24-Hour Thrilling Insider: Did Israel and Iran Almost Drag Trump Back into War?

Author: Xiao Yanyan, Jintou Data

The rapid evolution of the situation in the Middle East over the past 24 hours has significantly increased the risk that the United States will once again be drawn into a large-scale regional conflict. Although U.S. President Trump has clearly stated a desire to withdraw from the wars in the region, developments show that this goal faces serious challenges.

On Monday, Trump intervened, prompting Israel and Iran to step back from the brink of a near direct war. However, it remains unclear how long this de-escalation can last. It has been 100 days since the conflict broke out, and so far Trump has been unable to push for an agreement that would put an end to the fighting, while over the past day he has continued trying to prevent the situation from spiraling fully out of control.

U.S.-Israel Differences and Decision-Making Games

Differences between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are gradually becoming apparent over whether to carry out retaliation against Iran. On the one hand, Trump clearly believes that after Israel suffers missile strikes, it is almost impossible for Israel to remain restrained; on the other hand, he worries that any counterattack could rapidly escalate into a full-scale war.

In an Axios phone interview, Trump revealed that he had warned Netanyahu that if Israel re-initiated war against Iran, it might have to act alone. At the same time, an Israeli source said that Netanyahu believes that not responding would send a signal to the outside world that Iran has the upper hand, and would weaken deterrence between the United States and Israel; it would also be unfavorable to the negotiation process that Trump is pushing forward.

Late Sunday evening, Trump spoke with Netanyahu by phone, urging him to avoid retaliation. An Israeli source familiar with the call said that Trump presented two possibilities: either reach an agreement with Iran within a few days to fundamentally eliminate the motivation for the conflict; or, if negotiations fail, he might personally lead a military strike against Iran.

Multiple reports indicate that the atmosphere of this call was noticeably calmer than before. Two U.S. officials and an Israeli source said that compared with a previous time when Trump had angrily berated Netanyahu as “crazy,” this communication was “very polite,” with “no one shouting.” However, on the question of whether to take military action, the two sides still failed to reach agreement.

At the end of the call, Netanyahu made no clear commitment. Some U.S. officials believe that this communication has bought time to cool the situation; meanwhile, the Israeli side believes that Trump’s opposition is not an absolute prohibition. One U.S. official said bluntly: “Bibi (Netanyahu’s nickname) will absolutely not interpret the president’s words as consent. What he received was clear disapproval, but he will still act based on his own judgment.”

Conflict Escalation and Military Actions

The immediate trigger for the escalation of tensions appeared last Sunday morning, when Israel carried out a strike on a Hezbollah target in Beirut. An Israeli source said that prior to the operation, Israel informed the U.S. Central Command, but did not inform the White House in advance. A U.S. official said Trump expressed dissatisfaction with this, because just a few days earlier he had halted a similar operation during a tense phone call.

After that, Iran launched missiles at Israel in accordance with the earlier warning, and the situation quickly escalated. Within the Israeli Defense Forces, some people had believed that Iran’s threats were bluffing, but the facts proved otherwise.

Against this backdrop, after Netanyahu met with his security team and senior military officials, he informed the White House that the strike operation would continue to move forward. Trump said that Israel’s notification about the attack from last Sunday was “very late,” adding, “They were already on the way. But in the end, I had them keep their restraint.”

An Israeli official confirmed that that night, Netanyahu and other officials had a call with U.S. Secretary of State Rubio, reaching a certain consensus on the targets of the imminent attack.

Israel then carried out strikes against multiple Iranian targets, including a key component of its largest petrochemical facility and other locations in Tehran. Iran responded with missile attacks on Tel Aviv. On Monday morning, the two sides carried out two more rounds of mutual strikes, bringing the situation to the brink of a full-scale war.

Two U.S. Department of Defense officials said that U.S. forces did not participate in Israel’s offensive but assisted in intercepting the missiles launched by Iran.

Diplomatic Signals and Potential Agreement

As the situation escalated, regional countries put pressure on Washington. In an Axios interview, Trump said he received calls from five different countries, all urging him to push Israel to stop its actions and expressing support for the agreement currently being advanced. “These countries are very worried. They really like the agreement we’ve been negotiating,” he said.

Trump also revealed that in the Monday morning, the U.S. government received messages conveyed by Iran: if Israel stops its attacks, Iran is also willing to halt its military actions. “They called us and said they won’t carry out more attacks, and asked us to tell Israel not to launch any more attacks,” Trump said.

However, the tense posture has not been fully eased. According to two Israeli officials, Israel’s original plan was to carry out on Monday the largest round of strikes since April, targeting dozens of sensitive locations. Trump called Netanyahu again, urging him to cancel the operation and warning: “Bibi, you’d better be careful, or you’ll soon be on your own.”

An Israeli source said that despite disagreements during the call, Netanyahu ultimately agreed that if Iran stops attacking, Israel will also hold back. After the call, he ordered senior military commanders to cancel the originally planned strike.

Negotiations over nuclear issues remain a key variable. In the interview, Trump reiterated that Iran intends to reach an agreement and may sign soon. He said the agreement would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and would end uranium enrichment activities: “This is an extraordinary agreement. We got everything we wanted.”

However, Iran has cast doubt on these claims. Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf (Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf), Speaker of Iran’s Parliament and the chief negotiator, said that Trump’s account of a draft agreement memorandum is inconsistent with what both sides have already agreed to, emphasizing: “We don’t trust the other side.”

He also pointed out that through diplomatic and military means, Iran has established new rules in Lebanon, with the goal of ending the war rather than moving toward normalizing relations with the United States.

Many U.S. and Israeli sources believe that developments over the past 24 hours further highlight that the strategic and political differences between the two sides are widening. A U.S. official noted:

“Bibi needs the war to continue in order to survive in Israeli politics, while Trump needs the war to end in order to survive in American politics.”