Trump gave final go-ahead for Iran attack hours before bombs fell
President Trump had been saying he would give Tehran up to two weeks to yield to U.S. demands before ordering an attack. Then Saturday afternoon at his private club in New Jersey, he gave the final go-ahead to strike in a few hours.
'The goal was to create a situation when everyone wasn't expecting it," said a senior administration official.
His order to the military to proceed unleashed a military operation that has been the focus of top-secret planning. Within hours U.S. B-2 bombers penetrated Iranian airspace and dropped half a dozen bunker bombs on Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordow. U.S. attack submarines launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against sites in Isfahan and Natanz.
In a White House address Saturday night, Trump called the attacks 'a spectacular military success" that left Iran's nuclear sites 'completely and totally obliterated."
But key questions remain unknown, including whether the Iranian program was fully destroyed and whether Iran will respond with its own attacks on the U.S. or its allies—or possibly try to shut down oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.
The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran vowed Saturday not to give up its efforts. The organization 'won't allow the progress of this national industry—built on the blood of nuclear martyrs—to be halted," it said in a statement.
The Fordow fuel enrichment facility in Iran.
U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has been authorized to talk with the Iranians, as Trump tried to keep open the long-shot possibility of some sort of diplomatic understanding that could quiet the region.
A U.S. official said the Trump administration had reached out to Iran to make clear the attack was a one-off assault, not the start of a regime-change war.
The decision to attack came after weeks of White House deliberations, closely held military preparations and direct coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had launched a similar sudden attack on Iran a week earlier.
But Trump seemed conflicted about whether to proceed with the operation over the past week. His advisers also worried about getting pulled into a Middle East conflict despite the frustrations with the diplomatic track aimed at getting Iran to halt its uranium enrichment.
In a Tuesday meeting in the Situation Room, Trump approved of plans to strike Iran but withheld a final order, giving time to assess once more if Iran would be willing to entirely end its enrichment of nuclear fuel.
'There was real debate earlier in the week about what we should do," said the senior official. 'But Trump signaled on Tuesday he was leaning toward going forward, so that changed everything."
Trump also wanted to create uncertainty about his intentions—and his timeline. The White House said Thursday Trump would give Iran up to two weeks to show its interest in a diplomatic resolution to the crisis. Only a day later he hinted that his patience was wearing out.
'We're going to see what that period of time is, but I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," he told reporters, adding that he still viewed himself as a peacemaker.
Trump made the decision to go ahead with the operation after Iran continued to rebuff his demand to give up its uranium enrichment and Israel paved the way with more than a week's worth of strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and air defenses.
In his Saturday night address, Trump said that his target was Iran's three principal nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—and wasn't aimed at Iran's leaders.
President Trump holding a meeting in the Situation Room Saturday, in this photo released by the White House.
The White House released photos of Trump wearing a red Make America Great Again hat with his national-security team in the Situation Room Saturday, where they received updates on the attack as it unfolded.
Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was among those flanking the president around the table. Caine was a leading architect of the plans to strike Iran, U.S. officials and people familiar with the deliberations said.
Trump spoke with Netanyahu just after the operation, and the Israeli leader was 'incredibly grateful," the senior official said.
Trump vowed to carry out additional strikes if Iran lashed out at U.S. forces in the region and balked at diplomatic efforts to establish a peace.
'Future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier," he warned. 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days."
The Israeli Air Force attacked Iranian warships and weapons storage facilities at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on Saturday, a military action that appeared to have been intended to blunt Tehran's ability to retaliate in the Persian Gulf.
Trump said Saturday that the strikes had been closely coordinated with Israel. But the U.S. role changed dramatically over the following weeks.
On June 9, Netanyahu said he was preparing strikes and intended to move forward with an assault. Trump replied he wanted to see diplomacy with Tehran play out a little longer, according to U.S. officials.
Three days later, Trump and Netanyahu spoke again, only this time the Israeli leader made clear he was going to launch a campaign against Iran imminently. The 60-day deadline Trump had initially set for a diplomatic accord had passed, and Israel could wait no longer, Netanyahu said, according to officials familiar with the call.
Trump responded that the U.S. wouldn't stand in the way, according to administration officials, but emphasized that the U.S. military wouldn't assist with any offensive operations.
As the bombs started falling that June 12 evening in Washington, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement confirming the U.S. played no role in Israel's unilateral attack. The initial U.S. military role was defensive and focusing on protecting Israel against Iranian drone and missile attacks.
As the success of Israel's opening salvos became clear, Trump started to claim credit for enabling the operation with U.S. weapons and saying the strikes could ultimately help compel Iran to make a deal.
Over the following days, Trump held lengthy discussions with key aides about his options, ranging from leveraging Israeli strikes to compel Iran to negotiate its nuclear program away to authorizing American attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.
After Trump made the final call Saturday in New Jersey, B-2 stealth bombers dropped six 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs on Fordow. More than two dozen cruise missiles were fired by U.S. submarines at Natanz and Isfahan, two other sites where Iran has carried out nuclear work and enriched uranium.
'We won't know for sure until the morning what was taken out, but our belief is that we took out everything we wanted to," said the senior official.
Write to Michael R. Gordon at michael.gordon@wsj.com, Josh Dawsey at Joshua.Dawsey@WSJ.com and Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
US strike on Iran raises oil shock, capital flow risks for India's economy
New Delhi: The flare-up in West Asia following US missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities has heightened geopolitical tensions and intensified external risks to India's economy, even as many analysts say the escalation may prove short-lived. At stake for India is the potential fallout from surging oil prices, a widening current account deficit, higher energy and shipping costs fuelling domestic inflation, investor risk aversion, capital outflows, and broader risks to economic growth. 'The bigger impact will be on sentiment. However, oil intensity has been going down structurally. For India too, the share of oil imports in total imports has come down from 21% in 2018 to 16.5% in 2025," said Sachchidanand Shukla, group chief economist at Larsen & Toubro. Read this | Mint Primer: What if the US joins Israel's war with Iran? Shukla added that India can absorb oil prices up to $85 a barrel without triggering large macro imbalances. 'There is no need to panic and one needs to keep an eye on how the situation evolves," he said. In a televised address on Sunday (India time), US President Donald Trump confirmed the direct American assault on Iran's nuclear programme, ending days of speculation about Washington's entry into the Israel-Iran conflict. He warned that further strikes could follow. 'Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight was the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace doesn't come quickly we will go to those other targets with precision, speed and skill," Trump said. Oil price spike the immediate risk A sustained rise in oil prices remains the most visible risk for India, which relies on imports for nearly 85% of its crude oil needs. Higher global prices can widen India's current account deficit, fuel domestic inflation, trigger risk aversion among investors, and slow down growth. 'Every sustained 10% rise in oil price versus the baseline can lower India's GDP by 15 basis points (bps) and raise inflation measured by Consumer Price Index (CPI) by 30bps. On the other hand, it can reduce global GDP by 15 bps and raise CPI by 40 bps which can impede the rate cut trajectory," explained Shukla. While crude prices have already risen from $64–65 per barrel to $74–75 since the Israel-Iran conflict erupted on 13 June, some offsetting factors remain in play. Read this | US attack on Iranian nuclear sites roils oil market, India braces for possible price surge Experts noted that oil supply from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus (Opec+) is improving as members unwind voluntary production cuts. Crude output from Opec+ rose by 180,000 barrels per day in May compared to April, according to the cartel's latest monthly oil market report. This production rebound, experts said, could help cap sharp price spikes, provided the conflict does not escalate further. 'The current flare-up may be short-lived and could even mark a turning point in the West Asia crisis towards its early closure, given the substantial disparity in conventional military capabilities, though the complex regional dynamics suggest multiple pathways for conflict evolution," said Rishi Shah, Partner and Economic Advisory Services Leader, Grant Thornton Bharat. 'As things stand today, there may be regional disturbances but these appear unlikely to translate into a major negative shock for India's economy," said Shah. On the trade front, while treaty negotiations continue, commercial flows seem to be adapting and progressing despite the tensions, he added. "Therefore, based on current developments and assuming the conflict remains contained, we expect the net external impact on India's growth trajectory to be relatively muted in the near term — though this assessment remains contingent on the conflict not escalating significantly or disrupting critical energy supply routes," said Shah. Prolonged conflict could hit growth Economists warn that a prolonged conflict could have deeper consequences. 'For oil-importing countries like India, this means slightly higher inflation and increased fiscal costs. While we have some buffer, with inflation currently below 4%, expectations have suddenly firmed up," said NR Bhanumurthy, director of the Madras School of Economics. Bhanumurthy cautioned that the current account deficit could widen not just due to the oil import bill, but also from potential pressure on remittances and capital flows. 'CAD will be a key concern going forward," he said, adding that fiscal support may be needed to absorb part of the oil price shock. 'A sustained flare-up in the conflict poses upside risks for estimates of crude oil prices, and India's net oil imports and the current account deficit. A $10/bbl increase in the average price of crude oil for the fiscal will typically push up net oil imports by ~$13-14 billion during the year, enlarging the CAD (current account deficit) by 0.3% of GDP," rating agency Icra Ltd had noted in an earlier report. Oil marketing companies and the government can absorb some of the costs in the short term, Bhanumurthy said. 'There will be fiscal implications, but we do have some fiscal space as we have exceeded fiscal targets in the last two years," he added. A sharp oil price rise could also weigh on foreign inflows and hurt domestic investment sentiment, he warned. A similar note of caution was sounded by Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at Bank of Baroda, who said that if crude prices stay above $80 for long, the trade deficit will widen and the rupee will come under pressure. "Wholesale inflation will rise accordingly, but the impact on retail inflation will depend on how the government manages fuel prices," he said, adding that excise cuts, if implemented to shield consumers, would widen the fiscal deficit — 'one that can be absorbed." India's current account deficit edged up to $11.5 billion, or 1.1% of GDP, in Q3 FY25 compared to $10.4 billion a year earlier. Retail inflation eased to 2.82% in May, while wholesale price inflation fell to a 14-month low of 0.39%. Icra Ratings on Friday warned that oil is expected to average between $70 and $80 per barrel in FY26, and any sustained rise beyond current levels could weigh on India's growth outlook. Shipping watches Hormuz chokepoint The Strait of Hormuz remains a key chokepoint for global energy and container trade, with Indian shipping companies monitoring the situation closely. 'But operations and movement of ships as of now has remained unaffected in the region. We have not yet received any alerts from either UK Maritime Trade Operations that patrols the area or the Indian Directorate General of Shipping," said Anil Devli, CEO, Indian National Shipowners' Association. Even before the latest flare-up, some ships had begun avoiding the strait, pushing up freight rates and crew costs amid rising security risks. Read this | Mint Explainer | Strait of Hormuz: Will Iran shut the vital oil artery of the world? Any blockade could spike global energy prices, disrupt supply chains, and hit container trade across the Persian Gulf, South Asia, and East Africa. India is also watching its strategic asset in the region — Chabahar Port in Iran — closely. 'Operations at the port, located near Iran's southeastern border with Pakistan, remain unaffected and normal," an India Ports Global Ltd official said. Meanwhile, Adani Group's Haifa Port in Israel remains fully functional despite the ongoing conflict. 'Earlier strikes caused minor shrapnel damage nearby, but operations were unaffected," another official said. Haifa handles over 30% of Israel's imports and contributes about 5% to Adani Ports' revenue, though it accounts for less than 2% of cargo volumes. Rice exporters brace for fallouts Beyond oil, India's basmati rice exporters are facing uncertainty as Iran, a key buyer, may scale back purchases if tensions persist. Iran typically imports around 1 million tonnes of basmati rice annually from India, accounting for roughly a fifth of India's total basmati exports by volume. Several shipments are currently lying at Indian ports, with exporters hesitant to dispatch consignments amid growing uncertainty. "We are in a catch-22 situation. Amid escalation of tension, many of the exporters, whose shipments are lying at port have kept shipments on hold. If the current situation persists, exporters would be on the receiving end," said Satish Goel, President, All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA). India's rice exports to Iran rose to $757.3 million in FY25 from $689.8 million a year earlier, accounting for three-fourths of India's total farm exports to the country. Also read | Javier Blas: An Israel-Iran war may not rattle the oil market The timing makes the situation especially sensitive — mid-June to mid-July is peak season for exports, just ahead of Iran's domestic harvest. 'This is a peak season, as in the middle of July Iran might temporarily ban shipments to protect their domestic farmers and ensure fair prices for their harvest," Goel added. 'This is a common practice, particularly during the harvest season, and is aimed at supporting local agriculture by reducing competition from foreign imports. The ban is usually lifted once the domestic harvest is sold." Vijay C Roy and Dhirendra Kumar contributed to this story
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 minutes ago
- Business Standard
With Trump involved, wartime Nato summit may shift focus from Ukraine
At its first summits after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Nato gave President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pride of place at its table. It won't be the same this time. Europe's biggest land conflict since World War II is now in its fourth year and still poses an existential threat to the continent. Ukraine continues to fight a war so that Europeans don't have to. Just last week, Russia launched one of the biggest drone attacks of the invasion on Kyiv. But things have changed. The Trump administration insists that it must preserve maneuvering space to entice Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, so Ukraine must not be allowed steal the limelight. In Washington last year, the military alliance's weighty summit communique included a vow to supply long-term security assistance to Ukraine, and a commitment to back the country on its irreversible path" to Nato membership. The year before, a statement more than twice as long was published in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. A new Nato-Ukraine Council was set up, and Kyiv's membership path fast-tracked. Zelenskyy received a hero's welcome at a concert downtown. It will be very different at a two-day summit in the Netherlands that starts Tuesday. Nato's most powerful member, the United States, is vetoing Ukraine's membership. It's unclear how long for. Zelenskyy is invited again, but will not be seated at Nato's table. The summit statement is likely to run to around five paragraphs, on a single page, Nato diplomats and experts say. Ukraine will only get a passing mention. If the G7 summit is anything to go by Recent developments do not augur well for Ukraine. Earlier this month, frustrated by the lack of a ceasefire agreement, US President Donald Trump said it might be best to let Ukraine and Russia fight for a while before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. Last weekend, he and Putin spoke by phone, mostly about Israel and Iran, but a little about Ukraine, too, Trump said. America has warned its allies that it has other security priorities, including in the Indo-Pacific and on its own borders. Then at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, Trump called for Russia to be allowed back into the group; a move that would rehabilitate Putin on the global stage. The next day, Russia launched its mass drone attack on Kyiv. Putin is doing this simply because he can afford to continue the war. He wants the war to go on. It is troubling when the powerful of this world turn a blind eye to it, Zelenskyy said. Trump left the G7 gathering early to focus on the conflict between Israel and Iran. Zelenskyy had travelled to Canada to meet with him. No meeting happened, and no statement on Russia or the war was agreed. Lacking unanimity, other leaders met with Zelenskyy to reassure him of their support. Questions about US support for Ukraine Trump wants to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. He said he could do it within 100 days, but that target has come and gone. Things are not going well, as a very public bust up with Zelenskyy at the White House demonstrated. Trump froze military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine's armed forces for a week. The US has stepped back from the Ukraine Defence Contact Group that was set up under the Biden administration and helped to drum up weapons and ammunition. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth skipped its last meeting; the first time a Pentagon chief has been absent since Russian forces invaded in February 2022. Addressing Congress on June 10, Hegseth also acknowledged that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. It means Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia's attack. Indeed, no new aid packages have been approved for Ukraine since Trump took office again in January. The message from the administration is clear: Far from guaranteed, future U.S. support for Ukraine may be in jeopardy, said Riley McCabe, Associate Fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a US-based policy research organization. Cutting aid, McCabe warned, could make the Kremlin believe that US resolve is fleeting, and that time is on Russia's side. Putin has less incentive to negotiate if he believes that US disengagement is inevitable and that Russia will soon gain an advantage on the battlefield, he said. What the summit might mean for Kyiv Trump wants the summit to focus on defence spending. The 32 allies are expected to agree on an investment pledge that should meet his demands. Still, the Europeans and Canada are determined to keep a spotlight on the war, wary that Russia could set its sights on one of them next. They back Trump's ceasefire efforts with Putin but also worry that the two men are cozying up. Also, some governments may struggle to convince their citizens of the need to boost defense spending at the expense of other budget demands without a strong show of support for Ukraine and acknowledgement that Russia remains Nato's biggest security threat. The summit is highly symbolic for Ukraine in other ways. Zelenskyy wants to prevent his country from being sidelined from international diplomacy, but both he and his allies rely on Trump for US military backup against Russia. Concretely, Trump and his counterparts will dine with the Dutch King on Tuesday evening. Zelenskyy could take part. Elsewhere, foreign ministers will hold a Nato-Ukraine Council, the forum where Kyiv sits among the 32 allies as an equal to discuss its security concerns and needs. What is clear is that the summit will be short. One working session on Wednesday. It was set up that way to prevent the meeting from derailing. If the G7 is anything to go by, Trump's focus on his new security priorities right now, the conflict between Israel and Iran might make it even shorter.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Blocking of Strait of Hormuz may impact India's energy procurement: Experts
Any blocking or disruption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz -- a narrow passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea -- will have significant global and regional impact, including for India's energy security, strategic affairs experts said on Sunday. Following the US bombing of three major Iranian nuclear sites, Tehran has indicated that closing the Strait of Hormuz for shipping is one of the options on the table to pressure its adversaries. Nearly 30 percent of global oil and a third of the world's LNG (liquefied natural gas) passes through the strait daily and its closure would immediately reduce global supplies triggering a spike in prices, they said. The closure of the narrow passage would have significant global repercussions across energy markets and it will impact India's energy security as well, Dr Laxman Kumar Behera, Associate Professor at Special Centre for National Security Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, told PTI. Behera said any disruption in the critical shipping lane will majorly impact India's crude oil import from Iraq and to an extent from Saudi Arabia. Captain D K Sharma (retd), a former Indian Navy spokesperson who closely follows developments in the Gulf region, said Iran's threat to block the Strait of Hormuz could lead to significant disruptions in global oil trade. Any disruption in shipping traffic could impact insurance premiums, causing costlier rerouting of oil shipments, he argued. "Oil prices are expected to surge due to the increased tensions in the region, with some analysts predicting prices to reach USD 80-USD 90 per barrel or even USD 100 per barrel if Iran responds with retaliatory measures," he noted. Sharma also said that the currencies of the countries in the region may experience significant volatility, and investors may look for other stable markets. According to a recent analysis by the International Energy Agency, even a brief disruption of passage through the Strait of Hormuz will have a significant impact on oil markets. "With geopolitical and economic uncertainties affecting oil producers and consumers alike, oil supply security remains high on the international energy policy agenda," it said. The US on Sunday morning bombed three major nuclear sites -- Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan -- in Iran, bringing itself into the Israel-Iran conflict Later, President Donald Trump said the Iranian nuclear sites were "totally obliterated". Behera said Iran will also face economic consequences if it shuts down the Hormuz strait as such a move will severely cripple Tehran's exports. Since the start of Iran's hostilities with Israel, Iranian officials have spoken about the possibility of shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Mohammad Javad Hosseini, the deputy chief of mission at the Iranian embassy, on Friday said closing the Strait of Hormuz is an option. "We have many things on the table, but it doesn't mean that we are going to do it now. It depends on the situation and how the other players want to go. If they want to solve the problem, definitely some of these things will be put aside," he said.
