
Live Updates: Trump Says ‘Nobody Knows' His Plans on Iran
News ANalysis
Smokes after Israeli airstrikes in Tehran on Tuesday. In Iran, Israel is carrying out the kind of broad and brazen attack that it long threatened but never dared to enact before.
For nearly two decades, Israel avoided all-out war with its biggest enemies.
It fought contained conflicts with Hamas, but ultimately allowed the group to retain power in Gaza. It maintained an uneasy calm with the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, even as its fighters entrenched themselves in southern Lebanon. And despite planning a major assault on Iran, it limited its attacks to smaller, clandestine operations.
Israel's massive, ongoing assault on Iran highlights an extraordinary shift in Israeli military doctrine since Hamas, Iran's Palestinian ally, attacked the country in October 2023. It is a change that has redrawn the power dynamics in the Middle East, unraveled Iran's regional alliance and enshrined Israel as the dominant military force in the region.
Having given Hamas years to prepare for the Oct. 7 attack, Israel reversed course afterward to unleash one of the most destructive campaigns in recent warfare. It then assassinated most of Hezbollah's leadership and decimated large parts of southern Lebanon. Now, in Iran, it is carrying out the kind of broad and brazen attack that it long threatened but never dared to enact.
'We are changing the face of the Middle East,' said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel during a press briefing on Monday. 'And this could lead to far-reaching changes within Iran itself,' he added.
For now, that second claim remains unproven. The Israeli military campaign has weakened Iran, but it has not yet destroyed the country's nuclear program or collapsed its government, and it may still fall short of both. The war could also devolve into an intractable quagmire with no exit strategy or offramp.
Image
Iranians lined up at gas stations in Tehran on Monday.
Credit...
Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times
Mr. Netanyahu's broader point is harder to contradict. Hamas is no longer a threat to Israel. Hezbollah's influence over Lebanon — let alone the danger it poses to Israelis — is much diminished. The government in Syria, a pillar of Iran's regional alliance, was overthrown last December, in part because Hezbollah could no longer come to its aid.
These tectonic shifts also speak to a vast change within the Israeli psyche and strategic outlook since Hamas's attack in October 2023.
For Israel's critics, the attack was the inevitable consequence of the country's blockade of Gaza, occupation of the West Bank, and failure to resolve the Palestinian conflict through diplomatic concessions. Many Israelis have drawn the opposite conclusion: They believe that the October attack — the deadliest in Israeli history — stemmed from Israel's failure to pre-emptively and decisively defeat its enemies.
'In the 20 years before Oct. 7, we allowed threats to develop beyond our borders, trusting that our intelligence would give us prior warnings of any attack,' said Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence.
'The trauma of Oct. 7 completely changed that mind-set and made us willing to take risks that we didn't take in the past,' General Yadlin said. 'We will no longer wait to be attacked, and we will not wait to be surprised.'
The approach echoes Israel's strategic outlook in the early decades of its existence, when it often acted more swiftly and decisively to remove threats on its borders, General Yadlin said. The clearest example was in June 1967, when Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt after the Egyptian military moved troops toward the Israeli border.
Image
Israeli fighter aircraft over the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt in June 1967. Israel's current approach in the Middle East echoes its strategic outlook in the early decades of its existence, when it often acted swiftly and decisively to remove threats on its borders.
Credit...
Israel Defense Forces, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
'As Egypt massed troops on our southern border, we did not wait to be surprised,' General Yadlin said. 'Now, we are reviving that doctrine.'
Israel's new approach is the culmination of months of re-evaluation, during which the military's confidence — crushed by the failures of Oct. 7 — was gradually restored.
While Israel's approach to Hamas was immediately wrathful, the country was initially wary of taking on Hezbollah and Iran. Mr. Netanyahu called off a pre-emptive attack on Hezbollah in the first week of the war in 2023, amid fears that Israel would struggle to maintain a multi-front war against the Iran-led alliance.
For nearly a year, Israel fought only a low-level border conflict with Hezbollah. Despite increasing clashes with Tehran in 2024, Israel limited its strikes on Iran to avoid an all-out conflict.
Israel's approach began to change last September, when a sequence of unexpected moves allowed Israel to decimate much of Hezbollah's senior leadership.
That increased Israel's confidence and prompted its leaders to order a more decisive assault on the group. Troops invaded southern Lebanon and the air force killed Hezbollah's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah.
Israel then severely weakened Iran's air defense systems and successfully repelled massive barrages of Iranian missiles, giving Israel greater confidence in its offensive and defensive abilities. More than a year after Oct. 7, Israeli leaders finally concluded that they had a rare window of opportunity to mount a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear program.
Image
An oil storage west of Tehran was hit by Israeli airstrikes on Sunday.
Credit...
Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times
Though Israel's new approach has undercut Iran's regional influence, it has done little to resolve Israel's oldest and most intractable problem: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In Gaza, Israel's retaliation has led to widespread destruction and bloodshed, reinstating a fearsome sense of Israeli might and reducing Hamas's threat for a generation.
But the conflict has provided no clear long-term trajectory for either Gaza or the wider Palestinian question. Mr. Netanyahu has consistently ignored opportunities to end the war, balking at the idea of either leaving Hamas's remnants in charge or allowing other Palestinian groups to take over.
'Instead, we are left with only bad options,' said Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli foreign minister. 'Either occupation or chaos, rather than a diplomatic process involving moderate regional and Palestinian stakeholders that could change the reality on the ground for both Palestinians and Israelis.'
A similarly aimless dynamic could yet emerge in Iran, analysts said, if the Israeli leadership fails to clearly define its goals there and set an exit strategy.
For now, Israeli officials hope the United States will join the attack and help Israel destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. If the United States stays away, and if Iran refuses to stop the enrichment by choice, it is unclear whether Israel's forceful new doctrine will achieve the kind of game-changing outcomes that many Israelis desire.
'One wonders whether effective military performance is matched by a sober political vision,' said Nimrod Novik, a former senior Israeli official and a fellow at Israel Policy Forum, a research group in New York. 'Or, like in Gaza, we are left without an endgame. Time will tell.'
Johnatan Reiss and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bill Clinton urges Trump to ‘defuse' Israel-Iran crisis, end ‘outright constant killing of civilians'
Former President Bill Clinton called on President Donald Trump to 'defuse' the current conflict between Israel and Iran during an appearance on 'The Daily Show' on Tuesday. So far, the U.S. has stayed out of direct action in the conflict, but it has helped Israel shoot down missiles from Tehran. Advertisement There are some indications, however, that the Trump administration could move to get more directly involved in the conflict. While the former president expressed skepticism about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump's intentions regarding peace in the Middle East, he urged the current president to calm the situation and end the 'outright constant killing of civilians.' 'First of all — they're not talking about negotiating peace in the Middle East because the Israelis have no intention of… under Prime Minister Netanyahu, of giving the Palestinians a state. And now, they're too divided and crushed to organize themselves to achieve it,' Clinton said. He continued, maintaining that Trump agrees with Netanyahu in believing that the Palestinians 'shouldn't have a state.' Advertisement However, he added that neither leader wants to trigger a full-scale regional disaster. 3 Former President Bill Clinton made an appearance on 'The Daily Show,' calling on President Donald Trump to resolve the Israel-Iran conflict. The Daily Show 'Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he's been there most of the last 20 years,' the former president said. 'But I think we should be trying to defuse it, and I hope President Trump will do that.' Advertisement Clinton emphasized the importance of the U.S. protecting its allies in the region, while simultaneously advocating for restraint. 3 The U.S. has not been involved in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, though the Trump administration could get involved. AFP via Getty Images 'We have to convince our friends in the Middle East that we'll stand with them and try to protect them,' he stated. 'But choosing undeclared wars in which the primary victims are civilians, who are not politically involved, one way or the other, who just want to live decent lives, is not a very good solution.' Advertisement Clinton conceded that the U.S. needs to try and stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but again stressed the importance of saving innocent lives in the region. 3 Clinton also said that the 'outright constant killing of civilians' has to end. IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER'S WEBSITE/GPO/AFP via Getty Images 'Do I think that we have to try to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon? I do,' he declared. 'But we don't have to have all this outright constant killing of civilians who can't defend themselves, and they just want a chance to live.' Fox News' Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Israel's military warns people to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Israel's military warned people Thursday to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor. The warning came in a social media post on X. It included a satellite image of the plant in a red circle like other warnings that proceeded strikes. The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns. In 2019, Iran started up the heavy water reactor's secondary circuit, which at the time did not violate Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Britain at the time was helping Iran redesign the Arak reactor to limit the amount of plutonium it produces, stepping in for the U.S., which had withdrawn from the project after President Donald Trump's decision in 2018 to unilaterally withdraw America from the nuclear deal.


New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
An Iran Strategy for Trump
Nobody, perhaps even President Trump himself, knows for sure whether the United States will wind up joining Israel in launching military strikes on Iran. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he said on Wednesday. But with a third U.S. aircraft carrier on its way to the region and the president calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender,' the chance of war seems higher than ever — particularly now that Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has gruffly rebuffed Trump's demand. If the U.S. does attack, the most obvious target will be the Fordo nuclear site, a deeply buried facility where Iran enriches uranium and which, by most reports, can be knocked out only by a 15-ton bomb known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. Less well known but surely on the U.S. target list is a new, still unfinished subterranean facility south of Iran's main (and now largely destroyed) enrichment plant at Natanz. American pilots would also almost certainly join their Israeli counterparts in attacking Iranian ballistic missile launchers and bases. And then what? Nobody doubts the U.S. can do a lot of damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities, at least in the short term. What comes afterward is harder to predict. Proponents of an American strike believe that we have no realistic choice other than to help Israel do as thorough a job as possible in setting back Iran's nuclear ambitions not just for months but years — more than enough time to allow benign forces to shape events, including the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their widely detested rulers. By contrast, skeptics fear that the lessons Iran's leaders will draw from an American attack is that they should have gotten a bomb much sooner — and that the appropriate response to such an attack is to be more repressive at home and less receptive to diplomatic overtures from abroad. Skeptics also expect that Iran will respond to an attack by ramping up its malign regional activities, not least to embroil the U.S. in another Middle East war the Trump administration desperately wants to avoid. I'm with the proponents. A nuclear-armed Iran, fielding missiles of ever-growing reach, is both an unacceptable threat to U.S. security and a consequential failure of U.S. deterrence. After years of Iran's prevarications, which led even the Biden administration to give up on diplomacy, to say nothing of Iran's cheating on its legal commitments — detailed last month in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the world had run out of plausible nonmilitary options to prevent the regime from going nuclear. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.