Trump's election paved way for Israeli attacks on Iran
Israeli intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told Euronews that Mossad agents had identified key strategic factors and political conditions enabling them to prepare for and initiate the attack on Iran. Among these, they cited the intensification of the proxy war, the election of US President Donald Trump, and the momentum of nuclear negotiations with Western powers.
On 13 June, Israel launched multiple land and air strikes on Iran, killing senior Iranian military leaders, nuclear scientists and politicians, and damaging or destroying Iranian air defences and nuclear military facilities.
Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities and military sites, aided by Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen.
The US defended Israel from these attacks and, on the ninth day, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran then struck a US base in Qatar. On 24 June, under US pressure, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire.
Both sides claimed victory following the ceasefire. Israel and the US asserted that they significantly degraded Iran's missile and nuclear programs, while Iranian authorities denied these claims. Independent assessments are currently limited due to the secrecy surrounding Iran's nuclear program.
Diplomacy open but eroding
Israel and the US said that the attack had been in the planning for many years, in parallel with diplomatic engagement with Iran.
'Israel has never hidden the fact that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and it has never hidden the fact it was also willing to allow it to be resolved diplomatically, as long as the diplomatic solution prevents Iran not only from enriching uranium, but from ever getting the capacity to pose an existential threat to the state of Israel,' a first Israeli intelligence source told Euronews.
Diplomatic engagements were not bringing any tangible results, the sources said, while tensions between the US and Iran grew following Donald Trump's first presidency in the US from 2016-2020.
In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US re-imposition of sanctions, Iran began ignoring the deal's nuclear restrictions in 2019.
Key proxy war events
In the meantime, the proxy war between Israel and Iran was progressively escalating.
'I think the pivotal moment was in April 2024, when Iran launched missiles directly from its own territory at Israel. Until then, Iran had primarily relied on proxies to attack Israel, while Israel carried out covert operations inside Iran with plausible deniability, aiming to prevent escalation into full-scale war,' the first intelligence source said.
In April 2024, Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Syria that killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. He was the highest-ranking Iranian military official killed since the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani's assassination in 2020 by the US Trump administration. Suleimani was the 'architect' of Iran's proxy war in the Middle East.
'I think Israel had to wait from April 2024. It needed time to gather all the intelligence and planning it needed in order to feel confident that, already in the first two or three days of the war, we would be in a position where we had complete control over the situation, minimal casualties at home, and complete control of Iranian airspace, with the ability to attack whenever and wherever we want to,' the source added.
Trump re-election
Donald Trump's second election as US president was another key pivotal moment and was welcomed by all the four sources.
'The original plan was to attack in October 2024. That was after the second direct missile attack by Iran on Israel following Israel's assassination of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September,' the first intelligence sources said, but the attack was delayed to wait for the US elections in November.
'I think it was very important for Israel that Trump should win those elections. Once Trump was elected, he put the main emphasis on reaching a hostage deal,' said the second source, referring to the Hamas-Israel conflict.
'Once the hostage deal was signed around March 2025, Israel was again in a position to attack Iran. But the US and Iran entered into negotiations, to try bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Iran's enrichment and nuclear program,' the first source added.
US-Iran negotiations
In March, the US and Iran began indirect negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The negotiations did not bring an agreement, although counterparts described them as 'constructive'.
'Trump gave 60 days to those negotiations. The day after, Israel attacked Iran. I think that obviously was coordinated with the US administration,' all the current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews.
Washington has never publicly stated that Israel's first attack on Iran was coordinated. However, following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference on June 23 that the operation had been planned for many years.
'When we attacked, we were at the end of the 60-day period of negotiations. I think it was very clear to Trump at this stage that the Iranians were not willing to forego enrichment on Iranian soil, even though the negotiations did bring up some interesting solutions to that. For example, some sort of international enrichment agency that would allocate enriched uranium at civilian levels to all countries in the region interested in it,' the first intelligence source said.
'Trump realised Iran was engaging in negotiations merely to buy time, with no real intent to reach a resolution. The talks served as a decoy, giving Iran the impression it wouldn't be attacked, especially amid widespread press reports that Israel was on the verge of striking,' the first source added.
The current situation
While Iran claimed victory and celebrated its resilience towards Israel's invasion, Israeli intelligence sources said that Tehran's regime has been left weakened following the attack.
'Israel has emerged from several conflicts in a stronger strategic position in the region, but in a more difficult political position with its Western partners, except perhaps Washington. We're at a very delicate moment in which both Israel and Iran have little to gain by pushing further right now,' Ian Lesser, fellow and adviser to the German Marshall Fund's president, told Euronews.
'Iran has fewer options now. One option is to return to negotiations. Another is to turn to its traditional methods of responding, which rely on proxies and non-traditional actions, including terrorism. There is also the possibility that, if Iran maintains some ability to develop nuclear weapons, it may see this as another path. But I don't think anyone will let them do that. There may be disagreements about Israeli strategy and policy, but overall, Israel and its Western partners are not willing to tolerate a nuclearised Iran,' the expert added.
If the war had gone further, Israel would have probably attacked gas and oil installations, a fourth former Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. However, after the ceasefire, negotiations have resumed at diplomatic level.
On 25 July, diplomats from Iran met counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France in Istanbul for talks, the first since Israel's mid-June attack on Iran, amid warnings that these European countries might trigger a 'snapback' of UN sanctions on Tehran.
The second intelligence source said that following the conflict, Israel would maintain control over Iranian airspace, in order to 'destroy anything that even suggests that the Iranians are preparing to rebuild any of the capabilities that we have destroyed'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
25 minutes ago
- France 24
Taliban mark fourth year in power in Afghanistan
Helicopters circled above Kabul, dropping flower petals over the city to mark the Taliban seizure of the capital on August 15, 2021. Taliban members and supporters leaned out of trucks and rickshaws on the streets below waving the black-and-white "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" flags. They also carried yellow jerry cans -- a common receptacle for homemade bombs during the 20-year war against US-led forces. Celebrations were organised across the country, although a military parade like the one held with much fanfare last year at the Bagram airbase, once the linchpin for US-led operations, was cancelled without public explanation. A gathering was held instead at the enormous Loya Jirga Hall in Kabul, where hundreds of men listened to ministers praise the government's achievements. Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada, who remains largely secluded in the southern Taliban heartland of Kandahar, did not attend but, in a statement read by a spokesman, hailed the return of security to Afghanistan. "Our people were saved from corruption, oppression, usurpation, narcotics, theft, plunder and looting in the light of Islamic laws," the statement said. "A positive environment was created for the rebuilding and reconstruction of Afghanistan." The speeches did not mention the steep challenges facing a country gripped by one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, according to the United Nations. In Jalalabad in the east, farmer Zabihullah -- who like many Afghans only uses one name -- celebrated the Taliban takeover but also hoped authorities would address poverty and unemployment. "They should address the bad situation in the country, because of unemployment poor Afghans are going from one country to another, some die, some are detained, it is a chaotic situation," the 45-year-old told AFP. The Taliban government remains largely isolated on the global stage over restrictions imposed under their severe interpretation of Islamic law, with women facing restrictions the UN has deemed "gender apartheid". The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in July for two senior Taliban leaders, accusing them of crimes against humanity over the persecution of women and girls who are banned from most education and work. Women and girls are also barred from parks and gyms, and from travelling without a male guardian. International engagement The Taliban authorities scored a victory in July when Russia became the first country to officially recognise their administration. Kabul also enjoys close ties with China, Qatar and several Central Asian states. The Taliban government has reported talks in Kabul with officials from Western states, including Norway, Britain and the United States. International Crisis Group analyst Ibraheem Bahiss said women's rights are still important to the international community but other issues, particularly security, take precedence. "Even Europe -- because it has a core interest with migration -- has continued to pursue engagement," he told AFP, although discussions with Taliban authorities on women's rights were "a complete non-starter". The Taliban authorities have almost no internal opposition but struggle with economic fragility, international aid cuts and the influx of four million Afghans expelled from neighbouring countries. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) condemned any engagement with the Taliban authorities in a statement. Contrary to its claims, RAWA said, the Taliban government "is not dedicated to ensuring peace and human dignity but is bent on destroying the last vestiges of our people's most basic rights". Independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council called on the international community on Thursday not to normalise relations with the Taliban authorities and to reject their "violent and authoritarian rule".
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Trump-Putin Alaska summit: High stakes at historic meeting
As Donald Trump is hosting Vladimir Putin for a historic summit in Alaska, Ukraine and Europe are holding their breath for what the meeting can bring. For the US president, the summit represents an unprecedented opportunity to establish himself as a peacemaker and push Russia to a ceasefire. For Putin, this is a chance to change tack despite his unwillingness to engage in direct negotiations with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine's president has not been invited to the summit at the US military Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, but Trump hopes he will be present for the second round of talks. The question remains, will there be a second meeting after the negotiations in Alaska? Follow our live updates as Euronews journalists around Europe bring you the latest developments in the blog below:
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
The Ukrainian land occupied by Russia at the heart of the Trump-Putin summit
Upon announcing he would be meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump threw a spanner in the works. As he explained in broad strokes that the Alaska summit with the Russian president would take place on August 15, he said 'there will be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both' Ukraine and Russia – but didn't go into detail. Hours later, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on social media that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier'. Since Trump's contentious comment, speculation on whether his meeting with Putin will result in a radical and coercive change to Ukraine's borders has been rife. And even the use of the word 'exchange' is risky, as Russia currently controls almost 20 percent of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Kyiv has not occupied any Russian territory since March, when the Ukrainian army still had a partial hold on the Kursk region following a surprise offensive launched in August 2024. The power imbalance on the ground has meant there is little optimism for the outcome of the summit held by Putin and Trump in Alaska today. Especially seeing as Russian territorial demands seem clear, unlikely to change and represent a complete disadvantage for Ukraine. Those demands include Ukrainian land claimed by Russia since 2014. That year, in the span of a few months, Moscow took the Ukrainian government by surprise and left the West speechless by annexing the Crimean Peninsula. The capture of Crimea was followed by a similar operation led by Russian-backed separatists to take over parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (regions). Russian annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts in 2022 Following the annexation of Crimea, the so-called Donbas war between Russia and Ukraine lasted from 2014 to 2022 and claimed more than 14,000 lives on both sides, according to the UN. Then in February 2022, the conflict between the two countries took on new dimensions when Russia launched its large-scale invasion of Ukraine. At first, Moscow moved rapidly towards the capital, Kyiv. But the Russian army was met with resistance from Ukrainian forces. In the south and east of Ukraine, Russia took control of large swathes of land (see map below). Most of the Luhansk oblast was occupied by Russian forces, who extended their invasion into the Donetsk oblast, and also seized a large part of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. A few months later, Moscow proxies in the four regions organised an annexation 'referendum' and claimed victory – a move described by the West as a ' sham '. Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia now have the same unofficial status as Crimea. But neither Ukraine nor the international community have recognised the annexation. The war in Ukraine has taken tens of thousands of lives and caused irreversible damage to the country. And after three and a half years of fighting, there is no reconciliation on the horizon for either Ukrainian or Russian forces. Despite three rounds of peace talks in Istanbul, Kyiv and Moscow, an agreement has not been found. Ukraine and its western allies accuse the Kremlin of blocking negotiations by sticking to its maximalist demands, which include Kyiv surrendering Crimea and the four other regions it occupies. Meanwhile, Russia continues to gain ground on the battlefield. Ceding territory in exchange for a ceasefire? A recent proposal made to the US by Russia seems to be the reason the Trump-Putin summit is taking place at all, the Wall Street Journal reported last week. According to the US outlet, 'Putin's proposal would require that Ukraine hand over eastern Ukraine, a region known as the Donbas, without Russia's committing to much other than to stop fighting'. This would mean that Ukraine, which still controls parts of Luhansk and Donetsk that make up the Donbas, would surrender land that tens of thousands of soldiers have died trying to protect – places like Kramatorsk or Slovyansk. As for Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the Wall Street Journal reported: 'A US official said Putin called for pausing the war at current lines in both regions. Russia would then negotiate land swaps with Ukraine, aiming for full Moscow control of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. It couldn't be determined which territory Ukraine would receive in return.' If Ukraine were to cede these regions to Moscow, it would have full access to Crimea and control of the Sea of Azov, which has been under de facto Russian control since 2014. European allies of Ukraine, who were not invited to the summit in Alaska, voice their strong opposition against any cessation of Ukrainian territory. After meeting with Zelensky in Berlin, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Ukraine is ready to negotiate ' on territorial issues ' but was adamant that legal recognition of Russian occupations 'would not be up for debate'. Zelensky has ruled out any withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the eastern regions as part of a peace deal. What's more, 82 percent of Ukrainians reject the demands made by Russia to cede land, according to a recent opinion poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. But the future of their country will, in part, be decided without them in Friday's talks.
