How Trump Took the United States to War with Iran? This article provides a detailed account of the White House discussions about the war. The report is based on extensive and ongoing contact, discussions and interviews with officials who participated in these meetings, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The White House did not comment on this article. Jonathan Swan, The Times' White House reporter, covers the Trump administration. Maggie Haberman, The Times' White House correspondent, reports on President Donald J. Trump. The two are co-authors of their forthcoming book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump. This article is a chapter in their book. This article appeared in the April 8, 2026, New York edition of The New York Times, Section A, on the front page. It is not a direct translation of their writing. Following their article, the following text has been prepared in a somewhat abbreviated form by Manjurul Ahsan Bulbul
1. The black SUV carrying Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived at the White House just before 11 a.m. on February 11. The Israeli leader has been pressuring the United States for months to launch a major operation in Iran. U.S. and Israeli officials first sat in the Cabinet Room of the Oval Office. Netanyahu was then taken downstairs to the Situation Room, where Netanyahu will give a highly classified presentation on the latest developments in Iran. The Situation Room is rarely used for meetings with foreign leaders. President Trump did not sit at the mahogany table he usually sits at during the meeting, but sat in a place where he could see a large screen hanging across the wall.
Netanyahu sits on the opposite side, facing the president. Behind Netanyahu are David Barnier, the director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, and a handful of Israeli military officials. They seem to surround the wartime leader. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wills sits near the table, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Mark Rubio is also in his assigned seat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Kaine usually sit side by side, and still do today, along with CIA Director Jared Kushner, Trump's daughter's son-in-law, and Steve Witkoff, Trump's special representative for Iran.
The number of participants has been limited to ensure that nothing of the meeting is leaked. Other members of the cabinet were not even aware of what was happening. Vice President J.D. Vance was in Azerbaijan, so he could not attend the meeting on short notice. In the next hour-long presentation, Netanyahu explained why now was the right time to launch a major military operation in Iran. On February 11, Netanyahu was able to convince everyone in the Situation Room that this was the right time for regime change in Iran. A joint mission between the United States and Israel could end the Islamic Republic of Iran. At one point, Netanyahu presented Trump with a video showing who could take over the country if Iran's hardline government fell. The first image shown was of Reza Pahlavi.
Reza, the son of the Shah of Iran, is now an exile in Washington. This Iranian dissident leader has positioned himself as the leader of a secular Iran. Netanyahu and his team have described the war as almost certain victory, saying that within a few weeks Iran's ballistic missile program will be destroyed, the Iranian government will be so weak that it will not be able to maintain control of the Strait of Hormuz, and they will even be able to do very little damage to US installations in neighboring countries. Mossad spies also suggest that the angry people in Iran will take to the streets against the government, with the help of Israeli spies, they will be able to spread riots and start a revolution. In addition, the continuous bombing will accelerate the overthrow of the government in Iran.
Such complacency was evident between Netanyahu and Trump during the war with Iran last June. Earlier, on February 11, to the delight of US officials gathered in the Cabinet Room, Trump explained why he considered Iran's 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a threat. US officials in the Situation Room asked Netanyahu about the risks of the operation. Netanyahu said that not carrying out any operation was a greater risk than carrying out the operation. He said that if there was no operation, the time that would be given to Iran to develop missiles and build a defensive zone for its nuclear program would be the greater loss. Everyone in the Situation Room understood that Iran would be able to build up a stockpile of missiles and drones at a lower cost and in a shorter time before the US provided its Gulf allies with huge amounts of military equipment. Netanyahu's presentation and Trump's positive response sent a clear message to US intelligence agencies to determine the next emergency strategy. By nightfall, the monitoring team began to assess the feasibility of the Israeli team's presentation to the president.
2. The next day, on February 12, in a separate meeting in the Situation Room, all concerned were informed of the US intelligence report. Before Trump arrived at the meeting, two intelligence officials briefed members of Trump's trusted group. These intelligence officers are experts in US military capabilities, they are well informed about the Iranian state system and its internal and external forces. They divided Netanyahu's presentation into four parts. First: assassination - killing the Ayatollah. Second: weakening Iran's power and threatening neighboring countries, third: causing a civil war inside Iran, and fourth: changing power and installing a secular leader in power to run the country. According to the US intelligence observations, the first two goals can be achieved with US intelligence and military assistance. The last two are Netanyahu's own areas, where the Kurds from Iraq are introduced into Iran - completely inconsistent with reality. When President Trump arrived at the meeting, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him. The CIA director simply said that Netanyahu's plan to change power in Iran was a farce. At this point, Mark Rubio also commented that it was 'nonsense'. Ratcliffe commented that in any conflict there are many uncertainties, there may be a change of power, but this cannot be called an achievable goal. Many people participated in the discussion. In the meantime, Vice President Mr. Vance had returned from Azerbaijan. He was very skeptical about 'regime change'. The president directly asked General Kaine's opinion, General, what do you think? The general's response: My experience with the Israelis is that they exaggerate everything, and their plans are not always well-planned. They know we need them, so they exaggerate. The president quickly assessed the situation. He said: Regime change is their problem. It was unclear whether it was Iran's or Israel's problem. But his main point was that going to war would not be limited to achieving the third and fourth goals of Netanyahu's proposal. The president settled on the first and second goals of Netanyahu's presentation: killing the Ayatollahs and top Iranian leaders and destroying the Iranian military. General Kaine, whom the president called Razin Kaine, reminded the president that he had long said that Iran would fall sooner than many thought. The president was so pleased with the former Air Force fighter that he appointed him as his top military advisor. General Kaine was deeply concerned about war with Iran. But he was very careful to give any opinion to the president. General Kaine later said in discussions with his colleagues and the president that getting involved in a war with Iran would increase the pressure on some of the US military equipment. Because a large part of such equipment has been supplied to the Ukraine war and to Israel. He expressed his concerns about the Strait of Hormuz. But the president dismissed these concerns. He thought that this war would be a short-term war. General Kaine's position was between military advisor and presidential decision.
Everyone was moving in a complex of many words. The president could say, so what next? But Trump wants to hear what he likes to hear. General Kaine's strategy is different from that of his predecessor, Chairman J. Mark A. Milley. General Milley was always arguing with the president during Trump's first term and considered it his duty to prevent the president from making unwise decisions. One of Trump's habits, a person close to the president observes, is to create a kind of confusion by combining General Kaine's advice with the opinion of his strategic advisor. On the one hand, General Kaine would highlight the problems of the operation, on the other hand, it was said that the United States has all the capabilities to achieve its superiority by conducting an operation in Iran. The chairman has a different view. But Trump's strategy is to cancel the first. For example, the chairman never told the president that war with Iran was a terrible idea, but General Kaine's colleagues believe that he did. Many of the president's advisers were as untrustworthy as Netanyahu. Netanyahu was closer to the president than the "America First" policy or the president's anti-operations team. This has long been true. In all the foreign policy challenges that President Trump has faced during his two terms, Iran has been a distant second. He considered the Iranian regime's ability to wage war and acquire nuclear weapons to be dangerous and risky.
The two fit together well with Netanyahu and Trump's desires. Trump was only 32 when the Iranian regime took power in 1979, but he had been determined to defeat this "mullah"-ruled Iran ever since. Now, 47 years later, he could be the first American president to change the course of power in Iran. After the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020, Trump did not disclose that he was on Iran's kill list, but it worked in his mind. Trump, who is in power for a second term, has begun to believe that the US military is now stronger. This confidence has increased even more after the January 3 operation in Venezuela that captured President Nicolas Maduro. No American losses were incurred in this operation. The success of the operation proves that the US military is now unstoppable. The biggest supporter of military action against Iran in the cabinet was Secretary of War Hegseth. Rubio also reported the mixed position of his aides. He did not think that negotiations with Iran would solve the problem. He was in favor of putting a lot of pressure on Iran rather than war. However, he did not tell Trump about this, and after the war began, he took a strong position in favor of it. Ms. Wills had some idea of what the war might entail, but she didn't want to get involved in military matters. She was interested in hearing the opinions of her advisers. Her colleagues said she was not really interested in making her views known publicly. She thought it was important for the president to hear the opinions of Generals Kaine, Ratcliffe and Rubio at this point. Still, she said she was concerned about the United States getting involved in another war in the Middle East. The consequences of such a war, including rising gas prices, would be even more embarrassing for Democrats in the House in the midterm elections and the end of Trump's second term. But in the end, she stood in favor of the operation. No one except the vice president expressed concern about the success of the Iran war or tried to stop the war. Vance has opposed military action throughout his political career.
He said it bluntly: A war against Iran would be very expensive and a huge waste of resources. But in January, when the killings in Iran were going on, when Trump said Iran would stop killing, he advised Trump to draw a line. But then Vance was in favor of a limited operation, like the one in Syria in 2017, when chemical weapons were used on civilians. The vice president thinks that a regime change in Iran would be a disaster. He was against any operation, but he understood that Trump would do something in his own style.
He tried to keep it limited in scope. But when he saw that the president was considering a large-scale operation, he advised him to do something that would achieve the goal quickly. In front of his colleagues, the vice president warned the president that this war would create many complications and the loss of life would be very high. In this war, Trump could also lose his political allies and the support of many voters, because his promise was 'no more wars'. He said that it could also have many long-term effects inside America. The vice president also warned that it was difficult to predict how much military power Iran would build up to resist, and the course of this war could also be different.
He also expressed doubts about establishing peace in Iran after the war. According to him, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. This could lead to adverse reactions within the United States, starting with an energy crisis. Tucker Carlson, a political analyst very close to Trump, has warned Trump about this many times in the Oval Office. He has clearly stated that a war with Iran would destroy Trump's presidency. A few days before the war began, Trump called Carlson and said: I know you're worried, but it's going to work out. Carlson wanted to know: How? Trump's answer: It always does. In the end, more intelligence sharing between America and Israel accelerated the process of starting the war. The intelligence was sure that Ayatollah Khamenei would meet with the top leaders. This meeting would be a golden opportunity to eliminate the top leaders of Iran by carrying out air strikes in broad daylight.
Trump wants to give Iran another chance at talks, using the time to negotiate to ensure that America increases its strategic military power in the Middle East. The president's advisers say he made up his mind against war weeks ago. But he could not decide when to start. Netanyahu's words were "now is the time, we have to move quickly."
At that time, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff were summoned to Geneva for talks with Iranian officials. They were in the final stages of reaching an agreement after three rounds of talks in Oman and Switzerland. The talks offered Iran nuclear fuel. This was a tactic to understand whether Iran was using its nuclear capabilities for civilian purposes or acquiring the power to make a bomb. Iran rejected the offer as a disgrace to them. Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff told the president everything. They also said that the talks could go on for a long time. They could not give the president any hope.
3. The final meeting was held in the Situation Room at 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 26. Now everyone's position was clear. Everything had been discussed in the previous meetings, everyone knew everyone's position, the meeting lasted an hour and a half. The President sat in his assigned seat. On the right was the Vice President, then Ms. Wills, Mr. Ratcliffe, White House Counselor David Warrington, Communications Director Steven Cheung, Press Secretary Carolyn Leavitt, General Kaine, Secretary of War Hegseth, Secretary of State Mark Rubio, all sitting in their respective seats. The war planning team was so small that Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and even Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who would have to deal with the initial challenges of the war, were not invited to this meeting. The President himself began the meeting. Mr. Hegseth and General Kaine outlined a series of attack plans. The President said that he wanted to hear from everyone present. The Vice President's anti-war stance was well known. Yet he was the first to say, Mr. President?
It would be very bad, but I will support you if you want to do it anyway. Miss Wills: If the President thinks it is in the national interest of America, he can go ahead. Ratcliffe, without giving any opinion on starting the war, presented new intelligence. It was reported that the meeting of Ayatollah Khamenei with the top leaders in Tehran has been confirmed. The CIA director told the President that a change of power in Iran is possible, but how will it happen? If we just kill the top leader, this goal will probably not be achieved. Mr. Warrington, a White House adviser, responded to the President's call. He said that the legal validity of the proposal depends on how US officials present it to the President. He did not want to give any personal opinion, but at the President's request he said: As a former Marine, he knows that Iran killed an American soldier a few years ago. This is a deeply painful matter for me personally.
He said that if Israel goes on an all-out attack, the United States can also conduct an operation in the same way. Mr. Chewang gave his observation about public opinion: President Trump came to power promising against war. The people did not vote for him to fight abroad. He also questioned the rationality of this war. Without giving any decision of his own, he said that whatever decision President Trump makes is the right one. General Kaine was completely silent. He only said: If an operation is ordered, the military will carry out the president's order. Mark Rubio also gave a straightforward opinion that if our goal is to support a change of power or a popular uprising, it is better not to go on such an operation. And if the goal is to destroy Iran's missile program, then we can obtain that evidence.
Everyone speaks with understanding the president's attitude. After hearing everything, the president's comment; I think we should do it. We have to make sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and we have to make sure that Iran cannot attack Israel or any country in the region with missiles. General Kaine said he would wait until 4 p.m. tomorrow to make a final decision. The next afternoon, 22 hours before General Kaine's suggested time, President Trump announced from Air Force One: 'Operation Epic Fury authorized, operation to proceed, good luck. ' Thus began Trump's war on Iran.
Author: Senior Journalist
