| Commentary | April 17, 2025
Image made with AI
The revelation that President Trump “waved off” an Israeli-led strike on Iran’s nuclear program is the second-most newsworthy part of the big New York Times scoop that broke yesterday. More significant is the fact that the article exists at all, and was published at this moment.
The primary purpose of the article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.
To understand why, it’s crucial to have a clear picture of the two factions within Trump’s national-security inner circle. There are the nonproliferationists, who prioritize stopping the spread of nuclear-weapons capability. The nonproliferationists’ internal rivals are those who believe in 20th-century types of spheres of influence with the goal of divesting America of its obligations.
Divestors within the administration include Tulsi Gabbard, the pro-authoritarian former Democratic congresswoman who is now the director of national intelligence; JD Vance, the vice president; and Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff. Those naturally inclined toward nonproliferation include Mike Waltz, the national-security adviser; Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense; and Gen. Michael Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command.
At the moment, the divestors have an advantage for entirely non-policy reasons. Hegseth showed disastrously poor judgment in what became known as Signalgate, in which the defense secretary uploaded U.S. battle plans to an unsecure chat that Walz had accidentally added a journalist to. Neither faced consequences for the lapse, but both have clearly been diminished by the public fallout. Meanwhile, Kurilla’s tour of duty ends this year.
That latter point is one reason Israel reportedly ordered attack plans to be redrawn such that the mission could be launched before Kurilla’s exit. Gabbard’s isolationist leanings and Vance’s incoherent FDR-style cynicism toward allies are now the dominant ideological strands in Trump’s Cabinet, and the president nixed the strike plans.
Kurilla wasn’t the only reason time is of the essence. Last year, Israeli retaliatory attacks on Iran reduced Tehran’s air-defense systems to rubble. The nonproliferationists are open to the idea of taking advantage of this situation, which makes any U.S. involvement in strikes significantly less dangerous while (likely) permanently ending the nuclear threat from Iran, a Mideast client state of China and Russia.
Israel doesn’t need the permission of the US to attack the nuclear installations in Iran. And the fact that Trump called the plan off doesn’t mean he’s against all plans to attack Iranian nukes.
What is needed is for Israel to realize that there are agents within the administration that will leak intelligence to the media, so just as Israel did with the Biden Administration, they did not ask permission and did not give advance warning before giving the plans the green light.
What this means for the Trump-Bibi relationship, only the two of them can determine.
I don’t know that anything can be done about the mistake of choosing Tulsi Gabbard, nor about the mistake of choosing Pete Hegseth, if Hegseth proves to be consistently anti-Iranian nuke strike and consistently unreliable over time.
I know many will be disheartened by this and disappointed. I can understand that. I think we have a ways to go before this chapter has been fully written and until then I will keep my mind open to gather more data over time.