"I want to thank President Trump for his leadership in confronting Iran's nuclear weapons program. He has made clear time and again that Iran cannot have a nuclear enrichment program," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an address soon after launching Operation Rising Lion, an attack on Iran.
Netanyahu said that Israel targeted Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz and the country’s ballistic missile program, as well as top nuclear scientists and officials, in Friday's strike.
- YouTube youtu.be
According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Israel deployed approximately 200 fighter jets in a major aerial operation, striking more than 100 targets across Iran. The IDF stated that over 330 munitions of various types were used in the attack, which remains ongoing. A military source familiar with the operation told CNN that the campaign is not limited to a single day, suggesting further strikes may follow.
The IDF also reported that Tehran responded by firing more than 100 drones toward Israeli territory. The IDF said Israeli defenses were working to intercept the drones.
Soon after news of the military strikes broke, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio put a distance between the US and what he called "unilateral action" by their close ally. Rubio cautioned Tehran against retaliatory strikes targeting American forces. "We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region," he said.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump warned of the possibility of “massive conflict” in the Middle East that could take place “soon.” “I don’t want to say imminent, but it’s something that could very well happen,” Trump told reporters at the White House, CNN reported.
“I want to have an agreement with Iran. We’re fairly close to an agreement. … As long as I think there is an agreement, I don’t want them going in because that would blow it. Might help it, actually, but also could blow it,” he said when asked about a potential Israeli strike.
In recent days, the U.S. has initiated partial diplomatic drawdowns, relocating some personnel from Iraq’s capital and offering voluntary departure options for military dependents across the broader Middle East.
The possibility of the U.S. staying out of the fight in Israel is complex and depends on evolving circumstances. There have been some indications of potential rifts between the U.S. and Israeli leadership. While publicly, the White House has been attempting to signal that it wants to remain out of the immediate fight. The U.S. is Israel's most important ally, making it difficult for Washington to detach itself from the conflict completely. Historical precedents suggest the U.S. may be called upon to defend Israel, as it has in the past.
The U.S. has provided significant military aid and defense support to Israel, including missile defense systems. It has also maintained a military presence in the Middle East, with troops stationed across several countries.
Countries worldwide, including Oman, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, have expressed concern over Israel's airstrikes, with some describing the actions as escalatory. Many nations are calling for both Israel and Iran to de-escalate tensions and to ensure stability in the region.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reacted by saying, “Game on. Pray for Israel.”
In the United States, while many lawmakers voiced their support for Israel's preemptive strikes on Iran, a number of skeptical lawmakers, primarily from the Democratic Party, raised alarms about the potential for these strikes to trigger a broader conflict in the region.
While opinions are divided, a slight majority of Americans (55%) still support the US supporting Israel militarily until all hostages are returned. Polling shows support for taking Israel's side is stronger among Republicans (56%), while majorities of Democrats (62%) and Independents (60%) prefer impartiality.
The U.S. may attempt to avoid direct military involvement, but its strong alliance with Israel, combined with regional dynamics and ongoing support, makes complete detachment from the conflict improbable.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.