WANA (May 31) – In recent days, numerous reports have surfaced suggesting that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities without coordinating with the Trump administration. Simultaneously, several Israeli media outlets have reported a halt in U.S.-Israel cooperation on a joint strike plan against these facilities. Trump himself has said he asked Netanyahu to refrain from any actions that could derail nuclear negotiations with Iran.

 

Iran’s Official Letter to UN on Nuclear Threats

WANA (May 22) – Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the UN Security Council, and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), emphasizing the urgent need to take special measures to […]

Read More...

 

But would Israel really strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure without U.S. knowledge?

The answer largely depends on the scale of the attack. A large-scale, comprehensive strike is highly unlikely to be carried out without U.S. coordination—either overt or covert. However, the possibility of a limited strike exists under two scenarios: either without prior U.S. notification and coordination, or with mutual consultation and agreement.

 

The first scenario—an uncoordinated attack—could only materialize if Netanyahu becomes fully convinced that a “bad deal” between Iran and the U.S. is imminent from Israel’s perspective, and decides to act unilaterally in a last-ditch effort to derail the process, having lost faith in all other means.

 

It’s also worth noting that such a strike remains conceivable even after a “partial and temporary” deal is reached.

 

That said, Netanyahu is not known for reckless decision-making. Given his concern about Trump’s potential retaliation, any unilateral Israeli strike without prior notice to Washington would likely be tied to the outcome of the Gaza conflict. In fact, Netanyahu’s political future is now deeply entangled with the trajectory of that war.

There is no doubt that tensions and disagreements exist between Trump and Netanyahu over how to handle Iran and other regional issues, but these should not be overstated. So far, such tensions have not translated into any significant practical rupture in relations.

 

At present, Gaza seems to have become a bargaining chip between Netanyahu and Trump. Essentially, Israel appears to be trying to avoid being pressured into ending the Gaza war in return for complying with Trump’s request not to disrupt talks with Iran. A clear example of this dynamic can be seen in yesterday’s ceasefire proposal by Brett Witkoff, which fully aligns with Israel’s demands—prompting Netanyahu’s swift approval. This came despite the fact that only a few days earlier, Witkoff had reportedly reached a different agreement with Hamas via Bashar al-Babakar that sharply diverged from his latest plan.

 

This suggests that the U.S. is unlikely to finalize any major agreement—whether with Iran or other regional players—without factoring in Israel’s core strategic interests.

 

It’s also notable that Witkoff’s seemingly erratic and contradictory behavior in negotiations with the Iranian side appears to reflect Trump’s broader negotiation style—marked by unpredictability and mixed messaging.

Iranian women walk past an anti-US mural on a street in Tehran

Iranian women walk past an anti-US mural on a street in Tehran, Iran, April 26, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

However, this strategic quid pro quo between Netanyahu and Trump over Gaza could collapse if Israel proceeds with even a limited strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities without prior coordination—triggering a retaliatory backlash from the self-absorbed president. Therefore, a unilateral limited strike by Israel under current conditions seems improbable.

 

Overall, the likelihood of such an attack occurring with a green light from the U.S. is higher than it happening without one. If this hypothesis holds, a limited Israeli strike could be seen as a pressure tactic designed to influence the trajectory of negotiations.

 

Similarly, some of the recent statements and reports about the end of U.S.-Israel coordination on a potential joint strike may be a deliberate effort to manage Tehran’s response to such a limited action—ensuring that American interests in the region remain shielded from any possible military fallout, which Trump has no appetite for.