Washington’s Calculus: Would Israel Strike First in a Showdown With Iran?

By: Tzirel Rosenblatt

As diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran teeter on uncertain ground, a new dimension has emerged in the strategic deliberations of the Trump administration. According to a report cited by World Israel News on Thursday, senior officials have privately urged President Donald Trump to consider encouraging Israel to take the lead in any future military confrontation with Iran should negotiations fail to yield a breakthrough. The suggestion, reported by Politico and relayed by multiple anonymous advisers familiar with closed-door discussions, reflects a political and strategic calculus that intertwines American domestic opinion with Middle Eastern geopolitics.

The deliberations come at a moment when negotiations with Tehran are widely perceived as fragile, and when policymakers in Washington are increasingly skeptical that diplomacy alone can permanently curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As World Israel News has reported in its ongoing coverage of the Iranian file, the administration’s stance remains publicly committed to a diplomatic solution, but privately, officials are contemplating alternative pathways should talks collapse.

The argument advanced by some of Trump’s advisers is both pragmatic and controversial. By their reasoning, an Israeli-initiated strike against Iranian targets would alter the political landscape in the United States. Rather than the United States appearing as the aggressor in a new regional conflict, Israel would assume the initial operational risk. In such a scenario, the officials reportedly believe that subsequent American involvement would be easier to justify to a wary electorate, particularly if Iranian retaliation were to target American personnel or assets in the region.

One official, quoted in the Politico report and referenced by World Israel News, stated bluntly that the calculations were primarily political rather than military in nature. Polling data, advisers suggested, indicate that while a majority of Americans express support for regime change in Tehran, they are ambivalent about launching a large-scale war that could result in significant American casualties. This tension between strategic ambition and public caution has long shaped U.S. policy toward Iran, particularly after two decades of protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan left many voters skeptical of new entanglements abroad.

By encouraging Israel to strike first, proponents of the strategy argue that Washington could shift the narrative. If Iran were to retaliate against American forces stationed across the Middle East, the United States would be responding to aggression rather than initiating hostilities. As one senior adviser told Politico, “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.” The World Israel News report highlighted this remark as emblematic of a broader belief within certain circles that American public opinion is more receptive to defensive war than to preemptive intervention.

The strategic logic underpinning this view rests on several assumptions. First, that Israel possesses both the capability and the willingness to launch a substantial air campaign against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Second, that Iran’s response would extend beyond Israeli targets to include American assets, thereby directly implicating the United States. And third, that such retaliation would galvanize domestic support for a broader campaign.

Israel has long maintained that it will not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and successive Israeli governments have treated the prospect as an existential threat. World Israel News has frequently underscored Israel’s doctrine of self-defense, noting its history of preemptive strikes against perceived strategic dangers, from Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 to Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007. In the present context, Israeli leaders have signaled deep skepticism regarding Tehran’s intentions and have warned that time is not on their side.

For Washington, however, the calculus is more layered. American forces are deployed throughout the region—in Iraq, Syria, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere—creating a complex web of vulnerabilities. Iranian retaliation, whether through missile strikes, drone attacks, or proxy militias, could rapidly escalate into a multifront confrontation. The World Israel News report observed that any such escalation would test not only military readiness but also the resilience of regional alliances.

Within the Trump administration, according to the Politico report cited by World Israel News, there is a prevailing sense that American strikes against Iran may ultimately be unavoidable. Officials reportedly believe that it is a matter of timing and scope rather than a question of “if.” Yet the precise contours of a potential campaign remain undefined. Would it focus narrowly on nuclear facilities? Would it extend to ballistic missile infrastructure, Revolutionary Guard installations, or command-and-control nodes? And how would it account for Iran’s network of regional proxies?

The domestic political dimension adds another layer of complexity. While public opinion polls show hostility toward the Iranian regime and broad distrust of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Americans remain cautious about new wars. Memories of prolonged Middle Eastern conflicts weigh heavily on the electorate. Advisers’ suggestions that Israel initiate hostilities reflect an effort to reconcile these competing sentiments: maintain a hard line against Iran while minimizing the perception that the United States is embarking on another open-ended war of choice.

Critics of this approach argue that such a strategy risks instrumentalizing Israel’s security decisions for American political advantage. Encouraging Jerusalem to bear the initial burden of escalation could strain bilateral relations, particularly if Israel perceives itself as being nudged into a conflict that Washington is not fully prepared to support from the outset. World Israel News has consistently reported on the close strategic coordination between the two allies, but also on the sensitivity surrounding decisions of war and peace.

Moreover, there is the question of regional perception. An Israeli strike, even if coordinated tacitly with Washington, would reverberate throughout the Middle East. Gulf states, already navigating delicate relations with Tehran, could find themselves caught between competing pressures. Iran, for its part, would likely frame any confrontation as evidence of a broader Western-Israeli conspiracy, potentially rallying nationalist sentiment at home even as it sustains military damage.

Proponents of the strategy contend that Iran’s likely retaliation against American assets is not merely a political opportunity but a strategic inevitability. Tehran has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to target U.S. forces indirectly through proxies, as well as directly through missile strikes, as seen in past confrontations. By this logic, if conflict is imminent, shaping the sequence of events could provide Washington with greater diplomatic leverage and domestic legitimacy.

Yet the unpredictability of escalation looms large. Military engagements rarely adhere to the tidy scripts imagined in policy discussions. A strike intended as limited could trigger cascading responses across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, drawing in additional actors and expanding the theater of operations. World Israel News has noted in prior analyses that Iran’s asymmetric warfare capabilities—ranging from cyber operations to maritime disruption—add further uncertainty to any conflict scenario.

At present, negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain ongoing, albeit under a cloud of skepticism. Publicly, the administration continues to express a preference for diplomatic resolution. Privately, however, contingency planning is intensifying. The suggestion that Israel should lead the initial strike illustrates how deeply intertwined military strategy and political calculation have become in the corridors of power.

Ultimately, the decision rests with President Trump. Advisers may propose scenarios and outline political advantages, but the choice to encourage or restrain an ally in matters of war carries profound implications. For Israel, the stakes are existential; for the United States, they are strategic, political, and moral.

As the World Israel News report suggested, one reality stands out: the path forward is fraught with uncertainty. Whether diplomacy prevails or military action becomes unavoidable, the choreography of any confrontation with Iran will shape the regional order for years to come. The debate unfolding within the Trump administration reflects not only differing tactical preferences but also the enduring challenge of balancing principle, politics, and prudence in the shadow of potential war.