Over the past year, a flurry of reports in Western media has painted a consistent picture: Israel is gearing up for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. The headlines, often citing anonymous intelligence officials, suggest urgency, readiness, and strategic calculation. Yet, despite the buildup of speculation, no such strike has materialized. This pattern raises critical questions about the motives behind these recurring reports and the realpolitik guiding Israel’s decision-making.
Reports about Israel contemplating a military operation against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure are not new. In fact, they have become a staple of Western media narratives. In September 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel had communicated through backchannels to Iran, warning that any aggression toward Israeli territory would prompt retaliatory action, potentially targeting nuclear sites.
In October, USA Today and Forbes carried stories citing Israeli deliberations over a response to Iran’s missile barrage on October 1. Nuclear facilities were listed among the prospective targets, amplifying the sense of impending conflict.
By February 2025, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post revisited the narrative. Citing US intelligence assessments, these outlets suggested that Israel was actively planning a significant strike on Iranian nuclear sites, potentially within the year. The purported aim: to exploit perceived Iranian vulnerabilities and forestall nuclear armament.
The most recent development came in April, when the New York Times disclosed that Israel had planned a joint operation with US backing for May 2025. The report claimed the plan was shelved after President Trump favored a diplomatic approach over direct confrontation.
These high-stakes forecasts and speculative timelines contrast sharply with the measured actions Israel has taken over the past year. In April 2024, Israel launched limited airstrikes near Isfahan in retaliation for Iran’s drone and missile attacks. Notably, the strike was surgical, targeting an air defense radar system and avoiding any damage to nuclear infrastructure.
A more expansive operation occurred in October 2024, codenamed “Operation Days of Repentance.” Over 100 aircraft, including stealth F-35 fighters, struck multiple Iranian military sites across provinces like Tehran and Khuzestan. Despite the scale and sophistication of the assault, nuclear sites remained untouched.
The deliberate avoidance of nuclear targets in these operations suggests a clear strategic calculus: Israel is unwilling to provoke an all-out war with Iran without explicit US support. Even in moments of heightened tension and justifiable retaliation, Israel has shown restraint.
So why the persistent drumbeat of media reports predicting an imminent strike? One possibility is psychological warfare—a calculated leak campaign aimed at applying pressure on Iran and influencing global diplomacy. By projecting readiness for military action, Israel may be signaling resolve to both Tehran and Washington.
But another dimension must be considered: these leaks often coincide with sensitive diplomatic junctures. The latest surge in such reports has paralleled President Trump’s renewed efforts to reopen nuclear negotiations with Iran. Israel has been vocally opposed to any agreement that falls short of complete nuclear dismantlement.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated, “The only ‘good deal’ would be one modeled on Libya’s 2003 agreement, under which Tehran’s entire nuclear program, both military and civilian, would be dismantled completely.” He added that a “bad deal is worse than no deal,” highlighting his opposition to any compromise on uranium enrichment or ballistic missile restrictions.
Western media’s focus on the looming threat of an Israeli strike cannot be entirely separated from Israel’s powerful lobbying infrastructure in the United States. A complex network of advocacy groups, think tanks, and former officials often shapes narratives within influential newsrooms. These entities possess both the access and the motivation to push stories that align with Israel’s strategic interests.
Given this backdrop, it is not implausible that the persistent leaks about Israel’s strike plans are part of a broader effort to derail US-Iran negotiations. By fostering a climate of mistrust and urgency, these stories could complicate diplomatic outreach and shift public opinion against rapprochement with Tehran.
Netanyahu’s reference to Libya is telling. In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi agreed to dismantle Libya’s entire weapons of mass destruction program, including nascent nuclear capabilities, in exchange for sanctions relief and improved ties with the West. Israel advocates a similar approach for Iran—but the geopolitical context is vastly different.
Iran has endured decades of sanctions and isolation while developing a sophisticated nuclear infrastructure. Unlike Libya, it has regional influence through proxy groups and substantial domestic support for its nuclear ambitions, seen as a matter of national sovereignty. Expecting Iran to surrender its program entirely without concessions may be unrealistic.
Former President Donald Trump remains a pivotal player in this unfolding drama. While his administration once adopted a hardline stance, withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal, Trump has recently signaled interest in a diplomatic resolution. On May 20, he stated there could be “something good” regarding Iran’s nuclear program “in the next two days.”
This statement, made just weeks after reports of an aborted US-Israeli strike plan, suggests a nuanced approach. Trump appears to be walking a tightrope—keeping military options open while prioritizing negotiation. This balancing act is likely informed by recent experiences in the region, including limited success against Iran-backed Houthi forces in the Red Sea.
Indeed, the New York Times reported that joint US-Israeli operations against the Houthis failed to achieve strategic objectives, reinforcing the risks of prolonged Middle Eastern entanglements. For Trump, a misstep in Iran could spell geopolitical and political disaster.
What emerges from this landscape is a picture of strategic deterrence rather than imminent warfare. Israel’s real policy, it seems, is to maintain constant pressure on Iran without crossing the threshold into open conflict—unless absolutely necessary and backed by the US.
This strategy relies heavily on signaling, covert operations, and diplomatic lobbying. From cyberattacks to assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, Israel has a history of asymmetric actions designed to delay Iran’s program without triggering war.
At the same time, the repeated appearance of media stories about impending strikes serves multiple purposes: rallying domestic support in Israel, keeping the issue alive in Washington, and unsettling Iranian planners.
Despite the barrage of headlines, Israel has not bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. This restraint is not due to a lack of capability or intent, but rather an acute awareness of the consequences. A unilateral strike could ignite a regional war, draw in US forces, and destabilize global oil markets.
Moreover, Israel’s strategy appears to hinge on leveraging media narratives as part of a broader geopolitical game. By appearing ready to strike, Israel gains diplomatic leverage without bearing the cost of war.
