The New York Times reveals the inner story of Trump starting a war against Iran: the intelligence agency calls it absurd, Vance strongly urges restraint, but a single piece of intelligence sparks an epic wave of rage and action

The New York Times’ latest long-form investigative feature sheds light on the behind-the-scenes decision-making process behind U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to launch against Iran an “Operation Epic Fury.” The article notes that, despite intense lobbying by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—and although U.S. intelligence agencies directly pointed to the “regime change” script as being rather absurd, with Vice President Vance and senior military officials alike voicing serious concerns—Trump ultimately followed his instincts, overruling the objections and issuing the order to go to war.
(Background: New York Post: Trump warns that if U.S.-Iran talks fail, Iran will be “completely destroyed,” and the U.S. Navy fleet has already been loaded with its most powerful weapons)
(Additional context: In the next 48 hours: Iran-U.S. negotiations for a ceasefire, and Russia-Ukraine a pause in fighting; on Tuesday, Israel and Lebanon will talk with Washington)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• Netanyahu’s lobbying: a plan deemed “absurd” by U.S. intelligence
• Contradictions inside the White House: Vance as the strongest opponent
• The key factor that sparked the war—and the final “Operation Epic Fury”

Why did U.S. President Donald Trump decide to bring the United States into a full-scale war with Iran? The New York Times has recently published an in-depth feature revealing the inside story of a series of high-level meetings inside the White House Situation Room. It reconstructs how Trump made this decision—one that rocked global geopolitics—amid intelligence unit pessimism, concerns from the military and career officials, and disagreements among his staff.

Netanyahu’s lobbying: a plan deemed “absurd” by U.S. intelligence

The report says the turning point in the decision came during a classified Situation Room meeting on February 11. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Benjamin Netanyahu), accompanied by the head of Mossad intelligence, went to Trump to vigorously pitch a “joint strike plan.”

Netanyahu laid out an extremely optimistic scenario: destroying Iran’s missile program, crippling its ability to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, and stirring internal rebellion through Mossad—combining that with a ground offensive by Iraqi Kurdish forces—to ultimately topple Iran’s government and install a secular leader. Trump strongly agreed with it and, on the spot, said, “Sounds good.”

However, in internal assessments the next day, U.S. intelligence units poured cold water on it. CIA Director John Ratcliffe said that while the U.S. military could accomplish the first two objectives—“decapitation” and “destroying military capabilities”—the expectation of internal uprising and full regime change was completely detached from reality, and he used the term “farcical” to describe it. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went even further, saying bluntly that this was “pure nonsense.” But for Trump, as long as Iran’s military strength could be destroyed, regime change was “their problem (Israelis or Iranians).”

Contradictions inside the White House: Vance as the strongest opponent

The article provides a detailed depiction of the rifts and considerations within Trump’s core team:

• Military concerns: General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that large-scale attacks would seriously deplete the U.S. arms inventory and would be difficult to replenish quickly. At the same time, he emphasized the enormous risk posed by Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. But Trump had unwavering confidence in U.S. military advantages and was convinced this would be a quick, decisive war.
• Vance strongly urging against it: Vice President JD Vance was the person in the team most determined to prevent a full-scale war. He worried that war would consume vast resources, cause regional chaos, drive oil prices sharply higher, and break Trump’s political promise of not starting new wars. But once he understood Trump had made up his mind, he could only accept a lesser option and recommended shrinking the scope of the strikes.
• Staff compromise: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth strongly supported going to war. Secretary of State Marco Rubio leaned toward applying maximum pressure but did not strongly push back. Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, though concerned about domestic electoral prospects and oil prices, chose to hand decision-making authority back to military experts and the president.

The key factor that sparked the war—and the final “Operation Epic Fury”

Beyond Israel’s pushing and prodding, the Times pointed to several core factors that led Trump to make up his mind: Trump had long viewed Iran as a major threat and was also unhappy that Iran had plotted to assassinate him. More recently, a U.S. military operation to capture Venezuela’s leadership without casualties boosted his confidence further. In addition, the U.S. and Israel had a “decapitation” opportunity during a ground gathering by Iran’s supreme leader, and the breakdown of diplomatic negotiations in Geneva ultimately led him to decide to use force.

At the final Situation Room meeting on February 26, although nobody could guarantee the outcome of the war, everyone chose to yield to Trump’s instincts. Trump’s remark, “I think we have to do this,” set the tone for the meeting. The next afternoon, he issued the final order aboard Air Force One:

“Operation Epic Fury approved. No interruption. Good luck.”