Following Israel’s recent strikes targeting Iranian military and nuclear facilities, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that Israel “had no choice but to act, and act now” to counter Iran’s growing capabilities, which he claims pose a “nuclear holocaust” threat to his nation.

However, it remains uncertain whether the Trump administration shares Netanyahu’s sense of urgency. President Donald Trump previously dismissed Israeli strike plans in April, as efforts to negotiate a new agreement regarding Tehran’s nuclear program were underway. Even hours before the recent attack, Trump expressed his preference to avoid military action to preserve the diplomatic process, stating he would “rather that [the Israelis] don’t go in in order not to ruin it.”

A key question moving forward is whether Trump will ultimately support the military action he initially opposed, a decision with significant implications for Israel.

Initial reports suggested the Trump administration was aware of the impending attack but took limited action to prevent it. Secretary of state Marco Rubio’s initial response was cautious, acknowledging Israel’s belief that the action was “necessary” while stating the US was “not involved in strikes against Iran.”

Though, on Friday morning, Trump’s tone shifted, expressing enthusiasm for the strikes. He stated that he had warned Iranian leaders about the consequences of failing to reach a deal, adding that “the United states makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it.”

This shift suggests Trump is aligning himself with what appears to be a accomplished military operation.

the Trump administration’s apparent hope is that the Israeli operation will compel Iran to make concessions in negotiations. Trump urged Iranian leaders to agree to a deal “BEFORE it is indeed TOO LATE,” and US officials reportedly still hope that planned talks in Oman on Sunday “will still go ahead.”

However, a meeting on Sunday seems unlikely, as Iran has “threatened retaliation” for the strikes and rejected Washington’s “disavowals of involvement.” Netanyahu’s government is also seeking a more active US role.

According to Nimrod Novik, a former foreign policy advisor to the Israeli government, “The president seems to still hope that his preference for a diplomatic solution can be salvaged. Few in the political-security establishment here share that hope.”

He added, “From an Israeli vantage point, it truly seems that the better the operation looks, the more Trump wants to own it.”

The central question remains: how long will the US remain on the sidelines?

How the American Role in the Conflict Could Escalate

“The president seems to still hope that his preference for a diplomatic solution can be salvaged. Few in the political-security establishment here share that hope.”

According to the New York Times, the Israeli attack plan that Trump rejected in April “would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.”

Further complicating matters is the uncertainty surrounding Iranian leadership’s response. According to Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins University,it remains to be seen whether Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will choose de-escalation or “seek martyrdom.”

How much has Trump changed?

Khamenei isn’t the only leader whose motives are unclear. During his first term, Trump authorized the strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, a major provocation, but “also called off” a planned strike on Iranian soil due to concerns about escalation.

during his second term, he has been “surprisingly unconcerned about coordinating” with Israel, engaging in deals with the Houthis and nuclear talks with Iran, despite Netanyahu’s skepticism. His administration includes less “hawkish voices when it comes to Iran” such as Vice President JD Vance, who has “warned against” letting Israel draw the US into a war, describing it as a scenario that could “balloon into World War III.”

In a short time, Trump has shifted from opposing an Israeli strike to claiming partial credit for it. Netanyahu likely hopes that continued military success will persuade Trump to abandon his pursuit of a diplomatic agreement and join the conflict.