President Trump reportedly discussed direct US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, including its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow.
According to Axios, the White House was “seriously considering” joining Israel’s war effort against the Islamic Republic during a meeting of the National Security Council.
Citing three US officials, the report stated that the meeting in White House Situation Room last around 80 minutes and included discussion of a potential strike against the Fordow site.
Israeli bombing raids have already caused significant damage to a number of nuclear facilities, including the major Natanz enrichment facility. However, Fordow is a special case as it is hidden underground, effectively embedded in a mountain in north-western Iran.
The IDF lacks the so-called “bunker-busting” bombs required to attack the site, and the bombers which can carry them – both technologies that are in the hands of the US Air Force.
There had been reports that Washington was considering supplying the bombs and a B-52 bomber to the Israelis, but that would require at least a few weeks of training in how to pilot the aircraft.
Now, it appears, the US is considering taking a more direct approach and simply bombing Fordow itself.
However, there seem to be some internal (and public) divisions within the administration over the circumstances of any American involvement.
The Pentagon is reportedly briefing that the US would only engage directly with Iran if there is an attack against one of its bases in the region, something with Tehran has threatened in retaliation for Washington’s support of Israel.
Trump’s opinion, meanwhile, is said to have fluctuated on the issue. He was previously reported to favour a diplomatic solution, posting online that “Iran and Israel should make a deal”.
In the subsequent days, though, his social media stance seems to have hardened, with the President saying yesterday: “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”
Another post, simply read: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”
And the impression of a tendency towards direct action was further supported by Vice President JD Vance posting on X: “The president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.
"He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.”
The uncertainty over where the US stands comes as Israel is reportedly eyeing regime change in Iran as an “unstated goal” of the war.
Israeli officials were quick to emphasise that this was not one of the official war aims distributed to IDF commanders, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has made a number of public overtures in that direction.
At a press conference earlier this week, he commented: “This is a very weak regime that now understands how weak it is... we could see many changes in Iran.”
He also appeared on an Iranian opposition TV show, itself entitled Regime Change In Iran, during which he joked that nobody had predicted the collapse of the USSR or the Assad regime in Syria before they occurred.
