Israel is considering attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and views its Mideast adversary as vulnerable, US intelligence agencies assessed in the waning days of the Joe Biden administration, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
Israel was considering significant strikes on Iran in 2025 and viewed President Donald Trump as more amenable to their plans, the paper cited officials familiar with the assessment as saying.
US intelligence cited the risk of further conflict in the Middle East and characterized Iran as weakened following an Oct. 26 Israeli attack on Iran, adding that Israel views the window for denying Iran a nuclear weapons capability as fast closing.
Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon but Israel says is Mideast nemesis wants an atomic bomb and must be denied the power to destroy the Jewish state.
Trump, long an opponent of foreign wars, reimposed the so-called maximum pressure campaign on Iran of his first term this month but said he much preferred a deal and described any reports of a US-Israeli strike on Iran as "greatly exaggerated".
Diplomatic room for US-Iran talks for a nuclear deal appeared to narrow in the past week as Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejected the idea of negotiations and relatively moderate President Masoud Pezeshkian endorsed the stance.
Israel has publicly broached the idea of an attack in the past.
“Iran today is more exposed than ever to damage to its nuclear facilities," Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in November.
Since the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Iran-backed Hamas militants from Gaza, Israel has been locked in a region-wide conflict with Iran and its armed allies.
Escalating a conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon in late September, Israel began to gain the initiative and solidified its advantage with a direct air attack on Iran in retaliation for a missile salvo from the Islamic Republic.
Israel and the United States said those attacks mostly knocked out Iran's anti-aircraft capabilities and left it exposed to any future strikes.
Analysts widely view Iran's fortified and underground nuclear sites as potentially beyond the ability of Israeli bombers to destroy and may require American help or collaboration.
In a sign of growing internal debate, Massih Mohajeri of the Jomhouri Eslami newspaper sharply criticized officials and media figures who brand supporters of negotiations as “infiltrators” and “dishonored elements”, describing this stance as “utterly against freedom of expression.”
Despite Khamenei’s strong opposition to talks with the United States, some Iranian officials and media have continued to discuss the possibility of negotiations.
Though Mohajeri—personally appointed by Khamenei as the paper’s editor—did not name specific targets, his remarks were widely interpreted as aimed at ultraconservative lawmakers and Kayhan, another newspaper funded by Khamenei.
Mohajeri argued that such individuals and media outlets oppose the principles and teachings of Islam and cannot persuade public opinion to reject negotiations.
Meanwhile, Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref reinforced Khamenei’s stance against talks with the Trump administration.
"Both sides should benefit from transactions, but I believe there is no profit in dealing with the United States. Trump has shown that he is not trustworthy," he said, adding that "Trump may be trusted only if he is reformed, and that is unlikely to happen."
Kourosh Ahmadi, a former Iranian diplomat who served at Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York, highlighted what he called a disinformation campaign by Iranian officials aiming to distort Trump’s message to Tehran. He also dismissed as “meaningless” the claim that negotiations are tantamount to surrender, arguing instead that maintaining a tough stance can compel the other side to retreat or modify its position.
Ahmadi added that as it has been stated in a White House document issued last week, "the fact that negotiation has become a taboo in Iran is not understandable."
He said that the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) signed by Trump is aimed at "restoring maximum pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, denying Iran all paths to a nuclear weapon, and countering Iran’s malign influence abroad."
He further characterized Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf's statement, that alleged Trump wishes to disarm Iran, as disinformation and fake news and added that only the text that has been signed by Trump should be considered as his and the White House's official view.
However, he noted, "During the first two weeks after his inauguration, Trump created some hope for the start of negotiations with Iran. I have no idea what led to the unexpected shift in his position." Ahmadi suggested that Trump's approach might have been a negotiation tactic, similar to his dealings with Mexico and Panama, where he initially took an aggressive stance but softened his tone once he saw signs of agreement from the other side.
Despite perceptions in Tehran that Trump has taken a harsher stance toward the Islamic Republic, his position remains unchanged from his first term. This time, however, he has balanced his renewed “maximum pressure” strategy with a stronger emphasis on seeking peace through diplomacy.
The former Iranian diplomat urged officials to consider Trump's memorandum and the White House statement within a broader context to avoid being misled. He also cautioned those influenced by the disinformation campaign, emphasizing that "proper decision-making requires accurate information."
In his editorial, Mohajeri emphasized that the Iranian constitution grants everyone the right to express their views, including on negotiations with the United States. However, he reiterated that "Khamenei is the one who has the final say about relations with the United States" and criticized Trump’s approach, stating, "The US president spoke arrogantly and put forward irrational expectations."
"If the US president gives up his arrogant rhetoric and speaks modestly with Iran, then the roads to negotiation are open," he concluded.