign off on an Israeli bombing campaign came in April.During a closed door meeting on April 17, Saudi Arabia’s defense minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian: Take Trump’s offer to negotiate an agreement seriously because it presents a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.Reuters could not determine whether the message was sent at Washington’s behest, nor whether Iran’s leaders took that message seriously.With hindsight, they should have.The Israel Defense Forces and the head of U.S. Central Command, General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, were discussing detailed intelligence about Iran’s missile buildup and nuclear program and steps that could be required to defend U.S. troops and Israel itself in any conflict with Iran, according to a U.S. official and senior Israeli official.Meanwhile, the U.S. was funneling weapons to Israel that would be useful for an air war with Iran. In one instance in early May, a large shipment of defensive missiles originally meant for Ukraine were diverted to Israel instead, according to the Western source and the Ukrainian source.The diverted shipment caused consternation in Kyiv and sparked continued fears that additional weapons needed to defend against Moscow will instead be used to defend U.S. interests elsewhere, the Ukrainian source said.In the opening months of Trump’s term, Israel had already proposed to Washington a series of options to attack Iran’s facilities, according to sources.While Trump had rebuffed those ideas, saying he preferred diplomacy for the time being, several people close to him said he was never dead-set against using military force against Iran.He had done so before. In 2020, despite a foreign policy during his first term that was otherwise marked by restraint, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed major general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ division responsible for its international operations.The Iranian government has since sought to murder Trump in revenge, U.S. prosecutors have said, an allegation Tehran denies.Behind the scenes, Trump had been pulled in multiple directions on the Iran issue since before he even took office.On one side, many supporters - including conservative media personality Tucker Carlson - and administration officials saw Trump’s Make America Great Again movement as an antidote to decades of foreign wars that cost thousands of American lives without significantly advancing American interests.On the other, several close Trump allies - from conservative commentator Mark Levin to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham - were portraying a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost.Trump himself took pride in being a broker of peace.“My proudest legacy,” he said during his inauguration address, “will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.”“IT’S A TANGO”Ultimately, no U.S. official, Trump confidante or diplomat Reuters talked to identified an epiphany that tipped the scales for the president.One senior administration official said that after months of sitting on the fence a lack of diplomatic progress, a push from the Israelis and appeals by hawkish allies likely wore him down.Trump aides and allies have noted that Israel’s attack unfolded just after the expiry of a 60-day deadline the Trump administration had set for a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran.The senior U.S. official said another dynamic was at play: As U.S. intelligence consistently showed Israel might go ahead with an attack with or without U.S. support, the administration could look caught off guard if they did not get behind it. Worse, it could appear that the U.S. was opposing a longtime ally.Although Trump had appeared to some to snub Netanyahu as he pushed for a peaceful solution to the crisis, privately, Israel understood that Washington would stand by it, said a separate official.By the time Trump talked to Netanyahu on Monday, June 9 - one of many phone calls in recent days - his stance was one of tacit, if not explicit approval, according to one U.S. and one Israeli official.The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had said he would like more time to see diplomacy play out. But the U.S. official said that he did not explicitly veto Israel’s plans.By Wednesday, June 11, it was clear to Washington that Israel’s plans were a go.That day, Reuters reported that the U.S. was preparing a partial evacuation of its Iraqi embassy amid fears of reprisals from Iran following an imminent attack.The next day, June 12, Washington sent a formal diplomatic note to several regional allies, warning them that an attack was imminent.That evening, Israel launched its overnight barrage, an attack that almost immediately escalated into an air war.Trump and some key cabinet members watched the events live from the wood-paneled “JFK room,” part of the White House Situation Room. Other officials watched the events nearby.On the menu, per one official: stone crabs from a local restaurant.The initial attack appeared to be a success, with several close advisers to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei killed and key nuclear sites seriously damaged. Over the weekend, the Israelis considered killing Khamenei himself, but were waved off by Trump, according to two U.S. officials.Almost immediately, a political civil war erupted in Trump’s Republican Party, with several high-profile conservatives, including members of Congress, accusing his administration of fanning the flames of war.Seven days on, the U.S. intelligence community believes the strikes have set Iran’s nuclear ambitions back by only months, according to a source familiar with U.S. intelligence reports, confirming a CNN report.A significant blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, most analysts say, will require dropping bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the crown jewel of Iran’s nuclear program. Only the U.S. has that capability.Trump has said he is considering such a strike, which would represent a major escalation for the United States.As of Thursday, his intentions were still unclear.

U.S. President Donald Trump, self-identified as a "peacemaker," has backed Israel's military campaign against Iran amid frustrations with diplomatic efforts. As tensions escalated, the Pentagon prepared for potential strikes, diverting weapons from Ukraine to the Middle East. Trump's support for Israel's actions was influenced by political allies and intelligence suggesting an Israeli strike was imminent. The situation leaves Trump with a dilemma: pursue diplomacy, allow conflict to unfold, or engage the U.S. militarily. The dynamics reflect a complex interplay of military readiness and diplomatic challenges in the region.

- The article discusses U.S. preparations for potential military action against Iran, revealing that plans were in place to support Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear program.  
- It highlights President Trump's internal conflict between pursuing diplomacy and supporting military action, influenced by political allies and intelligence indicating an Israeli strike was likely.  
- The situation escalated into an air war, with U.S. intelligence assessing that the strikes only temporarily hindered Iran's nuclear ambitions, while Trump considers further military options.

INSIGHT-How Trump, a self-proclaimed "peacemaker," embraced Israel's campaign against Iran