The Shift: Trump called off Israeli strike on Iran

The New York Times reports that Israel was planning to launch air strikes against Iran before the Trump administration called off the move.

Michael ArriaApril 17, 2025

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signs a vistor’s log as he is welcomed to the White House by US President Donald Trump (Photo: Avi Ohayon/Israeli Government Press Office)

The New York Times reports that Israel was planning to launch air strikes against Iran before the Trump administration called off the move.

“Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically,” reads the article from Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt, Maggie Haberman, and Ronen Bergman.

“The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war,” it continues. “It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.”

The Israeli government was ready to attack Iranian nuclear sites next month and believed that the United States would support the plan. Trump informed Netanyahu of his decision shortly before the Prime Minister arrived at the White House earlier this month.

That meeting was ostensibly about tariffs, but during an Oval Office press conference alongside Netanyahu, Trump revealed that the administration was engaged with Iran on nuclear talks. After the meeting, Netanyahu said a deal would only work if Iran’s nuclear facilities were blown up “under American supervision with American execution.”

The Times story provides valuable insight into the aforementioned fault lines.

In a recent meeting, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Vice President JD Vance all expressed concerns about such an attack, worried that it would spill out into a wider conflict.

Even national security advisor Michael Waltz, viewed as an Iran hawk, voiced doubts about the proposed operation.

The piece notes that, despite this decision, the administration is still debating how to handle Iran. Vance and others reportedly argued that Trump had an opportunity to make a deal with Iran, but could back an Israeli strike if an agreement fell through.

Interestingly, the Pentagon just placed two political appointees on leave after a probe into potential leaks. Now, in response to the Times story, pro-Israel pundits and lawmakers are calling for more firings.

Foundation for Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz says this new information could destroy any hope of an Iran deal. “There is no deal that permanently halts Iran’s nuclear weapons program without a credible military threat,” Dubowitz toldJewish Insider. “It’s a serious error to signal — especially in outlets like The New York Times — that military plans may be off the table, even temporarily. Unless Iran’s leaders believe their regime is at risk, they will never agree to a deal that truly ends the nuclear threat.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), is attacking the Trump administration from the right, criticizing the administration’s decision to nix a bombing campaign. “This leak jeopardizes Israel’s security. There should be no deal with Iran until their nuclear program is gone.”

Middle East analysts provided insight on the reporting on social media, pointing out that the timing of the piece was probably intentional.

“These reports must be taken with grain of salt,” wrote University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami. “Bottom line: Netanyahu and his backers, including in Trump admin, want to draw US into war with Iran; Trump and some advisers prefer avoiding one. All these reports must be seen as part of that tug of war.”

“Everyone knows Israel has spent decades trying to drag the US into war with Iran,” said Sina Toossi. “This NYT ‘leak’ from the admin looks more like an attempt to build leverage by signaling a looming military threat during talks. But it’s a threat that’s arguably neither effective nor credible.”

“The piece mirrors Trump’s current strategy with Iran: pursue a deal, but keep a military threat in the background,” he continued. “It repeats ‘for now’ he wants diplomacy, and even Vance says an attack’s possible if talks fail. A carefully curated leak to send a message to Iran.”

There’s another big takeaway that transcends the Iran negotiations. Trump told Netanyahu that the U.S. wouldn’t back the strikes, and they didn’t happen. Imagine if the president, or his predecessor, had sent the Prime Minister a similar message on Gaza.

War on free speech

For over a month now, we have seen student protesters snatched off the street in broad daylight and sent to detention facilities. We have watched hundreds, possibly thousands, of international students have their visas revoked. We have followed the Trump administration freezing university grants and contracts under the guise of “combatting antisemitism.”

This vociferous attack on free speech is also being waged in Congress, where multiple bills have been introduced to curtail academic freedom.

Pro-Israel Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) have reintroduced the University Accountability Act, which would impose penalties on education institutions who fail to protect their students from antisemitic attacks.

Universities have a responsibility to protect their students from violence and discrimination but, instead, we’re seeing a disturbing increase in antisemitic attacks and rhetoric on college campuses,” said Malliotakis in a statement. “Our legislation seeks to hold these institutions accountable and encourage them to investigate and crack down on instances of antisemitism to help foster a safer academic environment for all students, regardless of their gender, race or religion.”

This is obviously all about stifling criticism of Israel, but it’s especially rich to talk about protecting students while they get disappeared for writing Op-Eds.

These congressional moves come alongside Trump’s recent threat to cut Harvard’s tax-exempt status. He cut federal funds to the university for refusing to comply with several administration demands.

This warning could have implications far beyond Harvard. “Five-alarm fire,” tweeted Harvard professor Erik Baker. “If Trump can get away with this, every university and progressive organization is next.”

The Internal Revenue Service is making plans to rescind the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, according to two sources familiar with the matter, which would be an extraordinary step of retaliation as the Trump administration seeks to turn up pressure on the university that has defied its demands to change its hiring and other practices.

The IRS is making plans to make a decision on the issue soon.

“We’ll see what IRS comes back with relative to Harvard,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told CNN. “I certainly think, you know, in elitist schools, especially that have these incredibly large endowments, you know, we should probably have a look into that.”

It’s probably a good time to recall that a bill aimed at destroying nonprofits is still floating around Washington.

Last fall, H.R. 9495, or the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, passed in the House but stalled in the Senate. It’s expected to be revived by the new Congress.

The legislation would allow the Treasury Secretary to strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits that the administration deems as “terrorist supporting.” Based on the actions of the administration so far, it’s safe to say that this would be enforced in a very broad manner.

“After years of repression targeting first the leftist and then the Islamist currents within Palestinian politics, the anti-charity bill now directly threatens liberal U.S. organizations as well,” wroteanthropologist and professor Darryl Li at Mondoweiss last November. “Two Republican House committee chairs earlier this year sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen demanding information on 20 groups, from Students for Justice in Palestine (which isn’t even a registered non-profit) to liberal behemoths like the Open Society Foundations and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Here, the right is using the bipartisan appeal of anti-Palestinian racism and the tools of the War on Terror to pursue its broader assault on liberal institutions in its quest for cultural hegemony.”

“As in so many other cases, hostility to Palestinian liberation is the tip of a spear aimed at liberal and left causes alike,” he continued. “For that reason, we should expect the right wing to continue pushing the anti-charities bill, and to find opportunities to replicate its logic in other ones. The only question is whether enough liberals will wake up to the threat in time.”