THE WASHINGTON POST: Israel likely to strike Iran in coming months, warns US intelligence

Israel is likely to attempt a strike on Iran’s nuclear program in the coming months in a preemptive attack that would set back Tehran’s program by weeks or perhaps months but escalate tensions across the Middle East and renew the prospect of a wider regional conflagration, according to U.S. intelligence.

The warnings about a potential Israeli strike are included in multiple intelligence reports spanning the end of the Biden administration and the beginning of the Trump administration, none more comprehensive than an early January report produced by the intelligence directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The report warned that Israel is likely to attempt a strike on Iran’s Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities in the first six months of 2025. Current and former U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence told The Washington Post that the finding derives from an analysis of Israel’s planning following its bombing of Iran in late October, which degraded its air defenses and left Tehran exposed to a follow-on assault. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss highly classified intelligence.

The Israeli government, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. A spokesman for the White House National Security Council, Brian Hughes, said President Donald Trump “has made it clear: He will not permit Iran to get a nuclear weapon.”

“While he prefers negotiating a resolution to American’s long-standing issues with the Iranian regime peacefully, he will not wait indefinitely if Iran isn’t willing to deal, and soon,” Hughes told The Post.

Hughes declined to comment on the underlying intelligence.

The prospect of a looming Israeli strike creates an early test for Trump, who campaigned on restoring peace and tempering the armed conflicts raging in the Middle East and Europe while also touting his staunch support for Israel.

The military intelligence report spelled out two potential strike options, each involving the United States providing support in the form of aerial refueling as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, said those familiar with the document. Such reliance on the United States in any strike on Iran - even one that yields only modest results - underscores Washington’s leverage over Israel’s path forward.

A distance attack, known as a standoff strike, would see Israeli aircraft firing air-launched ballistic missiles, or ALBMs, outside of Iranian airspace, the intelligence report said. A more risky stand-in attack would see Israeli jets enter Iranian airspace, flying near the nuclear sites and dropping BLU-109s, a type of bunker buster. The Trump administration approved the sale of guidance kits for those bunker busters last week and made a notification to Congress that it had done so.

The U.S. assessment found that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would at best set back its activities by months, and potentially only by weeks, said current and former officials. Any attack also would incentivize Iran to pursue weapons-grade enrichment of uranium, the officials said, a long-standing red line for the United States and Israel.

The six-month time frame for a likely operation and details on the two potential strike scenarios have not been previously reported. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Israel is considering a strike on Iran this year.

Some Israeli officials disagree with the U.S. intelligence assessments on the anticipated impact of a strike on Iran’s facilities, arguing that it could more substantially set back Tehran’s capabilities. “That was a difference between our intelligence and their assessment,” said a former U.S. official.

The revelation coincides with a robust debate within the Trump administration about the proper application of military power in the Middle East.

Trump has surrounded himself with an ideologically diverse national security team, including foreign policy hawks such as national security adviser Michael Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, advocates of military restraint including Vice President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and “prioritizers,” such as Elbridge Colby, who seek to reorient U.S. military resources to East Asia to counter China.

In late January, Waltz raised the prospect of a U.S.-supported Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program, telling CBS News that “this is a moment to make those key decisions, and we’ll be doing that over the next month.”

“Iran is on its back foot,” he told “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan. “Iran’s air defenses are destroyed.”

Trump, earlier this week, alluded to a growing awareness of Israel’s interest in a strike. “Everyone thinks Israel, with our help or our approval, will go in and bomb the hell out of them. I would prefer that not happen,” Trump told Fox News.

“There’s two ways to stopping them: with bombs or a written piece of paper,” Trump added. “I would love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”

Trump’s comments, which followed his reimposition of “maximum pressure” on Iran aimed at reducing its oil exports down to zero to achieve a nuclear deal, angered leaders in Tehran.

“These reckless and inflammatory statements flagrantly violate international law … which prohibits threats or use of force against sovereign states,” said Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Saeed Iravani.

Middle East policy is one of the more contentious topics within the Trump coalition, which includes pro-Israel hawks and skeptics of military intervention.

The neoconservative wing of the Republican Party - intent on a sustained U.S. military presence in the Middle East through arms exports to Israel, agreements for military bases in Persian Gulf countries and extensive naval rotations in the Mediterranean Sea - has waged anonymous whisper campaigns against Trump appointees who have raised skepticism about U.S. “forever wars.”

Unlike Trump’s first term, where his dovish instincts met fierce resistance from a phalanx of former generals and prominent George W. Bush-era figures such as H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, Trump’s new team includes senior and mid-level officials who share the president’s skepticism of foreign military entanglements.

Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., backed by Vance and conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, has been a bulwark against neoconservatives entering the administration, including former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who was under consideration to become secretary of defense in Trump’s second term until he was ruled out for any administration jobs and revoked of his security detail.

It remains unclear whether Trump would sign off on an Israeli strike on Iran. By the end of the Biden administration, U.S. officials did not believe Iran had decided to pursue a nuclear weapon and had not told their Israeli counterparts whether the United States would participate in such an offensive.

In late January, after Trump’s inauguration, a Defense Intelligence Agency report reiterated that Israel is considering a strike on Iran this year but included much less detail. A similar assessment also came out in October in a report by the National Intelligence Council, people familiar with the intelligence said.

© 2025 , The Washington Post