
‘We fight or we die': How days of frantic diplomacy and dire warnings culminated with Israel's attack on Iran
President Donald Trump issued an ultimatum this spring to Iran's Supreme Leader: Strike a nuclear deal in 60 days, by mid-June, or face consequences. He urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on attacking Iran to give the negotiations space to progress.
But even as Trump administration figures were publicly projecting determination to pursue a diplomatic solution, Israel was privately warning the US that it had already decided to attack.
Late last month, a small group of House lawmakers visited Netanyahu in Jerusalem, where he stated firmly that Israel was going to strike Iran – and they were not seeking permission from the US to do so, according to a person who attended the meeting and another person briefed on it.
'We fight or we die,' Netanyahu told the lawmakers, according to the people.
In response, two of the lawmakers in attendance May 26, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas and Rep. Michael Lawler of New York, urged Israel to coordinate with the US and stressed that the country must let Trump's 60-day ultimatum for Iran run its course.
On Friday, day 61, Israel launched unprecedented strikes on Iran, targeting its nuclear program and military leaders.
'This didn't just happen overnight,' the attendee told CNN, adding that Trump's 60-day deadline 'was not a bluff.'
Trump made a similar point to CNN Friday. 'Iran should have listened to me when I said — you know, I gave them, I don't know if you know but I gave them a 60-day warning and today is day 61,' he said.
The attack was much longer in the making – the result of years of meticulous planning by Israel and days of high-stakes talks between Tel Aviv and Washington, according to officials CNN spoke to in both countries. It has long been a priority for Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, which Netanyahu described Friday as a 'threat to Israel's very survival.'
The Trump administration knew in advance it was coming and that Netanyahu was unlikely to be dissuaded, with the US rallying international pressure on Iran even as diplomats sought to keep negotiations alive to the last minute.
Trump has long fashioned himself a dealmaker and, after pulling the US out of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal in 2018, made clear at the beginning of his second term that he would like to find a new diplomatic solution with Iran.
But in the intervening years, Iran had made significant strides toward obtaining a nuclear weapon. The president and top officials had asserted Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon – but it was unclear whether they would allow Iran to enrich uranium, which hawks in the US and Israel strongly opposed, or how any deal would be different from the Obama agreement.
Israel, meanwhile, was watching Iran's enrichment efforts with heightened concern and making meticulous plans for an attack. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad put spies on the ground inside Iran and smuggled weapons into the country, according to Israeli security officials, and would use the weapons to target Iran's defense from within. The officials said Israel also established a base for launching explosive drones inside Iran.
Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz on Friday said the strikes' timing was aimed at both thwarting Iran's capabilities and removing the threat of destruction from Israel.
'We are at a key point where, if we miss it, we will have no way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons that will threaten our existence,' he said. 'We have dealt with Iran's proxies over the past year and a half, but now we are dealing with the head of the snake itself.'
Trump had long warned of potential military strikes if a new nuclear deal wasn't reached, and Tehran, in turn, said that any attack on it would drag the US into a broader Middle Eastern conflict.
Negotiations on a new deal, led by special presidential envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and moderated by Oman, began in April. The group last met for talks on May 23 in Rome – three days before Netanyahu told US lawmakers he planned to strike – with a sixth round initially scheduled for Sunday in Muscat.
On Thursday, hours before the Israeli strikes began, the International Atomic Energy Agency board, a United Nations nuclear watchdog, met and adopted a resolution declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. The resolution ultimately passed with 19 nations voting in favor, three against, and 11 abstentions, according to Reuters.
Two days earlier, the US sent a demarche to eight countries that it viewed as potentially persuadable, urging them to either vote with the US on the IAEA vote or not vote at all, according to a US official. The move marked a major engagement from the US on the issue, which Israel pointed to as one of its rationales for its strikes.
Still, White House officials continue to argue after the strikes that the president is committed to salvaging the ongoing nuclear talks. Witkoff is 'ready' to meet Iranian officials when they are, whether it be in Oman on Sunday as previously scheduled or at some date thereafter, according to a source familiar with discussions.
Trump suggested Friday that Iranian officials had been in touch with him as he continued to express optimism about a deal.
'They may have another opportunity. We'll see,' Trump said. 'They're calling me to speak,' Trump said in an interview with NBC News.
Asked who was calling, he said, 'The same people we worked with the last time … Many of them are dead now.'
The US had a relatively clear picture of the scope of the Israeli operation as early as last week, when some intelligence officials were already receiving multiple updates daily and were planning for different contingencies depending on how Iran responded, according to one source with direct knowledge of that planning.
Although Israel minimized what it shared with the Trump administration, that source said the US understood the targets and order of operations – even if the extent of the damage to Iran, including losses to its leadership, and the question of how Iran would respond remained unknown.
On Sunday evening and Monday, Trump and top advisers, including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, huddled at Camp David for previously scheduled meetings on a number of foreign policy issues. Among the topics of discussion at the retreat: how to get an Iran nuclear deal done without an escalation. And the clock was ticking.
That same weekend Witkoff engaged in direct messaging with his Iranian counterpart in the talks, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Early in the week Witkoff also reached out to the Omani intermediaries with a new idea for a possible deal framework, according to a source familiar with the matter. The initial proposal from the US tabled during the 5th round of talks in Rome – which Iran was privately opposed to – was changing. It was unclear what prompted the proposal of a new concept, but by Friday, some people involved in the talks began to think that it was a stalling tactic by Witkoff.
But a senior administration official said no stalling tactics were used, with Witkoff working 'from the outset to reach a deal under the timeline set by President Trump.'
Before he departed Camp David, the president and Netanyahu spoke by phone to discuss Iran. During their call, Trump asked Netanyahu to stop talking about an attack on Iran, a source familiar with the conversation said, and halt the leaks and reports about plans. After the call, the president cast some doubt on prospects nuclear talks would bear fruit.
'We're trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death. And we've told him (Netanyahu) that, and I've told him that. I hope that's the way it works out, but it might not work out that way. We'll soon find out,' Trump told reporters.
In a podcast taped the same day, Trump acknowledged to the New York Post he was getting 'less confident' about the possibility of a deal.
Trump's rhetoric was becoming less optimistic at the same time US officials were beginning to believe that Iran was not going to accept a deal with the US terms.
Public signs that something was afoot began to emerge on Wednesday afternoon, US time, when the US State Department prepared to order the departure of non-essential personnel from the US embassy in Iraq and US consulate in Erbil, as well as nonessential personnel and family members at the US embassies in Bahrain and Kuwait, due to what sources described as increased security risks in the region. The president was aware of the decision, a White House official said at the time.
Trump began to nod publicly at the possible attack, warning during an East Room event about the potential for a 'massive conflict' in the Middle East that could take place 'soon.'
'We have a lot of American people in this area, and I said, look, we gotta tell them to get out cause something could happen – soon. And I don't want to be the one that didn't give any warning and missiles are flying into their buildings,' he said.
Top Trump officials were instructed to call their counterparts in the region on Thursday with a message that was heavy on the need for diplomacy and emphasized that the US was not involved. They were not always successful in getting through; Tulsi Gabbard, for example, was unable to reach her Israeli counterpart.
By late Thursday, it was clear to the Trump administration that Israel could not be dissuaded from launching the attacks, according to two other US officials who spoke to CNN at the time. One of the officials said the US thought it might be able to delay the operation by a matter of hours to put in place protections for its own forces in the region, but no more.
Trump spoke with Netanyahu multiple times on Thursday. Trump convened a Cabinet-level meeting Thursday as the strikes took place. A carefully balanced message soon went out.
'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Rubio said in a terse statement. 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.'
Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress were not surprised that Israel took the step, though some were privately taken aback by the scope.
House Speaker Mike Johnson was briefed ahead of the strikes on Thursday, one person said, though there was no Gang of Eight briefing in Congress, per two congressional sources. Top lawmakers, including committee leaders, were scrambling for briefings from the administration on Thursday night and Friday.
And even though US diplomats had worried about the increasing likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran, they were still surprised when it happened Thursday night. 'Maybe Donald Trump knew but I don't think the rest of us did,' one senior US diplomat told CNN.
Going into the attacks, intelligence officials believed Iran would have to take stock of what they had left before retaliating, a US official said.
The regime would have to assess whether it has enough left to be a credible deterrent to ensure its survival – or whether they are already on a path to being deposed. If the latter, officials expected Iran could respond with strategic strikes using what was left of their most sophisticated weapons and terror attacks using their various proxy groups in the region.
Initial battle damage assessments indicate that the Israeli strikes on Iran's Natanz nuclear facility were extremely effective and went far beyond superficial damage to exterior structures, knocking out the electricity on the lower levels where the centrifuges used to enrich uranium are stored, two US officials told CNN.
'This was a full-spectrum blitz,' said another source familiar with early damage assessments.
By Friday night, Iran had carried out attacks on 'dozens of targets, military centers and air bases,' belonging to Israel, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said in a statement. It was not clear how much more would be coming.
The US is also closely monitoring events in Iraq, where there is a particular concern about the safety of US troops – not only because of the proximity to the Iranian border but also because there are a number of deeply ideological proxy militia groups loyal to Iran operating there.
And although US intelligence officials believe Iran will respond to Israel directly first, they also believe it's possible that Iran may eventually launch cyber attacks against domestic US critical infrastructure in retaliation.
'The situation is pretty fluid,' a US official said Friday as Iran's response began. 'I think it's gonna be a long night.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

11 minutes ago
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON -- The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers.


Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill
Key tax incentives for US wind and solar projects would face a more aggressive phase-out in the Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's spending package. The tweak, which follows pushback by Trump on the Inflation Reduction Act credits, would sharply limit the number of solar and wind farms that qualify for incentives, appeasing opponents while risking the ire of moderate members who argued for a slower phase-out.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données