UPDATE (June 12, 2025 9:07 p.m. E.T.): This column has been updated to reflect the details of Israel’s “preemptive” strikes against Iran’s nuclear program.
On Friday in the dead of night local time, Israel launched what it called “preemptive strikes” against Iran’s nuclear program. Dubbed “Nation of Lions,” the military operation was conducted unilaterally by the Israeli Air Force and reportedly hit numerous targets in Tehran, without U.S. military assistance, according to a statement from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Hours before, for the first time in 20 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors censured Iran for failing to comply with its ongoing investigation into the country’s nuclear work. Iran is likely to respond with missile or drone attacks of its own.
The Pentagon — concerned about an Israeli bombing operation against Tehran’s nuclear facilities and possible Iranian reprisals — was prepared, having ordered a drawdown of nonessential diplomatic personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Rubio said in his statement that “Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.” He added, “Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.”
What, if anything, can President Donald Trump do to prevent another war in the region?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pining to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities with military force, the region seems to yet again be on the precipice of an all-out confrontation. So what, if anything, can President Donald Trump, the so-called dealmaker-in-chief who wants to spare the Middle East of further bloodshed, now do to prevent another war in the region?
Netanyahu’s position isn’t surprising. The Israeli premier has spent the last decade highlighting just how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran would be to Israel, the United States and the world at large. In 2015, he delivered a high-profile speech to Congress in a failed attempt to kill the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Three years later, he convinced Trump that Obama’s deal gave Tehran too much and Washington too little. That the deal put strict, verifiable limits over Iran’s entire nuclear apparatus — from the number of centrifuges Tehran could manufacture and operate to which nuclear-related equipment it could import — was deemed of little consequence.
However, in contrast to his first term, when he generally deferred to Israel on these matters, Trump is keeping Netanyahu at a distance this time, and he has already, on a number of occasions, chosen to disregard Netanyahu’s recommendations. Trump doesn’t want war and in April decided to plunge into exploratory diplomacy with the Iranians in the hope that an agreement could be reached. For his part, Netanyahu couldn’t care less about negotiations, views the entire diplomatic process as a smoke screen Iranians will inevitably use to their advantage, and remains persuaded that dropping bombs on Tehran’s nuclear program is the more efficient way of dealing with the problem. Israeli officials presented the White House with a military plan in April that would have required U.S. military support to execute, but Trump rejected it in favor of continuing the talks.
Ultimately, Trump is right to prefer diplomacy. Although the talks with Iranian officials have dragged on past Trump’s initial two-month deadline, the prospect of wrapping up a brand new, comprehensive nuclear accord — entailing highly complicated discussions about nuclear physics and lifting sanctions — over such a short time period was always low. At times, Trump has shown frustration with the pace of the negotiations, accusing the Iranians of slowing things down and telling the New York Post this week that he’s getting “less confident” about striking an agreement. Yet a day later, Trump was more upbeat, telling reporters that his team “had very good discussions with Iran” and that he would oppose Israel engaging in any military action as long as there was a decent probability of success.
Give Trump credit: For now, he appears to understand that military force is no magic pill, and he remains far more cautious than the Israelis about pulling the trigger. Trump warning Netanyahu during a phone call this week not to do anything that could jeopardize the negotiations reflects this dynamic. It also happens to be correct; it’s likely this military strike on Iran’s nuclear program will, at best, buy a year, and that’s assuming the United States and Israel are able to destroy some of the enrichment and centrifuge facilities the Iranians have buried deep underground.
A good agreement, however, could earn the countries decades of iron-clad limitations over Tehran’s nuclear work as well as more people on the ground monitoring what the Iranians are doing on a daily basis. (The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal Trump threw into the garbage, included 10, 15 and 20-year restrictions on various nuclear activities.)
Just as importantly, with a deal, the United States would accomplish its goal of constraining Tehran’s nuclear work without firing a shot and without having to manage the blowback of a military retaliation from Iran. And make no mistake: A U.S. or Israeli military operation against Iran would produce blowback. Iran may not be powerful relative to the United States, but it isn’t powerless either. Tehran has spent months rebuilding its cruise and ballistic missile capability, retains strategic relationships with militia groups in Iraq, where 2,500 U.S. troops remain deployed, and possesses the ability to strike oil facilities and U.S. military bases in the Gulf Arab states. Iranian military retaliation could encompass anything from terrorist attacks against U.S., Western and Israeli targets, sabotage of civilian vessels in the Persian Gulf to large-scale missile strikes on Israel. Depending on how many projectiles the Iranians choose to use, Israeli air defense systems may have difficulty defending against such strikes. One hopes Trump’s advisers have briefed him on everything that could go wrong in the course of a war. Although Netanyahu may view an air campaign as quick, clean and decisive, it’s more likely to be messy, risky and costly, and more likely to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei toward a nuclear bomb than into submission. Trump campaigned on ending wars, not starting them. Trump campaigned on ending wars, not starting them, and turning the page from decades of ill-conceived preventative wars that killed thousands of U.S. service members and drained the U.S. Treasury. War with Iran would essentially negate everything Trump said on the campaign trail and expose him as no different than the presidents he rails against. Trump, therefore, needs to be brutally honest with his Israeli counterpart. First, Washington is prioritizing the diplomatic track over other available options, and Israel’s military operations won’t change that. Second, the United States views Israel’s decision to strike as not only premature but escalatory, even more so given the scheduled sixth round of U.S.-Iran talks set to take place this weekend. And third, while the United States respects Israel’s power to make sovereign decisions on behalf of its own security, Israel must also respect America’s power to stay out of a fight that doesn’t serve its interests.
Daniel R. DePetris
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune. 
