Did Israel Force Trump Into War?

featuring the voices of our writers and columnists.

To me, the single most underestimated force in international relations is actually stupidity. Including Jamal Bowie, Trusty McMillan Codham, Newfelt Goldberg, Thomas Friedman, and many more. Find the opinions wherever you get your podcasts. From The New York Times, I'm Natalie Kittrow-F.

This is the Daily. Mr. President, did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran, didn't get off of the United States into this war? No, I might have forced their hands. Six days into the war,

the role that Israel has played in driving President Trump to attack Iran

has become a major point of political tension.

Based on the way the negotiation was going,

“I think they were going to attack first.”

And I didn't want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand. The key questions have been, to what extent is a foreign country shaping the actions of the U.S. Commander-in-Chief? We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.

We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties. And how did Trump get on board with something no American president had ever agreed to? Waging a joint war with Israel against Iran?

Have we now delegated the most solemn decision that can be made in our society the decision to go to war to another country? Today, my colleague's Mark Mazetti and Ronan Bergman,

“on what we know about the extraordinarily close cooperation between the U.S. and Israel,”

and how that partnership affects the end game in Iran. It's Thursday, March 5th. Mark Ronan, we wanted to bring you both onto the show because you've both been covering this conflict in Iran. Ronan, you from Israel and you mark on the DC side.

You are writing a book together. You are often reporting partners, and it is so wonderful to have you both here today. Thanks for having us. Thanks, Natalie. Pleasure.

So Mark, you told us when you were on the show a few days ago that part of the lead up to the war in Iran involved Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobbying hard for it with President Trump. And over the last few days, the extent to which Netanyahu may have been a driving force behind this conflict has become a much more central question here. And we want to go deep on that today to try to answer the unanswered questions about how much Israel

is actually determining the shape of these attacks, which have now continued into a fifth day. And the degree to which this war is about what the U.S. wants versus what Israel wants. How should we think about that? So publicly over the last few months, we've seen President Trump take this sort of circuitous path to war. Does he really want to strike?

Does he want a deal? Does he want peace? Who knows? So it's been very unclear which direction this was going.

“But I think the real story is that behind the scenes, this was every day pushing closer to war.”

And also behind the scenes, the constant was the pressure of Prime Minister Netanyahu to get Trump there. And that issue blew up this week after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that, in essence, the war began because Israel was going to begin it. And that the United States needed to protect itself from possible Iranian attack. So in other words, Israel was driving this and the U.S. was responding as if there was no choice,

but to join the war that Israel started. Right, these comments by Rubio were seized upon. They were immediately controversial. Right, because it already touches a point that many particularly in President Trump's party have criticized. This idea that Israel and Netanyahu are getting the United States into wars in the Middle East,

ultimately driving American foreign policy.

So Ronin and I have been covering this issue for a long time. Right. And we've written over the years about how Netanyahu has been pushing American presidents towards war with Iran for many years. We're talking about George W. Bush. We're talking about Obama. We're talking about Joe Biden. We're talking about Donald Trump.

Yep. The dynamic has changed in the last year and a half where we now have two American wars in Iran.

And therefore that helped sell the United States getting involved.

“Got it. And to understand that new dynamic as you've described it, where should we start?”

Where does that story begin? Well, I think you could begin at the beginning of the Trump administration. So in January 2025, Trump comes in and Netanyahu once again begins this pressure campaign about a war in Iran. And remember, these two men have a history of mistrust. Remember, BB in 2020, congratulated Joe Biden on winning the election that Donald Trump thought was stolen.

Yeah. So Trump was angry about that. So there is a history of mistrust here. So when Trump comes in in January 2025, he sort of inherits planning that Netanyahu was already doing about an war with Iran. Okay. And tell me about that planning that was already underway, Ronin.

What do we know about it? Yeah. So this was enrolling plan towards an attack that called for in the first time in history, a joint US Israeli strike on Iran that would involve Israeli intelligence and the almighty power of America together.

Something that Netanyahu always always, this was his dream that he thrived for that.

And everybody told him this will never happen. And then someone sent to President Trump. This is April 2025. Listen, we are being dragged into war that we don't want. And we want an agreement.

You're saying that when Trump came to office, there were already these plans of that involved a joint US Israel attack that Trump then has to contend with. And in April of last year, he said no. Yes, at the beginning, he doesn't want that. And he says to Netanyahu, stop, don't. Now, Trump said no, just like every other American president this century had said no to Netanyahu. Right.

And as Ronin says, in April, he tries to put a stop to it. But obviously then a few months later, we do see these strikes on Iran's nuclear sites.

“So Trump at some point changed his mind. What happened? How did BB succeed? Where he'd failed with previous presidents?”

So after Trump says no in April, the planning continues in Israel to do strikes in Iran without the United States joining in or may be just in a defensive role. And this proceeds all the way to June when Netanyahu launches the war. And a day after the conflict begins, Trump is watching how it's playing. He's watching Fox News. He's watching the sense of, is this successful? Meaning, is it being received well? Is it being received well? Does it seem to be going well?

And as we reported last year, decides the United States is going to join. That Netanyahu had begun something that Netanyahu himself said, only the United States can finish because the United States has military capabilities, specifically these bunkerbuster bombs, that can hit deeply buried sites. And so if this thing is going to actually be brought to its conclusion, the United States has to get involved.

And that's ultimately what convinces Trump to join the strikes last June, hit the three nuclear facilities, and then declare them in Trump's words completely and totally obliterated.

Right. And both he and BB come out and say that they have successfully dismantled the sites, and they have set Iran's nuclear program back a generation.

“So, how did we then get from Trump okaying that kind of limited strike that was declared so successful to now this much more extreme campaign that is aimed at dismantling an entire regime?”

Even before the planes, the bombers turned back to the US and he already has the BDA, the battle damage assessment, and BB saying we removed the threat from the nuclear project and the missile project for generations, but he didn't have that and it was not true. The high-ranking military officials told us in real time the tactical achievements of both militaries were as expected, but nobody expected that this limited campaign would remove the threat, because if it removed the threat, what are we doing now?

We'll remove the threat and then it comes back after eight months. But just to be clear what you're saying is they did not actually set Iran's nuclear program back a generation of the threat was very much still present and everyone knew that.

Nevertheless, in Trump's mind, this issue is largely settled. He does the strikes. He declares the sights obliterated moves on, but Netanyahu doesn't move on, because as Ronan says, in Israel, there's a view that there needs to be, at least another round, the sights aren't obliterated. There's still the issue of Iranian missiles. So this doesn't go away for the Israelis. And in the months after the June strike, you see the pressure campaign continue at a low level, where Israeli officials are discussing with the military and others about the need for another conflict in Iran.

And this ultimately gets really to Trump in late December when Netanyahu comes tomorrow. And basically makes the case for another war.

“And what is the case that Netanyahu makes at that point?”

So the case that he's making to the President is one, but let's first talk about the case that he's making to the Israeli military and maybe the possible additional motives behind over what he's saying.

He is giving the Israeli military in order to get ready to another massive strike in Iran, either with the U.S., or without the U.S., somewhere between April to June 26.

That's back in November, October, November. And also he saw, I'm sure, he saw the timeline of 2026 elections are coming. Netanyahu is lagging much behind in all the polls. The attack on Iran in June did not bring the expected votes in the polls. All of that together, he is getting the military ready to attack and with that preparation. He comes to Malagu. And what you're saying is that he is convincing the Israeli military building a plan to go forward with this as he goes to meet with Trump.

“So with all that in mind, what happens when BB gets to Malagu? What does he say to Trump?”

He says we have work to do. China is resupplying Iran with the necessary component for the production of ballistic missiles. Russia is helping them. They are rearming their regrouping. We need to attack them again. We would be more than happy if it's a joint U.S. Israeli strike, but even just an Israeli strike, I am asking the President blessing to a strike, at least an Israeli strike and helping the defense of Israel from ballistic missiles between April and June 26.

So Netanyahu is saying there is an imminent threat to Israel posed by Iran. First of all, is that true mark?

And second of all, he's not at this point talking about any direct threat that Iran is posing to the U.S. at this time, right? That's not part of the case. That's correct. Iran does not have any missiles capable of hitting the United States, and Netanyahu is making the case that the missile production has continued a pace since the June war.

“And it poses a direct threat to Israel. Now, I think the question of imminent is always one that needs to be sort of unpacked a little bit, right?”

I mean, Iran launched missiles at Israel after Israel began the war in June. Right? So the question is, is an imminent because Iran is about to launch another war? I don't think BB was making that case at all, but there's no question that the capabilities of Iran poses direct threat to Israel. May I just add here then? I think that Iran didn't pose a threat to the U.S. But BB keeps reminding Trump that it did pose a very personal threat to Trump. That Israeli intelligence was able to identify a conspiracy to kill Trump or that personally by this supreme leader. Right? This was, of course, disrupted by Israeli intelligence who told the FBI and American officials about that, but that left a very personal point from the point of view of the president.

Right? Look, this guy's trying to kill me. And you're saying, BB is reminding Trump of that. These guys tried to kill you, remember? Yeah, and they did. It was real and Trump remembers.

He's basically arguing that Iran's proxy forces like specifically Hezbollah has been largely destroyed. Their missile launchers and their missile sites were hit hard in June.

“And remember also, this is the beginning of mass protests happening on the streets of Tehran that the government has to put down.”

This is a moment of weakness for Iran that it looks like Netanyahu at that time is just trying to seize. There's an interesting contradiction here, right? I mean, the first argument BB's making is Iran poses an imminent threat. A. K. A. Iran is strong. The second argument is Iran is weak, so we should strike them while they're down. I mean, both of those reasons end in we should strike Iran. Yeah, I think that's fair to say. I mean, Netanyahu is arguing that, again, primarily because of these missiles that Iran is trying to build and is building that if we wait three, four months, it'll be even more dangerous to strike.

So this is the moment to do it. And the regime itself is distracted and weakened by the events of the last year and a half.

“Got it. And how does Trump respond to this argument?”

So he doesn't close the door on a possible strike in 2026. And so Netanyahu leaves Florida thinking that it's at least on the table for some time in the future. And then just a few days after that, Trump authorizes the military operation in Venezuela to capture Nicola Maduro and his wife in Caracas and take them to the United States.

And the significance of this is that Trump sees military operations that can be done quickly, cleanly with relatively little risk.

“And he isn't boldened by the Venezuelan operation. And it sort of colors his view of where military force can be used elsewhere around the world, including Iran.”

I wonder, Ronan, if Netanyahu is also looking at this moment at the extraction of Maduro as a sign that Trump is willing to go very far and be very aggressive now on the global stage. I wonder if he sees it as an opportunity. I believe that this is just an assessment that if Prime Minister Netanyahu concludes anything from this event is that he would be finding President Trump in a mood that he's only content and just with the flipping of his fingers, he can order a history changing maneuvers. Right. So he will be more sensitive to anyone. And I'm not sure just Netanyahu, I'm talking about American politicians as well, who say, listen, you can succeed when we're all the previous American President's faith, especially Obama.

And you can do it. You have the guts. And Netanyahu sees himself as the person who can whisper to the President here. You can do something that all the previous presidents of the United States feel. You are the man. You will have the guts. You will have the Kahunes to go for this one strike, one big attack that would take down this horrible regime once and for all. And do what they needed to do and they were afraid, but you, you Mr. President, you will not. You are not afraid. And then soon after the Maduro capture, we get the January protests in Iran, which Trump reacts to by promising to help the protesters with possible American strikes. We all heard that.

So how does that fit into this story, Mark? Well, now there's a whole another factor, which is that these protests suggest that the Iran regime is weak. And I think in Trump's mind, it's this idea of the United States can intervene to bring down or at least weaken the Iranian government to help the protesters. So all of a sudden the pivot for justification goes to helping protesters and Trump says publicly, as you said, that, you know, the United States might use its military to intervene on the behalf of the protesters.

Right, but then something very interesting happens on January 14th, Netanyahu calls Trump and basically says, don't do anything yet in Iran, because we're not ready. We, the Israelis are not ready for a strike. There's as Ronan said earlier, the original plan was April to June 2026, right, we're now early January and any preparations that were being made were not mature. And so the argument is you've got to wait.

And all of this, what you've described really suggests that Israel and the U.S. are very clearly coordinating on all of this. It's not just Trump telling Netanyahu, yes or no, giving his blessing or not. In this case, Netanyahu has quite a bit of influence on what kind of path both sides are going to take here. Yes, and from, you know, this period in mid-January, you start seeing planning happening at a lower level with the militaries moving towards what would be a joint operation, joint strike between Israel and the United States. So the protesters opened the door here in Trump's mind for U.S. military action.

“But pretty soon afterwards, the seat has been planted for a larger U.S. Israeli operation to go after the entire regime. And so looking forward to today, we see that Netanyahu ended up getting far more than he ever wanted back in December.”

He got a U.S. lead war in Iran. Okay, so by this point, I now understand why Netanyahu wanted this and how he made his case to Trump, how he was perhaps more successful than he even bargained for. What's less clear to me is why exactly Trump got on board this time around why he went this far. What he calculated was in it for the U.S. We've spent a lot of time over the last week trying to answer those questions and to sort of get to the matter of what led Trump to war.

And the answer is that there were a lot of factors behind the scenes that led him to his decision.

“And the deliberations that ultimately centered around the question, what's in this for the United States?”

We'll be right back. I'm Jonathan Swan, I'm a White House supporter for the New York Times. I have a pretty unsentimental view of what we do.

Our job as reporters is to dig out information that powerful people don't want published.

To take you into rooms that you would not otherwise have access to to understand how some of the big decisions shaping our country are being made. And then painstakingly to go back and check with sources, check with public documents, make sure the information is correct. There's not something you can outsource to AI. There's no robot that can go and talk to someone who was in the situation room and find out what was really said.

In order to get actually original information that's not public that requires human sources, we actually need journalists to do that.

So as you may have gathered from this long riff, I'm asking you to consider subscribing to the New York Times.

“Independent journalism is important and without you, we simply can't do it.”

So Mark Ronan, I assume that as Trump was considering a potential attack on Iran, he was hearing from advisors from allies around the world about just how risky that would be. You said these were complicated deliberations. What do we know about them and what do they tell us about where all this is headed? We certainly know that President Trump was presented by his military advisors, namely Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Cain, a set of not only options for what he could do in terms of striking Iran, but also what the potential repercussions are.

And from our understanding, General Cain gives a quite sober assessment of especially if there is a large scale attack, what the implications repercussions might be. American service members killed economic disruptions, potential destabilization of the entire Middle East, of course, if you were to overthrow the regime in Iran, obviously large scale casualties in Israel. So these are things that were presented to President Trump as he was making his decision. There's war games, you're saying. They run the war games on the other side, even though there are these potentially negative consequences. No one among his close advisors seem to be telling him, this is a bad idea.

He's getting mostly support from his advisors. We report that J.D. Vance, the vice president, who has been skeptical of American military interventions, tells the president, listen, I don't know if this is a good idea, but if we're going to do it, go big.

We report that one of the few people who suggest that this is a bad idea is Tucker Carlson, who meets with the president at least three times, and he is making the case that this is an enormous mistake, and of course he's got a long history of criticizing the role that Israel plays in American foreign policy.

“Right, and at the same time, it sounds like Trump is not concerned with the potential reaction within his own base to another foreign war.”

I think that Trump has said in his public comments, boiling it down, you know, the MAGA movement is me, and what I say and do, the people of this movement will support. So this idea that the MAGA wing of his party is against it, it seemed to not factor significantly in Trump's thinking in the lead up to this conflict.

It is possible, right, that he's not just not worried about potential political downsides, but that he sees political upsides here.

I mean, if you look at the possible best case outcome here, and I know we are far off from that, but just as a way of understanding the best version of a rationale for what we're seeing. A world in which Iran's ability to attack its neighbors and repress its people is significantly degraded a world in which Iran becomes potentially less openly hostile to the US, less of a chaos agent in the Middle East. That could be a world changing development, right? Yes, and on the issue of Iran, Trump compares himself to his predecessors, right, all these presidents before me left this regime in place.

And in the last couple of weeks, we've sort of heard the administration and Trump himself kind of wrote test different ideas for what is the real reason for this war. And we heard an imminent threat from Iran's ballistic missiles that could hit the United States.

“That he said in the state of the union, that's not true, okay? At least they can't do it any time soon, right?”

Steve Wyftgolf said, "Arom can have a bomb in a week." That's not true, right?

And then finally after the strikes began and Trump made his recorded message on Saturday morning, he basically made this case of listen.

This is a regime that's been carrying out terror for 47 years that has been left in place that has a history going back to the takeover of the American embassy in 1979. The killing of hundreds of Marines in 1983 in Beirut, and it's time someone dealt with it. And that's sort of where he landed at the end here, which was that this regime is a bad actor and it needed to go. Okay, I want to ask. We've obviously seen that while there have been many factors that brought Trump to this decision of going to war,

Netanyahu has been a driving force. He has constantly been in Trump's ear pushing for this and he has followed through on his promise to be a full partner in it.

And we've seen that over the last several days.

“Now that we are five days into this war, what do we know about how aligned Netanyahu and Trump are right now?”

So on the operational level of the working level, we have dozens of American fueling tankers taking off from an oil and airport every minute to help these rarely air force in its war effort. So on the working level, it couldn't be more close and more extensive, but I think that while they are aligned and closely synchronizing, this is the point where their path and goals and targets in interest might diverge, because Trump is looking for a very short war and Israel, they say that they need to be weeks.

And also, how do you edit it? What you're saying is that the two sides, US and Israel, they may begin to diverge in terms of how long each side wants to stay in this conflict, with potentially Trump favoring getting out of it early and Israel pushing for a longer engagement. And I feel as though part of the issue for Israel, but also for the rest of us, is that Trump hasn't really laid out a coherent vision for how this ends.

He has called and talked to several different reporters, media outlets, on this question recently,

He has said he wants the Iranians to rise up and take over their government,

but he's also suggested that he's open to negotiating with whatever's left of the Iranian regime. Those are conflicting and confusing messages about what the US actually wants here. And also, the conflicting and confusing messages from Israel, because Israel is also saying, "We are doing this in order to prepare the ground for the Iranian people to go back to the streets and revolve the demonstrate."

But what does that mean? Like, if they go, the Israel will send an attacking chopper to each street to fight against the basins who are going to butcher them,

or the US will do that, what does that mean?

“And also, Israel is fighting the missile project and the nuclear project, but how is this connected to support of the protestists?”

I really don't understand where President Trump is going, and I don't really understand what's the goal from Israel, except for inflicting as much damage to the military sites of the regime. What do you guys actually think the end games are here? The actual end games for both sides, for the US and Israel? I'll speak from the American side and just say it is incredibly unclear what the goals are, because the administration has not done a good job explaining what the goals are.

“Is it regime change? Is it a narrow effort to destroy Iran's military capabilities?”

To me, the most telling comments of the last week came when President Trump said, "Well, we had some people in mind to read Iran, but they're all dead now." So that implies that the people they were considering were close enough to the Supreme Leader or to the leadership that they got killed in strikes among the senior leaders of Iran. Suggesting that what was envisioned is not wholesale change, but something like removing the top leaders and calling the war of success and moving on. And then that goes to Ronin's point, so just how does that help Iranian protesters?

This has been a model over the last week of exactly what the goals of this war are. And I imagine those goals could also change, especially for Trump, if he starts to worry about this war becoming really costly and unpopular.

“Yes, and I think for Netanyahu, the concern is that Trump would see chaos and economic disruption and the stock market cratering and want to stop the war sooner rather than later.”

And Netanyahu, because of all the history we've just discussed, wants to have a more definite resolution to this conflict. But so far, I need to say that despite predictions that Netanyahu and Trump's alliance would collapse, it hasn't. The two have remained in lockstep since the war began. And for Netanyahu, that might be the most significant thing. From the point of view of Netanyahu, I think so far so good, the whole world, see the close cooperation between the two militaries of US and Israel and how close these countries are together.

But that's also bear the seeds for risk to Israel, because we'd respect to the cooperation. It sometimes meet with realities of the area. And the reality of the area is that nothing is really solved with the help of the US.

Hamas is still in control of Gaza, still aspiring to execute another October 7. His balance still the most powerful military force in Lebanon that just launched missiles at Tel Aviv yesterday.

And Iran, the regime is still in place and they still have the 450 kilograms of enriching uranium to almost military grade. Still have the center of you, just to still have the missiles. So even with the support of the US, nothing is solved. And we are still living in a very risky region that every minute sits on a barrel of explosive that can re explode every minute. You're saying that even in this new world where you have the US and Israel going after Iran striking Iran going to war with Iran together, that lockstep cooperation hasn't yet at least yielded the kind of solutions that actually would make things better for Israelis better for the region.

But what's next? Is it solved? Like are we looking at the beginning of a new horizon to the Middle East? I'm not sure at all because the regime is still there and the problems are still there and they are not yet solved.

“And this cannot be solved just by words. I assume that by the end of this week, or maybe a little later, the president of the United States will declare victory.”

We will say we remove the threat, it's obliterated, whatever phrase he uses. But is it? I don't see anything solved. I see only more potential difficulties and challenges here.

Well, Mark, Ronan, thank you both so much. Thank you. Thanks, Natalie. We'll be right back.

“Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday, the U.S. Israeli bombardment of Iran became a wider international crisis.”

NATO was drawn into the conflict when its air defenses shot down an Iranian ballistic missile headed toward Turkey, a NATO member.

A U.S. submarine destroyed an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka, killing dozens who were on board. Their navy, not a factor. Pick your adjective, it is no more.

“During a news conference, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Higgsith said that the attack demonstrated the reach and resolve of the U.S. military as it seeks to decimate Iran's military.”

An American submarine sunk in Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters. Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo, quiet death.

The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II.

Finally, Iran's leaders appeared close to naming a new Supreme Leader. Like the son of the late Ayatollah Hamanai, who was killed last weekend. But Israel's defense minister said that if the next Supreme Leader followed the same ideology as Hamanai, he would become, quote, a target for elimination. Today's episode was produced by Ricky Nevetsky, Caitlyn O'Keef, and Stella Tan. It was edited by Devon Taylor and Paige Cowett, with help from Chris Haxel, contains music by Dan Powell and Rowan Nemisto.

Our theme music is by Wonderley. This episode was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for the Daily. I'm Natalie Kitroff. See you tomorrow.