Less than 48 hours before the U.S.-Israeli operation against Iran commenced, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached out to President Donald Trump in a high-stakes phone call, advocating for a strike on Iranian leadership that Trump had long resisted during his campaign. According to sources speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, Netanyahu presented what he framed as a historic opportunity to target Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his top aides, whose meeting in Tehran had recently been advanced to Saturday morning.
The intelligence briefing that both leaders had reviewed earlier indicated a narrow window to carry out a so-called “decapitation strike”—an attack targeting a nation’s top officials. While Israel had frequently used such tactics in the past, the U.S. had traditionally avoided them. Netanyahu argued that eliminating Khamenei could avenge previous Iranian attempts on Trump’s life, including a 2024 alleged assassination plot orchestrated by Iran, and could potentially destabilize Tehran’s theocratic regime that had dominated the country since 1979.
By the time of the call, Trump had already authorized a U.S. military operation against Iran in principle, though the timing and scope remained undecided. The U.S. military had steadily increased its presence in the region over several weeks, fueling speculation within the administration that action was imminent. One potential strike date had already been postponed due to inclement weather. Sources suggest that Netanyahu’s call—emphasizing both the unique intelligence opportunity and the chance to strike back against Iran—was a key factor influencing Trump’s final decision to launch Operation Epic Fury on February 27.
The first bombs fell the following morning, February 28, and Trump announced that Khamenei had been killed. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Reuters that the operation was aimed at “destroying the Iranian regime’s ballistic missile and production capacity, annihilating the Iranian regime’s Navy, ending their ability to arm proxies, and guaranteeing that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon.” Requests for comment from Netanyahu’s office and Iran’s U.N. representative went unanswered. Netanyahu has dismissed claims that Israel pressured the United States into conflict, calling them “fake news,” while Trump maintains that the decision to strike was entirely his own.
Although Reuters’ reporting does not suggest that Netanyahu forced Trump into military action, it underscores that the Israeli leader was an effective advocate. His framing of the operation as an opportunity for revenge and a historic achievement appeared persuasive to the president. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later hinted that revenge was a motivating factor, noting that Iran had attempted to assassinate Trump, and he “got the last laugh.”
The U.S.-Israeli campaign followed a series of events that had already shaped Trump’s approach to Iran. In June, Israel targeted Iranian nuclear and missile sites, killing several Iranian leaders. U.S. forces later joined in, with Trump publicly claiming the attacks had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite a return to diplomacy, both nations began planning a second joint operation aimed at further degrading Iran’s missile infrastructure and neutralizing threats from proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Netanyahu had originally prepared to act independently, but during a December meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, he expressed dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the June operation and pressed for additional strikes. Trump, while open to further military action, initially favored renewed diplomatic efforts. Two events shifted the calculus: a U.S. operation in Venezuela to remove President Nicolas Maduro without casualties demonstrated the feasibility of complex missions, and massive anti-government protests in Iran highlighted vulnerabilities within the regime. Concurrently, the Israel Defense Forces and U.S. CENTCOM intensified joint military planning during secret sessions.
In February, Netanyahu briefed Trump on Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program, emphasizing sites that could threaten both the region and the U.S. homeland. By late February, officials considered a U.S. strike increasingly likely, though specifics were uncertain. Trump received briefings on the potential strategic benefits, including decimating Iran’s missile capabilities and possibly creating conditions favorable for negotiation. Congressional leaders were warned that an Israeli strike—whether or not the U.S. participated—would almost certainly provoke Iranian counterattacks against American and allied targets. That prediction proved accurate: the campaign has since resulted in more than 2,300 Iranian civilian deaths, at least 13 U.S. service members killed, attacks on Gulf allies, closure of a key shipping route, and record oil price spikes affecting global consumers.
Amid these developments, the possibility of regime change was central to Netanyahu’s argument during the call. While the CIA had previously assessed that Khamenei’s death would likely be followed by a hardliner replacement, Trump privately encouraged a popular uprising. As of the fourth week of conflict, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues to patrol Iran’s streets, and millions of Iranians remain sheltering at home. Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, has been named the country’s new supreme leader, raising questions about the long-term political and security impact of the strike.
Reuters reporting, based on sources close to both U.S. and Israeli leadership, paints a portrait of a decision that, while framed as unilateral by the United States, was shaped by Israeli advocacy, intelligence timing, and a confluence of military and political calculations. The February operation marks a turning point in U.S.-Iran relations, with repercussions that extend far beyond the region and into global energy markets, international security, and the prospects for future diplomacy.
