Why we’re at war [New York Times]

My colleagues Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, who report on the White House, have uncovered new details about why, with little opposition from his closest aides, Trump attacked Iran.

The pitch came from Israel — in the Situation Room. Netanyahu made an hourlong presentation to Trump and his senior advisers on Feb. 11, arguing that a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign could destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, force regime change and bring down the Islamic republic. Sounds good to me, the president said.

The next morning, U.S. intelligence officials questioned that plan. Kill the ayatollah? Sure. Cripple Iran’s capacity to threaten its neighbors? Absolutely. But a popular uprising? A secular leader installed to govern the country? They found that “detached from reality.” The director of the C.I.A. called the scenario “farcical.” Trump, though, thought the campaign would be quick and decisive.

Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump in December. Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times

Previous victories filled him with confidence. He pointed to Iran’s muted response to the U.S. bombing of its nuclear facilities in June, and to the hasty seizure of the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January, an operation during which no American lives were lost. Tucker Carlson called the president to ask how he could be sure that everything would be OK in Iran. “Because it always is,” Trump replied.

Trump’s decision was gut-driven, and driven by Trump’s gut alone. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was enthusiastic about striking Tehran, of course. But Trump’s more equivocal advisers — Secretary of State Marco Rubio; his chief of staff, Susie Wiles; and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — did not push back on Trump’s plan. (His director of national intelligence and Treasury secretary weren’t even part of the final discussion.) Vice President JD Vance told the president: You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I’ll support you.

###