With Saturday’s military operation against Iran, President Donald Trump demonstrated what the Associated Press described as a dramatic shift in how far he was willing to use American military power, moving from months of diplomacy toward a more expansive risk posture within a short span. The change came as Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered up a battle plan that, according to the AP reporting, included targeted strikes on Iran’s leadership.
Hours after launching the operation, Trump posted that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been killed, and Iranian state media reported the death early Sunday without elaborating on a cause. Trump said in a statement, “was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.” Trump added, “This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country.”
The episode highlighted a reversal from Trump’s stance in June, when the AP reported he drew a “bright red line” when Israeli leaders presented a plan that included killing Khamenei. In that earlier period, the AP said Trump agreed at Israel’s urging to deploy B-2 bombers to strike three Iranian nuclear sites during a 12-day war involving Iran, but rejected the proposal to target Khamenei, according to the reporting, out of concern the move would destabilize the region.
Even as Trump signaled hostility toward Iran’s clerical leadership in June—by peppering Khamenei with “thinly veiled threats,” as the AP described—the June decision stopped short of leadership-removal plans. On Saturday, that guardrail was no longer part of the calculus, as the AP said Israeli and U.S. plans included targeted leadership strikes and Israeli military statements described taking out Iran’s defense minister and a commander of the Revolutionary Guard.
The AP account also described how the administration framed the diplomatic track it pursued before the strikes. Administration officials told reporters they offered Iran many ways to have a peaceful nuclear program for civilian purposes, including an offer of free nuclear fuel in perpetuity. The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was clear to them that Iran sought enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, and one official said Iran met the offers with “games, tricks, stall tactics.”
Trump’s team signaled that negotiations were moving toward a closing window even as the U.S. dispatched envoys for another attempt at talks. The AP reported the order to launch strikes came two days after Trump sent special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to meet with Iranian officials, with Middle East and European allies urging the administration to give negotiations more time as Trump signaled he was running out of patience.
Outside analysts pointed to the uncertainty and escalation dynamics that could follow leadership-targeted strikes. Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said, “The consequences are likely to be as far-reaching as they are uncertain: Within the system that has held power for nearly five decades, between the government and a dissatisfied populace, and between Iran and its adversaries.” Vaez added that even though “the regime is weakened,” the perception of an all-out struggle could push Iran to respond with “every tool still at its disposal.”
Aaron David Miller, a former adviser on Middle East issues to Democratic and Republican administrations who is now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the AP that the strikes reflected a risk readiness shaped by Trump’s prior actions in Iran. Miller pointed to Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal negotiated under Democratic President Barack Obama, and to Trump’s 2020 drone strike that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. He said, “He did all of these things without cost or consequence to him,” and described Trump as “risk-ready.”
The AP reporting also connected the shift to the broader set of U.S. concerns that officials said Iran would not address in negotiations. Administration officials publicly urged Tehran to give up nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and to end backing for regional armed proxies, while the AP said officials believed Iran would not engage on the missile and proxy concerns. The account described Trump as astounded by Iran’s rigidity amid an economy weakened by decades of sanctions and by the aftershocks of last year’s war.
The AP described further signals that Trump had been leaning toward military action before the most recent round ended on Thursday. In a State of the Union address, Trump claimed Iran had been building ballistic missiles that could reach the U.S. homeland, and the AP said that claim was repeated as Trump announced the bombardment was underway on Saturday. The AP said Iran had not acknowledged building intercontinental ballistic missiles, while the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said in an unclassified report last year that Iran could develop a militarily viable ICBM by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.” Marco Rubio told reporters Wednesday that Iran’s refusal to speak to its ballistic missile program was a “big problem.”
The AP account also described how the administration spoke about the limits it would observe if strikes broadened. It said Vice President JD Vance, who told The Washington Post on Thursday that Trump had not decided whether to strike Iran, offered assurances that military action would not turn into a drawn-out conflict. Vance said, “The idea that we’re going to be in a Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight — there is no chance that will happen.” By Friday, the AP said Trump continued venting about Iran’s approach, saying, “I’m not happy with the fact that they’re not willing to give us what we have to have,” and “We’ll see what happens.”
Finally, the AP reported that Trump’s confidence in pursuing military options could have been influenced by an earlier U.S. operation earlier in the year. Jonathan Schanzer, a former Treasury Department official now executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Trump’s success in capturing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and bringing him to New York for federal drug conspiracy charges also may have “emboldened the president.” Schanzer argued that Trump’s decision not to follow through on threats last month—when he was said to have held off as Iran carried out a deadly crackdown on protests—gave his team time to assemble a large presence of fighter jets and warships, which Schanzer said the administration hoped could provide leverage. Schanzer said the way the situation unfolded was “inevitable,” explaining, “There was no way that the Ayatollah was going to show flexibility.”
Trump monitored the operation from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, the AP reported, with members of his national security team.