Israel Suspends Upcoming Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Sites Due to US Influence

The New York Times reported that Israel was gearing up for a significant military operation targeting Iranian nuclear sites as early as May 2025. However, this initiative was postponed following a decision by U.S. President Donald Trump.

After months of internal discussions within his administration, Trump opted to pursue a new diplomatic approach with Tehran to limit its nuclear ambitions. This change occurred amidst escalating regional tensions, with Iran facing military and economic challenges, yet demonstrating a willingness for indirect talks.

Close sources to the Israeli government revealed that the intended operation aimed to postpone Iran’s nuclear progress by at least a year. For the operation to be effective and to reduce the risk of severe Iranian retaliation, it required active U.S. support.

While some American officials, including General Michael E. Kurilla, commander of CENTCOM, seemed receptive to offering logistical and operational assistance, others expressed concerns about the potential for regional escalation.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard notably issued a warning that an increase in U.S. military presence could lead to a wider conflict.

Israel’s strategy for the strike involved a heavy reliance on its airpower, utilizing F-35I Adir and F-15I Ra’am fighter jets to target Iranian nuclear facilities while neutralizing air defense systems. These advanced aircraft, known for their long-range and precision strike capabilities, were anticipated to penetrate deep into Iranian airspace.

However, attacking well-fortified locations like Natanz and Fordow necessitated the use of bunker-busting munitions such as the GBU-28 or GBU-57, which are exclusively available from the United States, highlighting the importance of U.S. cooperation. An initial strategy that included a combination of airstrikes and commando operations was also contemplated but ultimately set aside due to time limitations.

Concurrently, Israeli officials planned to implement electronic warfare and cyber operations to disrupt Iran’s command and control systems and weaken integrated defense networks. These tactics, which had been successfully tested in previous missions, were expected to enhance the overall air campaign. Given the operation’s magnitude, additional defensive measures were also put in place to mitigate potential Iranian retaliation or attacks from allied groups like Hezbollah.

Israel prepared its Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow missile defense systems, while the United States repositioned assets in the area, including THAAD and Patriot missile batteries, two aircraft carriers (Carl Vinson and Harry S. Truman), and several B-2 stealth bombers stationed at Diego Garcia.

The Israeli target list prioritized Iran’s key nuclear sites, with the Natanz facility, which contains thousands of uranium-enriching centrifuges, being a primary focus. Its deep underground location and multiple layers of reinforced concrete made it a formidable target requiring specialized weaponry.

The Fordow site, situated beneath a mountain near Qom, was deemed even more challenging to access and is equipped with advanced centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels. Other significant targets included the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan and missile fuel production sites.

Prior to any military engagement, Israel would need to neutralize Iran’s remaining air defense systems, especially the Russian-made S-300 batteries. The main objective was to undermine Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities while minimizing its capacity for an effective counterattack. The urgency of this strategy was heightened by Israeli military successes in 2024, which included the destruction of weapon depots and air defense systems in Syria and Iran, the weakening of Hezbollah, and the downfall of the Assad regime, a crucial ally of Tehran.

However, during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House in early April, Donald Trump announced the resumption of negotiations with Iran, temporarily halting any coordinated military actions. While Trump did not explicitly state he was countering Israeli plans, he expressed a preference for a diplomatic solution while also indicating that military options would remain available if negotiations failed.

This announcement coincided with the formal ratification of a 20-year strategic partnership between Iran and Russia, which was signed in January and recently approved by President Vladimir Putin, adding further complexity to the regional security landscape.

In the face of ongoing uncertainty, Israel has been actively preparing for possible conflict. The Israeli Air Force recently carried out exercises simulating Iranian missile attacks on key infrastructure as part of its operational readiness. On the U.S. front, the newly appointed Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, conveyed a strong warning, stating that Iran represents a direct threat to both Israel and the United States. Israeli President Isaac Herzog also criticized Iran’s regional ambitions and its use of proxy forces, emphasizing that Israel will not permit Tehran to develop nuclear weapons.

In parallel, CIA Director John Ratcliffe visited Jerusalem for discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mossad Director David Barnea. The talks addressed various scenarios, including the potential resumption of covert operations, stricter enforcement of economic sanctions, and the development of a new military strategy, regardless of U.S. involvement. While negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are anticipated to resume shortly, the specific details of a possible agreement remain uncertain, and the Trump administration continues to exert maximum pressure while leaving the door open for a diplomatic resolution.

Ultimately, Trump’s choice to temporarily withhold support for an Israeli strike on Iran indicates a strategic decision to favor diplomacy in a highly volatile context. While bolstering its military presence in the region and maintaining the option of force, the United States aims to assess Tehran’s intentions within a constrained timeframe. However, the precariousness of the situation, coupled with ongoing regional tensions and Israel’s strategic interests, points to a period of increased instability where any miscalculation could trigger a larger conflict.