U.S. media report that President Donald Trump privately promised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last December that Washington would support Israeli airstrikes on Iranian ballistic-missile facilities if indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran fail. The pledge, delivered at Mar-a-Lago, underscores a widening gap between U.S. priorities—nuclear restraints—and Israeli concerns about Iran’s rapid post‑2025 restoration of missile production and launch infrastructure.
Senior U.S. military and intelligence officials have begun working through contingency options to assist an Israeli strike rather than debating whether Israel would act. Planning discussions reportedly concentrate on practical support: providing aerial refuelling for Israeli jets, arranging transit and overflight approvals from regional countries, and other logistics that would determine the feasibility and timing of any campaign.
Which states would clear their airspace is the pivotal operational question. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have publicly said they would not allow their skies to be used for attacks on Iran. Officials cited by U.S. outlets say it is unclear which governments, if any, would grant Washington or Israel the corridor and basing access needed to sustain long-range strike sorties.
The debate reflects different threat perceptions. The White House’s negotiating posture has focused on constraining Tehran’s nuclear activities, while Israeli leaders view Iran’s expanding ballistic-missile arsenal as the more immediate danger. Middle Eastern analysts point out that Iran possesses medium-range missiles capable of striking any point in Israel and large numbers of short-range rockets that threaten U.S. military bases across the region, making missiles Tehran’s principal deterrent and asymmetric leverage.
U.S. officials also signalled an appetite for diplomacy: an administration representative and the president’s envoys, including Jared Kushner and real-estate investor Steve Witkoff, were reported to be set to participate in the second round of indirect U.S.–Iran nuclear talks in Geneva. Iranian outlets, meanwhile, have framed their negotiating goals in economic terms, seeking arrangements that might include joint oil-field ventures and mining investments as part of a broader deal that would deliver mutual economic benefits.
The public reporting of a presidential promise to endorse Israeli strikes is itself a strategic signal to Tehran. It raises the diplomatic stakes of the Geneva talks and highlights a fraught calculus for regional partners asked to facilitate any operation. The operational challenges — from tanker support to diplomatic permissions — may limit the practicality of a short-notice strike, even if political will exists in Washington and Jerusalem.
For international audiences, the episode illuminates how U.S. domestic politics, Israeli security priorities and regional airspace politics converge to shape the risk of escalation. It also shows that, even while pursuing negotiations over nuclear limits, the U.S. and Israel are actively planning contingency measures that carry real risks of widening a localized confrontation into a broader regional crisis.