U.S. Prefers Israel Strike Iran First

Senior advisers to The U.S. President Donald Trump are debating not only whether to strike Iran but in what sequence.

According to two people familiar with discussions, some officials prefer that Israel move first, calculating that U.S. public support would be stronger if Iran retaliates before Washington acts.

“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” one person said. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

The argument rests on polling data showing Republican voters back regime change in Tehran yet resist risking American casualties.

The administration is therefore weighing optics alongside strategic objectives tied to Iran’s nuclear program.

A White House spokesperson said, “the media may continue to speculate on the president’s thinking all they want, but only President Trump knows what he may or may not do.” The Israeli embassy in Washington declined comment.

The debate unfolds as diplomatic channels narrow.

Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are scheduled to travel to Geneva on Thursday in what one official described as a serious negotiating effort.

Yet the mood among some close to the president is stark.

“We’re going to bomb them,” said one person familiar with the talks, underscoring the expectation that military action remains the baseline option if talks stall.

The scope of any operation remains contested.

One consideration is the risk of depleting U.S. munitions stockpiles, a vulnerability that officials fear could create openings for China to pressure Taiwan.

Another is force protection.

“If we’re talking about a regime-change scale attack, Iran is very likely to retaliate with everything they’ve got,” the same person said, noting that U.S. assets in the region are numerous and exposed.

“And they’re not under the Iron Dome. So there’s a high likelihood of American casualties.”

The military footprint has already expanded.

The Pentagon has deployed two aircraft carrier strike groups and dozens of fighter jets, surveillance aircraft, and aerial refuelers to the Middle East, marking the largest U.S. buildup there since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Even in routine conditions, the U.S. maintains thousands of troops across regional bases; those installations would become immediate targets in any sustained exchange.

Options range from an initial limited strike designed to coerce negotiations to a broader campaign targeting nuclear sites and ballistic missile infrastructure.

U.S. strikes last June were described by Trump as having “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, though officials now cite intelligence suggesting Tehran is attempting to restart elements of that effort.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers said on Wednesday morning he received classified briefings detailing attempts to reacquire equipment. “They are trying to get that equipment,” he said.

Among the more aggressive scenarios under discussion is a so-called “decapitation strike” aimed at Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Officials acknowledge Iran’s governing system is structured for succession, limiting the impact of targeting a single individual. A campaign could last days or weeks, particularly if reliant primarily on airpower, and could expand to senior ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The intelligence community is “concerned and monitoring” potential asymmetric retaliation against U.S. facilities in the Middle East and Europe, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.