U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaks during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House on April 7, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

(JTA) — As Donald Trump took office in January, many who have kept a close eye on Israel’s efforts to blunt Iran’s nuclear ambitions believed the timing was ripe for a decisive strike. Iran had been deeply weakened by Israel’s direct attacks and wars with its proxies, and Trump was seen as open to being convinced to provide the crucial U.S. support that would be needed to pull off an attack on Iran’s fortified nuclear sites.

But ultimately Trump batted away a specific Israeli plan for a strike in May, the New York Times reported on Thursday. Instead, he is favoring diplomacy for now, opening nuclear talks with Iran last week but vowing that the cost could be high if they fail.

The report — sourced through interviews with U.S. officials — signals that the talks are more of a setback for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than he let on when he visited the White House earlier this month. It was during a private meeting that Trump informed him that the United States would not support an imminent strike, according to the New York Times report, which said the trip was precipitated by U.S. officials informing the Israelis that the White House was backing away from the idea of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Forwarding the News

Thoughtful, balanced reporting from the Forward and around the web, bringing you updated news and analysis each day.

Terms(Required)

I agree to the Forward's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Email(Required)

Trump then revealed the plans for direct negotiations during a joint appearance with Netanyahu.

Read more: What you need to know about Trump’s talks with Iran and the previous nuclear deal he abandoned

The New York Times report says that some in the Trump administration initially supported Israel’s plans. But the tide turned as Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and Vice President J.D. Vance voiced opposition, according to the report.

Vance argued that the United States could back an Israeli operation in the future if talks failed, according to the Times report. That is notable because Vance tends to oppose U.S. intervention in foreign conflicts. (He was a lone voice of skepticism about the U.S. strike on the Houthis in Yemen last month, according to a Signal chat that a Trump official added a journalist to.) But Iran is seen as a threat not just to Israel, its sworn enemy, but to the United States as well.

“They can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters earlier this month about Iran. “If it requires military, we’re going to have military. Israel will, obviously, be… the leader of that. No one leads us. We do what we want.”

The Forward is free to read, but it isn’t free to produce

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward.

Now more than ever, American Jews need independent news they can trust, with reporting driven by truth, not ideology. We serve you, not any ideological agenda.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse.

Readers like you make it all possible. We’re near the end of our Passover Fundraising Drive, and we have a very ambitious goal of $127,000 by April 21.

This is a great time to support independent Jewish journalism you rely on. Make a Passover gift today!

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Make a Passover Gift Today!

$90 $180

$360

Other amount