Less than 48 hours before a joint US-Israeli military strike on Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a high-stakes conversation with President Donald Trump to discuss the rationale for the operation. While Trump had previously expressed opposition to such distant military actions, the discussion shifted when intelligence revealed a rare opportunity.
Intelligence reports indicated that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his top aides were scheduled to meet in Tehran. This provided a specific window for a targeted strike against the Iranian leadership. Although the meeting was later moved from Saturday night to Saturday morning, the tactical opportunity remained the primary driver for the mission.
Netanyahu had long promoted such an operation and used the call to highlight the urgency of the situation. He framed the move as a necessary response to previous Iranian assassination plots against Trump, including a murder-for-hire scheme linked to Tehran’s desire for revenge following the 2020 killing of commander Qassem Soleimani.
The final pitch for Operation Epic Fury
By the time of the call, Trump had already given preliminary approval for military action but was still weighing the timing and execution. Earlier attempts had been hindered by regional weather conditions, but the intelligence regarding Khamenei’s meeting proved to be a decisive factor.
Insiders suggest that Netanyahu’s final pitch focused on the potential for regime change. He argued that Trump could secure a place in history by removing an unpopular leadership, potentially paving the way for a more negotiable government in Tehran. This reasoning contributed to the formal commencement of Operation Epic Fury on February 27.
On February 28, the first bombs were deployed. By that evening, Trump announced the death of Khamenei. While the White House confirmed the operation intended to dismantle Iran’s military capabilities, it did not provide specific comments on the private communications between the two leaders. Netanyahu later denied claims that Israel pressured the US, while Trump maintained the final decision was his alone.
Escalation and regional consequences
The road to this strike was marked by a shift in Trump’s “America First” policy. After diplomatic efforts regarding Iran’s nuclear program faltered, military options became more prominent. Following a June attack on nuclear facilities, US and Israeli collaboration intensified, involving secret joint planning sessions focused on Iran’s ballistic missile threats.
External events also influenced the decision-making process. A successful US operation in Venezuela and widespread anti-government protests within Iran emboldened the administration’s stance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had previously warned that Israel would likely act independently if the US did not join, predicting that Iranian retaliation against US interests was inevitable.
Following the strike, these predictions materialized as Iranian counterattacks resulted in casualties among US service members and civilians. The conflict also caused significant damage to Gulf allies, disrupted international shipping routes, and led to a sharp increase in global oil prices.
A new hardline leadership
Despite the tactical success of the strike, the broader strategic outcome remained complex. While the administration hoped the leadership vacuum would lead to a more moderate government, the CIA had predicted that a hardliner would likely take Khamenei’s place.
This assessment proved accurate. Following the death of the supreme leader, his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, was appointed as the new leader. Mojtaba is regarded as even more hardline and antagonistic toward the US than his father.
While Trump encouraged a popular uprising following the operation, the Revolutionary Guards successfully maintained control over the country. Millions of Iranians remained confined as the new leadership reinforced its grip on power, signaling continued friction in the region.
About The Author
