Recent events surrounding the Israeli attack on Iran have prompted questions regarding the role of the United States, specifically under President Donald Trump's influence, and whether Iran was caught off guard by the military action. Reports from various sources, including Israeli officials and media analyses, suggest a multifaceted approach involving both public diplomacy and alleged behind-the-scenes strategic misdirection.
According to The Times of Israel, an Israeli official asserted that a "deception campaign" was conducted by Israel and the US to lull Iran into a false sense of security regarding an imminent strike on its nuclear facilities. This campaign reportedly involved Trump actively participating in the "ruse," including public statements advising against an attack while privately knowing about the impending military operation. Leaks to Israeli media suggesting Trump had told Netanyahu to remove an attack from the agenda were, according to this official, untrue and part of the misdirection. The aim was to make Iran believe the US and Israel were still debating the nuclear issue diplomatically, rather than preparing for a strike.
Al Jazeera and CBS News corroborate that hours before Israel launched its strikes, Trump reiterated commitment to diplomacy with Tehran. However, Trump later stated on social media that he had known about Israel's attacks in advance. This creates a perception that while publicly advocating for a diplomatic resolution and distancing the US from direct involvement, there was an understanding or tacit approval of Israel's actions behind the scenes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while asserting that Israel took "unilateral action," also confirmed that the US had advance notice of Israel's plan.
Iran, for its part, has expressed skepticism regarding US non-involvement. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Israel's attacks could not have materialized without US agreement and support, citing "solid evidence of the support provided by American forces in the region and their bases" for the Israeli military operations. Araghchi also pointed out that the Israeli attacks occurred just as a new round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the US was slated to take place, suggesting a deliberate attempt to disrupt diplomacy. The swift and seemingly effective initial phase of the Israeli air campaign, leading to the elimination of senior Iranian commanders in their homes, suggests a degree to which Iran was indeed caught unprepared.
While the Trump administration publicly distanced itself from direct military involvement in the strikes, it simultaneously provided substantial military aid and real-time intelligence to Israel. Trump's post-strike warnings to Iran, urging a deal "before there is nothing left", further reinforce the notion that he viewed the Israeli action as leverage, even if he wasn't directly ordering it.
Evidence suggests that the narrative of Trump deceiving Iran, thereby catching them off guard, holds considerable weight. The alleged misinformation campaign, coupled with public statements emphasizing diplomacy while concurrently providing intelligence and support to Israel, appears to have created an environment where Iran may have miscalculated the immediacy and scale of an Israeli offensive. This multifaceted approach, whether a deliberate deception or a complex interplay of diplomatic and strategic maneuvers, seemingly contributed to Iran being surprised by the recent Israeli attacks.