In a critical phone conversation held less than 48 hours prior to the joint U.S.-Israeli military strike on Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly engaged with then-President Donald Trump to discuss the strategic rationale behind launching a complex and distant military operation. This phone call marked a pivotal moment, as Trump had previously campaigned against involving the United States in such far-reaching conflicts. Both leaders were acutely aware from intelligence briefings earlier that week that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with his closest advisers, were scheduled to convene at his Tehran compound, presenting a rare opportunity for what is known as a “decapitation strike” — a targeted attack aimed at eliminating a country’s top leadership. While such strikes have been a hallmark of Israeli military doctrine, they are less commonly employed by the United States.
However, new intelligence revealed that the planned meeting had been unexpectedly rescheduled to Saturday morning, advancing from its original timing late Saturday night. This development heightened the urgency of the situation. Netanyahu, who had long advocated for a decisive operation against Iran’s leadership, argued forcefully that this might be the last viable chance to eliminate Khamenei. He also framed the strike as a form of retribution for previous Iranian assassination attempts against Trump, including a murder-for-hire scheme allegedly orchestrated by Iran in 2024 during Trump’s presidential campaign. The U.S. Justice Department had charged an individual accused of recruiting operatives within the United States to carry out this plot, which was reportedly retaliation for the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ top commander.
At the time of the call, Trump had already given his preliminary approval for a U.S. military operation targeting Iran but had not yet finalized the timing or the specific conditions under which the United States would engage. The U.S. military had been steadily increasing its presence in the region for several weeks, leading many within the administration to believe that it was only a matter of time before the president authorized action. Earlier plans to launch the strike had been postponed due to inclement weather, underscoring the complexity of coordinating such an operation.
While it remains unclear how much Netanyahu’s arguments influenced Trump’s ultimate decision, the phone call served as a decisive push from the Israeli leader. The three individuals familiar with the conversation believe that Netanyahu’s insistence, combined with intelligence indicating a narrowing window to target Khamenei, played a crucial role in prompting Trump to order the military to proceed with Operation Epic Fury on February 27. Netanyahu emphasized that the strike could mark a historic turning point by removing a leadership that had long been reviled both within Iran and internationally. He suggested that the Iranian population might even rise up against the theocratic regime that has ruled since the 1979 revolution, a regime widely blamed for fostering global terrorism and regional instability.
The initial airstrikes commenced early on the morning of Saturday, February 28. Later that evening, Trump publicly announced that Khamenei had been killed. When asked for comment, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly did not directly address the Netanyahu-Trump phone call but stated that the military operation aimed to dismantle Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, destroy its naval forces, prevent the arming of proxy groups, and ensure that Iran would never acquire a nuclear weapon. Neither Netanyahu’s office nor Iran’s United Nations representative responded to requests for comment.
Netanyahu, in a press conference held on the following Thursday, dismissed claims that Israel had coerced the United States into conflict with Iran, calling such reports “fake news.” He challenged the notion that anyone could dictate policy to President Trump, underscoring that the decision to strike was ultimately Trump’s alone. Trump himself has publicly maintained that the choice to launch the operation was his own. While the reporting does not suggest that Netanyahu forced Trump into war, it clearly shows that the Israeli prime minister was a persuasive advocate who framed the decision in a way that resonated with the president, particularly by highlighting the opportunity to eliminate a leader who had allegedly orchestrated attempts on Trump’s life.
In early March, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hinted that revenge was a motivating factor behind the operation, remarking, “Iran tried to kill President Trump, and President Trump got the last laugh.” This sentiment reflects the broader context of escalating tensions between the two nations.
Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign had emphasized an “America First” foreign policy, with the candidate expressing a preference for diplomatic engagement over military conflict with Iran. However, as diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions faltered in the spring, Trump began seriously considering military options. The first major strike occurred in June, when Israel targeted Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities, killing several high-ranking Iranian officials. U.S. forces subsequently joined this operation, which lasted 12 days. Trump later celebrated the success, claiming the U.S. had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Despite this, negotiations resumed between the U.S. and Israel regarding a second wave of airstrikes aimed at additional missile sites to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Israel also sought to eliminate Khamenei, a long-standing adversary responsible for missile attacks on Israel and backing heavily armed proxy groups surrounding the country, including Hamas, which launched a surprise assault on October 7, 2023, from Gaza, and Hezbollah, based in Lebanon.
Initially, Israel planned to conduct the attack independently, as Defense Minister Israel Katz revealed in an interview on March 5. However, during a December visit to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, Netanyahu expressed dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the June operation. Trump appeared receptive to another bombing campaign but also expressed interest in pursuing further diplomatic talks. Two significant events later pushed Trump toward authorizing another strike: a U.S. operation on January 3 to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, which succeeded without American casualties, and massive anti-government protests erupting in Iran that month, which were met with brutal crackdowns by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, resulting in thousands of deaths.
Although Trump publicly pledged support for the Iranian protesters, immediate action was limited. Behind the scenes, cooperation between the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) intensified, with joint planning sessions held in secret. During a February visit to Washington, Netanyahu briefed Trump on Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program, highlighting specific sites of concern and warning of the potential threat to the U.S. homeland. These discussions further solidified the case for military intervention.
By late February, many U.S. officials and regional diplomats viewed a U.S. strike on Iran as increasingly inevitable. The combination of intelligence, diplomatic developments, and military planning culminated in a decision that would dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
