U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly intervened to halt an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to information from two U.S. officials cited by Reuters. This revelation adds a new dimension to the ongoing crisis involving Iran, Israel, and the broader international community.
A senior official from the Trump administration disclosed the rationale behind the decision, emphasizing that such an action was unwarranted at that point. “Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do, we’re not even talking about going after the political leadership,” the official was quoted as saying. This statement underscores the administration’s hesitancy to endorse escalatory measures in the absence of direct Iranian aggression against U.S. citizens.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked to respond to the report, avoided providing a direct confirmation or denial. “There’s so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I’m not going to get into that,” he said. However, Netanyahu did express a strong stance regarding Israel’s approach, stating, “But I can tell you, I think that we do what we need to do, we’ll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States.”
Reuters reported that American officials have maintained regular contact with their Israeli counterparts throughout the unfolding crisis. The discussions intensified following a substantial Israeli offensive aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Though it remains uncertain whether Trump personally communicated the veto to Israeli officials, multiple sources confirmed his consistent dialogue with Netanyahu during this critical period.
The situation became more volatile with Israel’s military actions against Iran, which began on a Friday and have since continued. In a separate appearance on Fox News, Netanyahu hinted that the ultimate goal of the military campaign could be regime change in Iran. He also acknowledged informing President Trump before the operations were initiated, reinforcing the idea that the U.S. was not caught off guard.
Despite the high tensions and military developments, Trump adopted a mixed approach in his public communications. He issued a forceful warning to Tehran via his social media platform, Truth Social, asserting that the U.S. military would respond with overwhelming force if Iran dared to target American assets. “If we are attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US armed forces will come down on you at levels never seen before,” Trump declared. This message served as a deterrent against potential Iranian retaliation amid the unfolding conflict.
Iran had reportedly warned that it would target military bases and naval assets belonging to the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France if they interfered with Iranian strikes against Israel. These threats heightened the international concern surrounding the expanding crisis in the Middle East.
However, Trump did not rely solely on threats. He also left the door open for diplomacy, expressing hope that a resolution could be achieved. “We can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel and end this bloody conflict,” he stated. This dual message — combining military readiness with diplomatic outreach — aimed to balance deterrence with the possibility of peaceful negotiation.
Amid the mounting hostilities, Trump reiterated his longstanding belief in the value of diplomacy and called on both Iran and Israel to seek a negotiated settlement. He referenced his own track record as a peacemaker, asserting that his administration had played a pivotal role in resolving other international disputes. “I never got credit” for these accomplishments, he lamented, pointing to previous efforts to facilitate peace between Serbia and Kosovo, as well as helping ease tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia over past disagreements.
In a separate development, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan engaged with Trump in a phone call on Sunday, offering Turkey’s help as a mediator in the intensifying conflict. Erdogan suggested that Ankara could play a constructive role in addressing the nuclear standoff and reducing the likelihood of further violence between Israel and Iran.
Meanwhile, the conflict on the ground showed no signs of abating. Israel launched a third consecutive day of airstrikes targeting multiple locations within Iran. Some of these strikes reportedly penetrated Iranian air defense systems and reached urban centers, raising concerns about civilian casualties and wider regional instability. Israeli officials warned that additional attacks could follow, suggesting the situation might deteriorate further.
The toll from these attacks has already been severe. According to Human Rights Activists, a Washington-based non-governmental organization that monitors the situation in Iran, at least 406 people have been confirmed dead, and 654 others have sustained injuries as a result of the airstrikes. These figures have not been verified by the Iranian government, which has yet to release official statistics regarding casualties. The lack of transparency has made it difficult for international observers to fully assess the scale of the humanitarian impact.
Efforts to de-escalate the crisis through diplomacy have also suffered setbacks. Talks that were scheduled to address both the immediate violence and broader concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions have reportedly been canceled due to the ongoing military activity. The collapse of these negotiations represents a significant blow to those hoping for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The series of developments paints a troubling picture of a rapidly deteriorating situation, with potential implications far beyond the region. Trump’s reported decision to prevent an Israeli attempt to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader reflects the delicate balance that global leaders must maintain in the face of escalating threats. While military responses remain on the table, there is still some hope that diplomatic engagement might avert an all-out war.
In the end, Trump’s approach seems to straddle two divergent paths — one of power projection and another of negotiation. His administration’s decision to restrain an Israeli strike on Iran’s political leadership, combined with his repeated calls for diplomacy, suggests an awareness of the potentially catastrophic consequences of unchecked escalation. Whether these efforts will lead to de-escalation or whether the region will spiral further into conflict remains uncertain.
With Israel continuing its military operations and Iran threatening retaliation, the international community faces a critical test. The choices made in the coming days could determine not only the fate of the current standoff but also the broader trajectory of Middle Eastern geopolitics in the years to come.