Trump Aides Say ‘Israeli’ Strike on Iran Would Play Better

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

Senior advisors to US President Donald Trump reportedly think it would be politically easier if "Israel" struck Iran before the US takes action, sources told POLITICO.

Officials reportedly argued that an "Israeli"-initiated attack could provoke Iranian retaliation against US interests, strengthening domestic backing for American military action framed as a defensive response.

Recent polling cited in the discussions shows many Americans, especially Republicans, favor regime change in Iran but are wary of US casualties, leading advisers to weigh both strategy and public optics in any escalation.

“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the 'Israelis' go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” one of the sources said.

While some officials prefer “Israel” strike first, a coordinated US-"Israeli" attack remains most likely, even as Netanyahu urged action on Iran’s nuclear program and Trump’s team pursues diplomacy in Geneva—though some close to the president reportedly said bluntly, "We’re going to bomb them."

Key questions persist over the scale of potential strikes, as Pentagon officials warn prolonged attacks on Iran could strain US weapons stockpiles and heighten vulnerability.

US military leaders, including Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine, have flagged shortages in critical interceptors, with up to 20% of SM-3s and 20–50% of THAAD missiles already used.

Lawmakers worry sustained Iranian retaliation could leave tens of thousands of troops exposed, with one insider asking, "Do we have enough interceptors to sustain a retaliation?"

The strain on US missile defenses is affecting allies too, as NATO requests for Patriot systems for Ukraine face bottlenecks. Senator Blumenthal warned that diverting interceptors from West Asia could endanger US embassies and bases, while experts caution that overusing Tomahawk missiles risks undermining preparedness for a potential conflict with China.

Officials are weighing the risk of American casualties, warning that a regime-change strike on Iran could trigger widespread retaliation against US bases in West Asia and possibly Europe.

One source said, "There’s a high likelihood of American casualties," highlighting the political stakes. While the Pentagon insists it has the resources for any mission, concerns are mounting over the military, political, and industrial costs of prolonged action against Iran.

Military options reportedly include limited strikes to pressure Tehran, with broader attacks if diplomacy fails.

Likely targets are nuclear sites in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow, along with missile infrastructure, while a "decapitation strike" on Iran's Supreme Leader has been discussed—though analysts note Iran’s leadership structure can withstand such losses.