The revelation that President Trump “waved off” an Israeli-led strike on Iran’s nuclear program is the second-most newsworthy part of the big New York Times scoop that broke yesterday. More significant is the fact that the article exists at all, and was published at this moment.
The primary purpose of the article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.
To understand why, it’s crucial to have a clear picture of the two factions within Trump’s national-security inner circle. There are the nonproliferationists, who prioritize stopping the spread of nuclear-weapons capability. The nonproliferationists’ internal rivals are those who believe in 20th-century types of spheres of influence with the goal of divesting America of its obligations.
Divestors within the administration include Tulsi Gabbard, the pro-authoritarian former Democratic congresswoman who is now the director of national intelligence; JD Vance, the vice president; and Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff. Those naturally inclined toward nonproliferation include Mike Waltz, the national-security adviser; Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense; and Gen. Michael Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command.
At the moment, the divestors have an advantage for entirely non-policy reasons. Hegseth showed disastrously poor judgment in what became known as Signalgate, in which the defense secretary uploaded U.S. battle plans to an unsecure chat that Walz had accidentally added a journalist to. Neither faced consequences for the lapse, but both have clearly been diminished by the public fallout. Meanwhile, Kurilla’s tour of duty ends this year.
That latter point is one reason Israel reportedly ordered attack plans to be redrawn such that the mission could be launched before Kurilla’s exit. Gabbard’s isolationist leanings and Vance’s incoherent FDR-style cynicism toward allies are now the dominant ideological strands in Trump’s Cabinet, and the president nixed the strike plans.
Kurilla wasn’t the only reason time is of the essence. Last year, Israeli retaliatory attacks on Iran reduced Tehran’s air-defense systems to rubble. The nonproliferationists are open to the idea of taking advantage of this situation, which makes any U.S. involvement in strikes significantly less dangerous while (likely) permanently ending the nuclear threat from Iran, a Mideast client state of China and Russia.
The divestors don’t want this outcome. They don’t see Iranian nuclear proliferation as much of a threat, and they are comfortable with Iranian hegemony over our allies and over the region’s shipping lanes. This was President Obama’s approach as well—to empower Iran and weaken the Saudis and Israel so that a magical balance-of-power would emerge and keep the Middle East on its equilibrium, likely with a cascade of nuclear proliferation throughout the region. Although encouraging this nuclear cascade in the Middle East is an act of apocalyptic stupidity, presidents (and Congress) do like being given excuses to kick the can down the road.
And kicking the can is exactly what this is all about. Trump has been convinced to try his hand at negotiating with Ayatollah Khamenei, who will walk away from the table as soon as Iran’s defenses are in better shape.
Along those lines, part of Israel’s rushed plans to strike Iran—the ones intended to be launched while Kurilla was still around—included further demolishing Iranian defenses. If that isn’t paired with bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, it will at least buy the West some more time to do so by widening the window of opportunity.
That’s where the New York Times article comes in. The detailed leaks are most likely the Gabbard faction’s attempt to delay even that kind of attack by telling the Iranians what to expect. It’s hard to see this as anything other than the director of national intelligence enabling U.S. and Israeli intelligence to be put in front of an enemy state.
The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play to more or less help Iran torpedo American action. That’s the intent, anyway. Whether it succeeds might depend on whether Walz and Hegseth find their voices and their spines.
