After Approving Iran Attack Plans, President Trump Held Back to See if Iran Would Negotiate

Source: YouTube

President Donald Trump earlier approved U.S. participation in joint Iran attack plans with Israel but ordered a pause during the final execution. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the decision was made in the White House Situation Room but deliberately held back to see if Iran would abandon its nuclear program. The delay marks a volatile moment in U.S. foreign policy and raised questions about the potential consequences of either full military intervention or strategic restraint.

So far, U.S. involvement has been limited to helping Israel intercept incoming Iranian missiles. That cautious stance may not hold much longer as Israeli strikes continue to escalate dramatically since Operation Rising Lion began last week. In return, Iran launched direct missile attacks on Israeli cities, including strikes that damaged a major hospital in Beersheba. Despite the averted Iran attack plans, Tehran has shown no signs of backing down, continuing to target both civilian and military infrastructure.

Iran Attack Plans Hang Over Escalating Conflict

Reports confirm that the Trump administration is weighing a strike on Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility. This site, buried deep within a mountain, is a top target for Israeli and U.S. planners. Israel lacks the bunker-buster bombs and aircraft required to destroy Fordow. Only the U.S. has the means to carry out such a mission. However, Trump remains undecided despite the Pentagon’s confidence that the approved Iran attack plans would be effective.

Risks of War and Fallout From Inaction

While Trump delays the execution of the Iran attack plans, the Pentagon is repositioning tanker planes, bombers, and ships across Europe and the Mediterranean. The buildup is meant to preserve flexibility in case the president gives the green light. Yet within Trump’s team, the division is sharp. Secretary of State Marco Rubio supports readiness for escalation. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard opposes intervention, warning against entanglement by what she called “warmongers.”

Iran’s leadership has responded with defiance. Following the latest round of U.S. warnings, Iran’s U.N. mission said it “will not negotiate under duress.” That stance narrows the window for diplomacy. Trump’s approach of keeping intentions ambiguous while ramping up pressure appears aimed at forcing Tehran to blink. Whether that tactic will succeed remains in question.

Military Capability Is Not the Only Factor

Even if the Fordow strike succeeds, it does not guarantee a short or clean resolution. Israel’s current campaign has already killed several top Iranian commanders and hit over a thousand targets. In retaliation, Iran has launched waves of missiles that, for the first time, have penetrated Israeli defenses and caused civilian casualties. Cities like Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan have sustained significant damage, prompting evacuations and emergency responses.

Trump must now consider whether joining the conflict will hasten peace or fuel a larger regional war. His remarks suggest he is still evaluating whether a “surgical strike” could achieve the goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat without dragging U.S. forces into prolonged combat.

Iran Attack Plans: No Clear Off-Ramp, No Clear Trigger

European diplomats are still trying to broker talks with Iran. Meetings are scheduled in Geneva with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Trump has left the door open for diplomacy but suggested the opportunity may be closing. “I have ideas,” he said. “But I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due.”

That uncertainty keeps allies and adversaries guessing. It also leaves Americans to question whether Trump’s delay signals restraint, indecision, or a calculated pause before escalation.

Do you agree with Trump’s decision to approve Iran attack plans but hold off on executing them? Tell us what you think.

Survey

 Loading ...