Push from Saudis, Israel Helped Move Trump to Attack Iran

A weeks-long campaign by two of America’s closest Middle Eastern allies — Saudi Arabia and Israel — played a significant role in persuading former President Donald Trump to launch a major military assault on Iran in late February 2026, according to classified U.S. and allied sources. Internal White House assessments and reporting by The Washington Post indicate that diplomatic pressure from Riyadh and Jerusalem helped tilt Trump’s decision toward direct military action at a moment when the White House was still weighing diplomatic options.
The coordinated offensive, carried out jointly by American and Israeli forces and dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” targeted Iranian leadership figures and strategic military infrastructure, including areas linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), ballistic missile sites, and facilities associated with Tehran’s nuclear programme. Iranian state media later confirmed that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the strikes.
The Washington Post
Behind the Push: Riyadh and Jerusalem’s Influence
According to officials familiar with the matter, the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made repeated private appeals to Trump over weeks leading up to the attack. Although publicly Riyadh maintained support for a negotiated settlement to de-escalate tensions, in private calls the crown prince urged Trump to act assertively against Iran’s nuclear and missile ambitions. In those calls, he cautioned that Iran could emerge stronger and more threatening if the United States did not use its considerable military capaltities
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was equally vocal. Netanyahu has for years framed Iran as an existential threat to his country — especially over its nuclear activities and long-range missile development. His government had publicly and privately pressed Washington to strike, arguing that only decisive military action could sufficiently degrade Iran’s strategic capabilities.
Trump’s inner circle, including advisers and personal envoys, also played a role. Jared Kushner — Trump’s son-in-law and a senior advisor — maintained close communication with both Saudi and Israeli counterparts during the run-up to the strike. These interactions, according to sources, helped shape the narrative presented to Trump: that a timely military offensive would avert an even greater threat later.
A Break from Diplomatic Negotiations
The pressure from Riyadh and Jerusalem came at a delicate moment. U.S. officials had been engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations with Tehran in Geneva, mediated by regional partners such as Oman. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later described those talks as “progressing,” and he expressed confusion and frustration at why U.S. forces struck during active diplomacy.
Critics inside the U.S. government and Congress argued that the decision to attack Iran represented a dramatic departure from previous U.S. policy, which had traditionally prioritized containment, sanctions, or diplomatic avenues. Some lawmakers expressed concern that the pressure applied by Middle Eastern allies had outweighed careful strategic assessment within U.S. national security institutions.
Regional Dynamics and Strategic Calculus
Saudi and Israeli motivations are rooted in long-standing regional rivalries with Iran. Riyadh, despite periodic rapprochement with Tehran, views Iran’s expanding influence — particularly through proxy networks in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen — as destabilizing and a threat to Gulf security. Israel sees Iran’s missile programmes and purported nuclear ambitions as direct existential challenges.
The Saudi push may have included warnings about the consequences of inaction. Riyadh signalled that if Washington failed to act, Tehran could consolidate power in ways that would force Saudi Arabia’s hand in future conflicts. Israeli leaders reinforced this by portraying the window for effective military action as narrowing rapidly. These strategic frames reportedly helped convince Trump that military force, rather than prolonged diplomacy, was the more prudent choice.
Consequences of the Decision
Trump ultimately ordered the air and missile campaign that resulted in Khamenei’s death and significant damage to Iranian infrastructure. Tehran swiftly retaliated with missile and drone attacks targeting U.S. allied bases and Israeli territory across the region, raising the spectre of broader conflict.
International reactions have been sharply divided. Some Gulf states condemned Iranian retaliation and pledged support for collective defence, while European powers stressed the dangers of military escalation and the need to return to diplomatic channels. Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council held emergency discussions on the crisis.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
The episode highlights how allied pressure can influence U.S. foreign policy — particularly when regional partners frame threats in ways that resonate with American strategic priorities. It also underscores the complex interplay between diplomacy and military action in managing nuclear proliferation and regional security.
For Trump, the decision represents both a culmination of long-running pressure from key allies and a risky gamble: that overwhelming force could reset Iran’s behaviour and deter future threats. For the region, it has ushered in a period of profound uncertainty, with the potential for long-term geopolitical realignment as governments reassess their security strategies in the aftermath of direct U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian soil.