U.S.-Israel Strike on Iran: Planning, Near Execution, and Fallout

Recently, reports have emerged confirming that the United States and Israel came close to launching a massive joint airstrike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The operation was ultimately aborted, but the disclosure has sparked intense scrutiny over the evolving dynamics of military planning and deterrence in the Middle East.

The goal of the United States and Israel was to eliminate or severely degrade Iran’s nuclear development capabilities. The planned strikes aimed to destroy key enrichment and weapons-related sites, especially the hardened Fordow and Natanz facilities.

The reason why the United States and Israel wanted to achieve this goal is that Iran’s nuclear program had advanced beyond past thresholds, bringing it close to a breakout. 

Intelligence reports showed Iran enriching uranium to 90%. While dispersing and fortifying key sites, diplomatic efforts stalled after Iran rejected Trump’s offer for a new deal. With the window for a political solution closing, military planners saw a strike as the only remaining option to stop Iran before it crossed a red line. 

In order to achieve this goal, the United States and Israel conducted extensive military preparations. Israel mobilized over 100 fighter aircraft, including F-fifteens and F-thirty-fives, alongside intelligence drones and refueling tankers. The United States positioned stealth bombers at Diego Garcia and dispatched a carrier group into the Gulf. Target packages had been finalized, with facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan slated for precision-guided missile strikes. The operation would have unfolded in phases, starting with the decapitation of air defenses, followed by bunker-busting munitions on nuclear infrastructure. Allied electronic warfare units had already begun probing Iran’s radar systems in preparation. Gulf partners were briefed, and diplomatic cover was arranged via backchannels with European allies.

The result did not come to fruiting because at the last minute, according to intelligence leaks, Israeli and U.S. leadership called off the operation due to internal disagreements and concerns about escalation. The CIA reportedly warned that Iran could retaliate through a wave of regional proxy attacks on American embassies and oil infrastructure. Meanwhile, Israeli assessments feared a Hezbollah barrage if the operation commenced. 

The decision to abort left much of the deployed force on standby, with assets slowly returning to routine postures. However, the operation’s exposure has served as a warning, with satellite images confirming increased Iranian air defense deployments near key sites.

The cancellation of the strike created a mixed landscape. For Iran, it was a narrow escape that reaffirmed the effectiveness of its layered deterrence, particularly through its proxy network. Yet it also exposed the speed and scale of U.S.-Israeli mobilization, demonstrating how easily the West could coordinate a crippling attack. The main problem for the United States and Israel is managing escalation; any unilateral strike could trigger regional war, while inaction destroys deterrence credibility. 

For Iran, its primary concern is internal pride. With the knowledge that red lines were almost enforced, Tehran now must recalibrate its sense of risk. But the opportunity for Iran is also clear: this near-miss can be leveraged to rally nationalist sentiment and further entrench its narrative of resistance. 

In order to act in this new setting, all actors must adjust. Israel is already revising its threshold for future engagement, calling for tighter coordination with U.S. intelligence and more explicit red-line declarations. The United States has initiated backchannel talks via Oman and Qatar to signal the seriousness of its intent without provoking open war. 

Meanwhile, Iran has begun rotating forces within key bases, obscuring the layout of its enrichment operations and bolstering air defense deployments. 

Simultaneously, Tehran has launched a new diplomatic campaign, positioning itself as resentful while quietly accelerating its nuclear work in facilities. Across the Gulf, allied states are rethinking their proximity to U.S. assets, fearing that the next decision might not be reversed. 

Overall, the near-strike on Iran reveals both the fragility and volatility of red-line deterrence in today’s Middle East. The operation’s planning exposed just how far the U.S. and Israel are willing to go, but its cancellation demonstrated the problems of modern conflict, where escalation cannot be easily controlled. As Tehran adapts and the West recalibrates, the region enters a new phase of high-stakes brinkmanship, where the next crisis may not end with restraint.