How Trump quietly made the historic decision to launch strikes in Iran
By the time President Donald Trump was milling about his golf club in New Jersey on Friday evening, the planes were about to be in the air.
To onlookers at the club, Trump showed little anxiety about his decision to authorize airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities that could have profound ramifications both on US national security and his own presidential legacy. The B-2 stealth bombers carrying 30,000-pound bunker busters were preparing to take off at midnight from their base in Missouri, destined for Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
Another set of planes was heading west, a deliberate attempt at misdirection as Trump demanded complete secrecy for his momentous decision.
As Trump escorted around Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, to an event for new members being held in one of the clubhouse's dining rooms, he was loose and — at least in public — in an easygoing mood, people who saw him said.
'I hope he's right about the AI,' Trump joked at one point, gesturing to his guest.
Twenty-four hours later, Trump was in the basement Situation Room at the White House, wearing a red 'Make America Great Again' hat as he watched the strikes he had approved days earlier, codenamed 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' play out in real time on the facility's wall of monitors.
'Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success,' he said a few hours later during late-night remarks from the White House Cross Hall. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.'
The decision to go ahead with strikes thrusts the United States directly into the Middle East conflict, raising worries about Iranian reprisals and questions about Trump's endgame. It came after days of public deliberation, as Trump alternated between issuing militaristic threats against Iran on social media and holding private concerns that a military strike could drag the US into prolonged war.
Yet by Thursday, the same day he instructed his press secretary to announce he was giving Iran two weeks to return to the negotiating table before deciding on a strike, allies who spoke to him said it was clear that the decision was already made.
Speaking on NBC Sunday, Vice President JD Vance said Trump retained the ability to call off the strikes 'until the very last minute.' But he elected to go ahead.
Administration officials went to great lengths to conceal their planning. Deferring the strike decision for a fortnight appeared in keeping with the mission's attempts at diversion – a tactic designed to obscure the attack plans, even though Trump held off giving a final go-ahead until Saturday, according to senior US officials.
By the end of the week, US officials had come to believe Iran was not ready to return to the table and strike a satisfactory nuclear deal after Europeans leaders met with their Iranian counterparts on Friday, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
Trump's two-week public deadline lasted only 48 hours before he took one of the most consequential actions of his presidency. The operation began at midnight ET Friday, with the B-2 bombers launching from Missouri on an 18-hour journey that was the planes' longest mission in more than two decades, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a Sunday morning Pentagon briefing.
'This is a plan that took months and weeks of positioning and preparation so that we could be ready when the president of the United States called,' Hegseth said alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. 'It took a great deal of precision. It involved misdirection and the highest of operational security.'
Discussions about potential options for American strikes on Iran began in earnest between Trump and members of his national security team during a weekend retreat at Camp David in early June, where CIA Director John Ratcliffe briefed Trump on US assessments that Israel was prepared to imminently begin strikes.
The options for Trump to join Israel in its campaign had been drawn up in the months beforehand, with the president's advisers having already worked out differences among themselves over what options were on the menu for him to decide from.
In the week before he made the final call for US stealth bombers and Navy submarines to target three Iranian nuclear sites, Trump held briefings each day with his national security team in the basement Situation Room to discuss attack plans — and to weigh the potential consequences.
Trump came to the secret talks with two principal concerns: that a US attack be decisive in taking out the highly fortified sites, including the underground Fordow enrichment facility; and that any action he took did not pull the US into the type of prolonged, deadly war he promised to avoid as a candidate.
On the first point, officials were confident in the US bunker-busting bombs' ability to penetrate the facility, even though such an action hadn't been tested previously. Caine said Sunday that the initial assessment shows 'extremely severe damage and destruction' to Iran's three nuclear sites, though he noted it will take time to determine the ultimate impact to the country's nuclear capabilities. (Iranian officials downplayed the impact of the US strikes to their nuclear facilities on Sunday.)
But on the second question of a prolonged war, officials could hardly promise the president that Iran's reprisals — which could include targeting American assets or personnel in the region — wouldn't draw the US into a new quagmire.
'As the president has directed, made clear, this is most certainly not open-ended,' Hegseth said Sunday. 'Doesn't mean it limits our ability to respond. We will respond if necessary.'
The uncertainly seemed to give Trump pause, and throughout the week he said in public he hadn't yet made a decision, even if behind the scenes it appeared to Trump's advisers that his mind was made up.
Trump departed his Bedminster golf club Saturday afternoon and returned to the White House for a scheduled 'national security meeting' — travel that was unusual for the president on a weekend but was previewed on his daily scheduled released the day prior.
The US conveyed to Iran through back-channel discussions that the strikes Trump ordered Saturday would be contained and that no further strikes were planned going forward, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
But Trump's public message Saturday night after the strikes — warning of 'far greater' future US attacks if Iran retaliates — underscored the unpredictable period he is entering in the Middle East.
In April, Trump issued an ultimatum to Iran on a potential nuclear agreement, warning Tehran to strike a deal within 60 days – by mid-June. At the same time, Trump urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on attacking Iran so he could give talks the time and space to show progress.
A first round of talks was held in mid-April between the US and Tehran in Oman, led by Trump's foreign envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Despite optimistic notes sounded following the conversations, there was little progress toward an actual nuclear deal.
On June 8 – less than a week before Trumps' 60-day deadline was set to expire – he huddled with his advisers at Camp David, where he was presented with potential options on Iran. The next day, Trump and Netanyahu spoke by phone.
Several weeks earlier, Netanyahu had told a group of US lawmakers that Israel was going to strike Iran — and he was not seeking permission from the US to do so. Sixty-one days after Trump's ultimatum, Israel launched unprecedented strikes on Iran, targeting its nuclear program and military leaders.
'Iran should have listened to me when I said — you know, I gave them, I don't know if you know but I gave them a 60-day warning and today is day 61,' Trump told CNN's Dana Bash after the Israeli strikes began.
But senior Trump officials also initially distanced themselves from the attack, issuing statements that Israel took unilateral action and the US was not involved.
As Israel continued its military campaign in Israel, Trump traveled to Alberta, Canada, for a G-7 summit, only to return to Washington early 'because of what's going on in the Middle East,' the White House said. Trump spent much of the past week meeting in the Situation Room with his national security team to review attack plans and their potential consequences.
On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt read a statement dictated by Trump: 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.'
But there were signs that diplomacy was not moving forward. Witkoff made attempts at meeting his Iranian interlocutor, Araghchi, with little luck.
Ater European leaders met with Iran's foreign minister on Friday in Geneva, US officials felt it appeared the Iranians would not sit down with the US without Trump asking Netanyahu to stop Israel's attacks — something Trump was not willing to do, sources said.
That afternoon, on his way to his New Jersey club, Trump told reporters that his two-week timeframe was the 'maximum' amount of time, and he could make up his mind sooner.
Ahead of Saturday's strikes, the US gave Israel a heads up it was going to attack. Netanyahu held a five-hour meeting with top Israeli officials that lasted through the US strikes, according to a source familiar with the meeting.
Trump and Netanyahu spoke by phone again afterward, and the Israeli prime minister praised the US attack in a video message, saying it was carried out 'with complete operational coordination between the IDF and the United States military.'
The US had also notified some Gulf partners that it was ready to strike Iran within the coming days, but it did not specify targets and time frame, according to a source familiar with the matter. The message was delivered verbally, the source said, and there was a meeting at the White House where some of these Gulf partners were told.
Trump and his team were in contact with top congressional Republicans before Saturday's strikes, but top Democrats were not told of his plans until after the bombs had dropped, according to multiple people familiar with the plans. Hegseth said Sunday that congressional leaders were notified 'immediately' after planes were out of Iranian airspace.
The operation began at midnight Eastern Time Friday into Saturday morning. Caine said that B-2 bombers launched from the US, some headed West as a decoy while the rest 'proceeded quietly to the East with minimal communications throughout the 18-hour flight.'
The unprecedented US operation involved seven stealth B2 bombers. All told, over 125 aircraft were involved, including the B2s, refueling tankers, reconnaissance planes and fighter jets.
At approximately 5 p.m. ET, Caine said, a US submarine 'launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets' at the Isfahan nuclear site.
And shortly after, at approximately 6:40 p.m. ET, or 2:10 a.m. local time, the lead B-2 bomber plane launched two bunker-buster bombs at Fordow nuclear site, Caine said, and the 'remaining bombers then hit their targets.' Those additional targets were struck, Caine said, 'between 6:40 p.m. ET and 7:05 p.m. ET.'
The US military then 'began its return home,' Caine said, noting that no shots were fired by Iran at the US on the way in or out.
After US planes had left Iranian airspace, Trump revealed the attack to the world on his social media platform, Truth Social.
'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump wrote, adding that 'a full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
Auburn's Bruce Pearl maintains Trump 'wants peace,' US isn't at war with Iran
Auburn Tigers men's basketball head coach Bruce Pearl fired off a reminder to his followers after President Donald Trump announced the U.S. military had struck three Iranian nuclear sites. Pearl, who is the chairman of U.S. Israel Education Association along with his duties as a college basketball coach, thanked God for protecting U.S. troops as they made the daring flight over Iran to bomb its nuclear facilities and wrote that the U.S. is not at war with Iran. "Thank you God for your protection over our troops. We are not at war with Iran, we are at war with Iran's military nuclear program," Pearl wrote on X. "The President wants peace, now the ball is in the court of the Iranian leadership. Iran's terrorist reach has been diminished but still present." Pearl has been a staunch supporter of Israel, and his voice in his support has grown since Hamas' terror attacks on the nation on Oct. 7, 2023. Earlier in the week, he expressed support for the president as he weighed potential strikes on Iran. "We can go back and talk about 1982 in Lebanon and all those U.S. Marines that were murdered," he said on OutKick's "Don't @ Me with Dan Dakich." "We can talk about Oct. 7, where 45 Americans were killed. And they abducted, you know, six or seven more and executed them before Israel rescued them. "This has been going on since 1979, and it is about to become a safer place, a non-nuclear Iran. And without having the money to be able to do what they have been doing, the world is going to be a safer place." "If the Middle East gets safer and stronger, look at what a dynamic country Israel is. Look at all the unicorns that are there. Look at all the high tech and development. Look at all the wealth. If you began to spread that to some of these other Middle Eastern countries, who are they going to partner with? The United States? Russia? China? It's going to be the U.S., because Donald Trump has led the way to create peace and prosperity for everybody in the region." Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that the U.S. military had "completed our very successful attack" on the Iranian facilities. The U.S. targeted Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. He wrote that U.S. aircraft had dropped a "full payload of BOMBS" on the nuclear installations. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Strait Of Consequences: World Braces For Potential Energy Shock
ANKARA, TURKIYE - JUNE 17: An infographic titled "Strait of Hormuz" created in Ankara, Turkiye on ... More June 17, 2025. Connects oil and LNG production in the Middle East to global markets via the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. (Photo by Murat Usubali/Anadolu via Getty Images) There are several important energy chokepoints around the world, but none is more significant and vulnerable than the Strait of Hormuz. Now, following the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, the Iranian Parliament has reportedly voted to close this important energy transit chokepoint. Such a move could severely disrupt the world's energy markets. While the final decision still rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council--and Iran has failed to follow through on previous threats to close the Strait--the vote signals intent to weaponize one of the world's most economically sensitive maritime corridors. If carried out, the consequences would be swift, severe, and global. Let's take a closer look at how we got here—and why the stakes are so high. Background On June 21, the United States launched coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The strikes marked the most serious U.S.–Iran escalation in over a decade. The campaign featured B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles. In his remarks following the strike, President Trump struck a conciliatory tone, stating, 'Now is the time for peace.' Iran, unsurprisingly, interpreted it differently. Within hours, the Iranian parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz—a move the U.S. would certainly interpret as a major escalation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News, "If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours." Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters The accompanying picture illustrates why the Strait of Hormuz is so vital. At just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point--and significantly bordered by Iran--the Strait of Hormuz handles the transit of nearly 20% of global oil supply. But that's only part of the story. It is also a critical artery for liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit. Many important energy-producing countries rely on the Strait of Hormuz to get these products to market. There are three major global LNG producers, each with about 20% of the global market: The U.S., Qatar, and Australia. Qatar ships around 77 million metric tons of LNG annually, most of it passing through the Strait. Its customers include energy-hungry economies such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India, as well as parts of Europe. If Qatar is cut off, those nations lose part of their energy supply almost overnight. And LNG isn't as fungible as oil. While oil can be rerouted and drawn from strategic reserves, LNG infrastructure is far more rigid. Ships must be able to dock at specially equipped terminals, and production and liquefaction aren't easily shifted. The LNG market is fragile, and supply shocks can ripple fast and violently. Consequences of a Closure If Iran follows through with closing the Strait of Hormuz, the impact on global energy markets would be immediate and far-reaching. Energy prices would spike across the board. Oil could surge past $90 per barrel, and LNG spot prices—particularly in Asia and Europe—could return to levels not seen since 2022. For countries that rely heavily on imported natural gas, the consequences would be renewed inflation, worsening energy insecurity, and even the possibility of fuel rationing as winter approaches. Shipping and insurance markets would be thrown into disarray. Tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf would grind to a halt. Maritime insurers may suspend coverage for vessels transiting the Strait or demand prohibitively high war-risk premiums. Some shipping companies would avoid the region altogether, forcing longer routes and tighter global shipping capacity—raising costs not just for energy, but for commodities and consumer goods across the board. Strategic petroleum and gas reserves would likely be tapped as immediate substitutes. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and India—heavily dependent on Persian Gulf energy flows—would be among the first to draw from their stockpiles. But those reserves are limited, and a prolonged closure of the Strait would quickly strain their ability to buffer continued supply disruptions. Broader economic consequences would follow. As energy prices rise, so do input costs for key sectors like transportation, chemicals, and heavy manufacturing. Inflation would reaccelerate globally, putting renewed pressure on central banks and undermining recent progress in stabilizing prices. Some emerging economies, which lack the finances to subsidize rising energy costs, would be hit hardest, but developed economies would feel the squeeze too. Finally, a sustained disruption would accelerate the global energy realignment already underway. Policymakers would move quickly to diversify energy sources—fast-tracking LNG terminals, expanding storage capacity, and increasing imports from more stable suppliers like the U.S. It would also strengthen the case for more long-term investments in nuclear power and renewables, both of which offer insulation from the geopolitical volatility that continues to define fossil fuel markets. A Risky Game Closing the Strait would also damage Iran's own economy, which relies heavily on maritime exports. But history shows that governments under pressure don't always act rationally—especially when nationalism and survival are in play. Tehran may view the closure as a way to rally domestic support, push back against the West, or extract concessions in future negotiations. But it is a high-stakes move with no easy exit. The U.S. has made clear that such an act would be seen as hostile—and not just by Washington. Many of the world's major economies have a vested interest in keeping the Strait open, and a multinational response is more than likely. Bottom Line The world is watching closely. Energy companies are reviewing contingency plans, and governments are dusting off emergency protocols. Even in the absence of direct military escalation, the growing geopolitical risk is already being priced into oil and LNG futures. But it's worth noting that the Strait of Hormuz has never been fully closed in modern history—not even during periods of intense regional conflict. The closest call came during the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, particularly during the 'Tanker War,' when both countries targeted commercial shipping and laid mines throughout the Persian Gulf. Despite the violence, the Strait remained open—albeit under heavy military escort and with soaring insurance costs. Iran has issued similar threats before—most notably in 2011–2012 and again in 2019—in response to sanctions and military pressure. In each case, the threat alone was enough to shake global energy markets, even without an actual blockade. This time may be no different. But markets are rightly on edge, because the Strait of Hormuz isn't just a shipping lane—it's a pressure point for the entire global economy. And right now, that pressure is building.
USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump vowed to keep US out of wars. What changed when he decided to bomb Iran?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long lobbied American presidents to help Israel bomb Iran. None have taken him up on it. Until now. President Donald Trump campaigned on stopping "endless wars." He also entered office vowing to bring a swift closure to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Five months in, he's joined Israel's war on Iran's nuclear facilities. So what's changed? And what were the warning signs Trump was prepared to become the third wheel in an Israel-Iran contest for regional dominance that's been playing out for decades? It's not clear what exact damage was done in Iran. The White House says U.S. bombers decimated three uranium enrichment facilities. What comes next is also far from certain: additional U.S. strikes, Iran's retaliation, a resumption of diplomacy, even? Is this the start of the collapse of Iran's clerical regime? Is it a historical moment akin to the breakup of the Soviet Union? What's indisputable is that one pull factor for the U.S. is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long, complicated relationship with recent American presidents. The U.S. bombing of Iran is also the culmination of a process that traces at least as far back to the 1990s when Netanyahu, then a young lawmaker, predicted the Islamic Republic, Israel's sworn enemy, would one day either acquire, or be on the cusp of acquiring, a nuclear weapon and Israel would be forced to act − ideally with U.S. help. "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb," Netanyahu said in 1992. His prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, "Fighting Terrorism." Netanyahu's constant refrain: bomb Iran Netanyahu is the longest-serving Israeli prime minister in the Jewish state's history. He's occupied the role on and off for more than 17 years. In every one of those years he's sought to convince American presidents to bomb Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy purposes only. Netanyahu has appeared at the United Nations with elaborate maps and cartoon-style drawings of bombs. He worked hard to scupper the 2015 nuclear accord between Iran and world powers that Trump exited because he said Iranian officials could not be trusted. In 2002, Netanyahu told a U.S. congressional committee that both Iraq and Iran would soon have a nuclear bomb. A year later the U.S. invaded Iraq. In 2009, he told members of Congress in private that Iran was just a year or two away from producing a nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks. Successive American presidents have listened and acted on Netanyahu's Iran warnings, most substantively politically in the form of the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, which was designed to limit Iran's uranium enrichment in return for relief of U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. When Trump, in his first term, exited that agreement it was working in the sense that Iran was not enriching uranium at a level necessary to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Netanyahu's public and private relationships with recent American presidents have been marked by chilly tensions and insults. In 2015, Netanyahu's spokesman apologized to former President Barack Obama. He has also clashed with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. Netanyahu has even annoyed Trump, although their relationship trends toward mutual lavish praise. But no American president − until now − has gone along with Netanyahu's war plans for Iran, fearing the U.S. could be dragged into a wider Middle East war. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan still haunt U.S. presidents. "The president more than anybody is worried about protracted military conflicts and that is not what we are getting ourselves involved in,' U.S. Vice President JD Vance said on ABC's "This Week" program on June 22. Vance said the Trump administration is also not trying to force regime change in Iran. Reading Trump's Iran tea leaves Trump may also not be as risk averse to military actions as is sometimes portrayed, including by himself. In his first term, he ordered a missile attack in Syria to punish then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons; a raid to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; and a drone attack that killed Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander much beloved in Iran whose death led to Iranian reprisals on U.S. bases in Iraq. Also in the background: The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, and former U.S. officials such as Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, say Iran's nuclear capabilities have advanced since Trump exited the nuclear deal. "Iran cannot be left with an enrichment capability, able to produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing," Shapiro wrote in a recent blog post. Trump has made various comments for years that reflect that sentiment. The main thrust of his remarks in recent weeks have been to say he won't allow Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program, and Tehran could give it up through negotiation or through what he called "the hard way." After first pushing for a diplomatic solution, Trump's tone changed after Israel on June 13 struck dozens of nuclear and military targets in Iran, killing many of Iran's military elite and senior nuclear scientists. By June 17, the president was threatening Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on social media, calling him an "easy target." See updated maps, satellite images: Iran's nuclear sites before and after Israeli attacks Trump likes a winner. He often says so himself. In the days leading up to the U.S. strike, Israel appeared to be winning. "Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,' Netanyahu said in a statement as he addressed the world on June 22 to update them on the war's latest development. He spoke in English, not Hebrew. In his own address, to the American people, Trump said, "I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel." Not mentioned: U.S. intelligence agencies assessed earlier this year that they did not think Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb. Contributing: Francesca Chambers, Tom Vanden Brook
