How Trump went to war with Iran — and why diplomacy never stood a chance
US and Israeli officials had already been coordinating military options for weeks
Dubai: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked into the Oval Office on February 11 with one clear goal: Keep the United States on the path to war with Iran.
According to The New York Times, the two leaders spent nearly three hours discussing potential attack dates, war objectives and the possibility — however remote — of a last-minute diplomatic breakthrough.
Behind the scenes, US and Israeli officials had already been coordinating military options for weeks.
Publicly, President Donald Trump oscillated between saying he wanted a deal and hinting at regime change. Privately, the momentum toward war was accelerating.
Two weeks later, he gave the order.
“Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts,” Trump said, according to The New York Times, authorising a sweeping joint assault with Israel.
The strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, targeted nuclear and missile infrastructure, and ignited a regional conflict that has since killed six US troops and hundreds of Iranians.
Diplomacy or cover?
While indirect nuclear talks were underway in Geneva, senior US officials were simultaneously building up forces in the region. Two aircraft carriers and supporting warships moved toward the Middle East.
Fighter jets, bombers and air defence systems were deployed. By mid-February, the Pentagon had assembled what one official described to The New York Times as the largest US military buildup in the region in a generation.
Key takeaways
War planning ran alongside diplomacy: While US officials publicly pursued nuclear talks, military preparations were quietly accelerated, including a major regional buildup of forces.
Netanyahu pushed for decisive action: According to The New York Times, Israel’s prime minister pressed Trump to prevent diplomacy from derailing plans for a strike.
“Zero enrichment” was a breaking point: US demands that Iran dismantle its nuclear enrichment capability left little room for compromise, making a negotiated outcome increasingly unlikely.
Intelligence enabled a decapitation strike: A CIA breakthrough revealed the location of Iran’s top leadership, allowing a coordinated daylight attack that killed the supreme leader.
The endgame remains unclear: Officials have offered shifting explanations of the war’s objectives — from crippling nuclear capabilities to possible regime change — leaving open questions about how and when the conflict ends.
In public, the White House insisted talks were genuine. But as The New York Times reported, many officials believed there was no realistic deal that could satisfy Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran simultaneously — especially over the US demand for “zero enrichment.”
When Iranian negotiators refused to dismantle their enrichment capability, Trump concluded the talks had run their course.
“Toward the end of the negotiation, I realised that these guys weren’t going to get there,” he later told The New York Times. “I said, ‘Let’s just do it.’”
Timeline to war: How diplomacy gave way to strikes
December (Mar-a-Lago): Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asks President Donald Trump to back potential Israeli strikes on Iran’s missile sites in the coming months.
Mid-January: Trump publicly threatens Iran as protests roil the country. The Pentagon is not yet positioned for a sustained Middle East campaign.
January 14: Netanyahu urges Trump to delay any strike until Israel strengthens missile defences and interceptor supplies. Trump agrees.
Late January: US military buildup begins. Two aircraft carriers, fighter jets, bombers and air defence systems move into the region.
Early February: Indirect nuclear talks begin between US envoys and Iranian officials, even as war planning continues behind the scenes.
February 11: Netanyahu meets Trump in the Oval Office. According to The New York Times, the two discuss possible attack dates and war objectives.
February 18: In a White House Situation Room meeting, US military advisers warn of significant casualties and regional destabilisation risks. Debate shifts toward a larger strike.
February 21–24: Final diplomatic push in Geneva fails. Iran refuses US demands for “zero enrichment.”
Late February: CIA intelligence indicates Iran’s supreme leader and senior officials will gather at a compound in Tehran.
Saturday (launch day): Trump approves “Operation Epic Fury.” US and Israeli strikes begin with a daylight decapitation attack that kills Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and triggers regional escalation.
Internal warnings — and encouragement
The decision was not without internal debate. According to The New York Times, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine warned that a broader war could lead to significant American casualties and destabilise the region.
But Vice-President JD Vance reportedly argued that if the US was going to strike, it should “go big and go fast.” Few senior advisers pushed strongly against military action.
The CIA presented multiple scenarios for what might follow the killing of Iran’s supreme leader — from a hardline cleric taking power to a remote chance of uprising. Some US officials speculated that a faction within the Revolutionary Guard could emerge as a more pragmatic authority.
Still, intelligence assessments offered no certainty.
The intelligence coup
The final trigger came from a CIA breakthrough. As reported by The New York Times, US intelligence learned that Khamenei and senior civilian and military leaders would gather at a residential compound in central Tehran on a Saturday morning.
Initially, US officials planned a night strike. But with confirmation of the leadership’s presence in one location, Washington and Jerusalem opted for a bold daylight “decapitation” attack.
Iranian officials reportedly believed a daytime strike was unlikely. The meeting proceeded above ground. Khamenei had reportedly told aides that if war came, he preferred martyrdom over hiding.
Missiles struck shortly after the session began.
A war without a clear end
In public remarks, Trump has alternated between describing the war as a limited effort to cripple Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities and hinting that regime change would be “the best thing that could happen.”
Administration officials have offered conflicting explanations of the war’s objectives.
What is clear, as The New York Times reconstruction suggests, is that the diplomatic track provided time — not resolution. Time to deploy forces, coordinate strategy with Israel, and prepare for a sustained campaign.
Now, with hundreds dead, US troops killed, Gulf states drawn in and oil markets rattled, the conflict has moved beyond targeted strikes into a widening regional war — one whose duration even Trump has suggested could stretch for weeks.
Officials have offered shifting explanations of the war’s objectives — from crippling nuclear capabilities to possible regime change — leaving open questions about how and when the conflict ends.
