The New York Times revealed on Wednesday that Israel had been planning to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month, but US President Donald Trump backed off in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others familiar with the discussions.

Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in its quest to curb Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb, at a time when Iran was weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between US government officials, who have historically been hawkish, and other aides who are more skeptical that a military attack on Iran could destroy its nuclear ambitions and avert a larger war. This has resulted in a general consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling its willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently drawn up plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out and were at times optimistic that the United States would agree. The goal of the proposals, according to officials familiar with them, was to delay Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for a year or more.

According to the newspaper, almost all of the plans required US assistance not only to defend Israel from an Iranian response, but also to ensure the success of any Israeli attack, making the United States an essential part of the attack itself.

For now, Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action. In his first term, he tore up the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration. But in his second term, eager to avoid being dragged into another war in the Middle East, he opened negotiations with Tehran, giving it only a few months to negotiate an agreement on its nuclear program.

Earlier this month (April 7), Trump informed Israel of his decision that the United States would not support any attack. He discussed the matter with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when Netanyahu visited Washington last week, where he used an Oval Office meeting to announce the start of US talks with Iran. In a statement delivered in Hebrew after the meeting, Netanyahu said that any agreement with Iran would only succeed if its signatories were allowed to "enter the facilities, blow them up, and dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision and American implementation."

The newspaper cited conversations with several officials familiar with Israel's secret military plans and confidential discussions within the Trump administration. "Most of the people interviewed spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military planning."

Israel has long planned to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, practicing bombing operations and calculating the extent of the damage it could inflict with or without American assistance.

But support within the Israeli government for a strike grew after Iran suffered a series of setbacks last year.

According to American and Israeli reports, in the attacks on Israel on April 13, most of Iran's ballistic missiles failed to penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Hezbollah, Iran's main ally, was destroyed in an Israeli military campaign last year. The subsequent fall of President Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria eliminated an ally of Hezbollah and Tehran and cut off a major arms smuggling route from Iran.

Air defense systems in Iran and Syria were also destroyed, along with facilities used by Iran to produce missile fuel, crippling the country's ability to produce new missiles for a time. Initially, at Netanyahu's request, senior Israeli officials briefed their American counterparts on a plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites with a bombing campaign, an effort the Israelis hoped would be participated in, or entirely led by, American aircraft.

The newspaper says: "At a meeting this month—one of several discussions about the Israeli plan—Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, presented a new intelligence assessment that the U.S. arms buildup could ignite a broader conflict with Iran that the United States does not want."

Several officials expressed Gabbard's concerns in various meetings. White House Chief of Staff Suzi Wiles, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Vice President J.D. Vance also expressed doubts about the attack.

Even National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, often considered one of the most hawkish voices on Iran, was skeptical that Israel's plan could succeed without significant American assistance.

The recent meetings came shortly after the Iranians announced their openness to indirect talks—that is, through an intermediary. In March, Trump sent a letter offering direct talks with Iran, an initiative that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, appeared to reject. But on March 28, a senior Iranian official sent a letter indicating his openness to indirect talks.

There is still considerable debate within President Trump's team about the type of agreement acceptable to Iran. The Trump administration has sent mixed signals about the type of agreement it seeks and the consequences for Iran if it does not agree.

In one discussion, Vice President Vance, supported by others, argued that Trump had a unique opportunity to strike a deal. Vance said (according to the newspaper) that if the talks failed, Trump might support an Israeli attack, according to administration officials.

During a visit to Israel earlier this month, General Kurilla, commander of US Central Command in the Middle East, told officials there that the White House wanted to suspend the plan to attack the nuclear facility.

Netanyahu called President Trump on April 3. According to Israeli officials, Trump told Netanyahu he did not want to discuss Iran's plans over the phone. But he invited Netanyahu to the White House. Netanyahu arrived in Washington on April 7. While the trip was presented as an opportunity for him to oppose Trump's tariffs, the most important discussion for the Israelis was their planned attack on Iran.

But while Netanyahu was still in the White House, Trump publicly announced talks with Iran.

In private discussions, Trump made clear to Mr. Netanyahu that he would not provide American support for an Israeli attack in May while negotiations were underway, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

The next day, Trump indicated that an Israeli military strike against Iran remained an option. Trump said, "If military intervention is required, we will resort to military intervention. And obviously, Israel will be the leader in that."

Following Netanyahu's visit to the White House, Trump assigned CIA Director John Ratcliffe to travel to Israel. Ratcliffe met last Wednesday (April 9) with Netanyahu and David Barnea, head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, to discuss various options for dealing with Iran. In addition to talks and strikes, other options were discussed, including covert Israeli operations with US support and the implementation of tougher sanctions, according to a person familiar with Ratcliffe's visit. National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes stated that the administration's "entire national security leadership team" is committed to Trump's Iran policy and his efforts "to ensure peace and stability in the Middle East."

"President Trump has been clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and all options remain on the table," Hughes told reporters at the White House. "The president has authorized direct and indirect discussions with Iran to make that point. But he has also made clear that this cannot continue indefinitely."

By pressuring Trump to join the attack, Netanyahu was reviving a debate he has had with American presidents for nearly two decades.

After being thwarted by the Americans, Netanyahu instead focused on covert sabotage operations against specific facilities and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. While these efforts may have slowed the program, Iran is now closer than ever to being able to produce six or more nuclear weapons within months or a year, according to American and Israeli claims. American officials have long stated that Israel, on its own, cannot significantly damage Iran's nuclear sites with an air campaign alone. Israel has long sought the largest American conventional bomb—a 30,000-pound bunker-buster, which could inflict significant damage on Iran's main nuclear sites deep beneath the mountains.

Israel studied various options for a possible May strike, and discussed many of them with American officials, according to the newspaper.

Netanyahu initially pushed for an option combining airstrikes and commando raids. The plan would have been a much more ambitious version of an operation Israel carried out last September, when Israeli forces flew by helicopter into Syria to destroy an underground bunker used to manufacture missiles for Hezbollah.

In that operation, Israel used airstrikes to destroy guard posts and air defense positions. Commandos then rappelled to the ground. Teams of fighters, armed with explosives and small arms, infiltrated the underground facility and planted explosives to destroy key weapons-making equipment.

But American officials were concerned that only key Iranian facilities could be targeted by the commandos. Iran's highly enriched uranium, close to bomb-grade, is stored in multiple locations around the country. To ensure the operation's success, Israeli officials wanted American aircraft to carry out airstrikes to protect the commando teams on the ground.

But even if American assistance were forthcoming, Israeli military leaders said planning for such an operation would take months. This posed some problems. With General Kurilla's tenure expected to end in the next few months, Israeli and American officials wanted to develop a plan that could be implemented while he remained in command.

After shelving the commando idea, Israeli and American officials began discussing a plan for a large-scale bombing campaign that would have begun in early May and lasted for more than a week. An Israeli airstrike last year had already destroyed Iran's Russian-made S-300 air defense systems. The bombing campaign was supposed to begin by hitting the remaining air defense systems, giving Israeli fighters a clearer path to strike the nuclear sites. Any Israeli attack on the nuclear sites would prompt Iran to launch a new missile attack on Israel, which would require American assistance to repel.

Senior Iranian officials, from the president to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the foreign minister, have stated that Iran will defend itself if attacked by Israel or the United States.

Brigadier General Mohammad Bagheri, commander of the Iranian armed forces, said in a speech on April 6 that Iran does not want war and wants to resolve the crisis with the United States through diplomacy. However, he warned, "Our response to any attack on the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic will be decisive and clear."