how he decided to unleash his ‘Epic Fury’ against Iran

Trump threatened with jail the journalist who published the news that one of the airmen shot down over Iran had disappeared. He did so at the press conference he offered on Monday at the Pentagon to reveal details of the rescue operation.

“Someone leaked something and I hope we find the source,” he said. in front of journalists highlights. “We are going to go to the media and tell them: or you talk, or to jail“, he assured. He added that whoever did it “is a sick person.”

Hours later, the prestigious Israeli columnist Amit Segal He acknowledged that he believed he was the one who published the news for the first time. Despite the insistence of New York Posthalf-friendly to Trump, Segal assured that he would not reveal his source.

The last deadline granted by the president of the United States to unlock the Strait of Hormuz It ended in the early hours of Tuesday. The president threatened Iran with annihilating “a civilization in one night” if they did not do so.

Hour and a half before the end of the ultimatum The president announced that Tehran had presented a ten point plan which was a good basis for discussing a ceasefire. He announced that a two-week period was open to work out the details and the world breathed a sigh of relief.

The news network CNN The content of the alleged plan was advanced on Wednesday. Analysts were quick to assess it. The conclusion: the terms left Iran in a very favorable position.

The reaction from the White House was immediate: Trump published a message on Truth Social the same day qualifying CNN “hoax station” and New York Times of “decadent”. He said the ten points were a “made-up hoax” and called them “evil losers“.

Vice President JD Vance stepped forward to clear up the confusion. He explained that several drafts of the plan had been worked on and that CNN I had published the first one, but that one was not acceptable.

Las apocalyptic threatswhich forced the White House to clarify that Trump was not talking about a nuclear attackprovoked counter reactions from within the ranks of the most exacerbated conservative core.

Some of the most influential communicators of the Trumpist extreme right, the MAGA (‘Make America Great Again’) movement, criticized the president’s attitude in front of tens of millions of followers. Among them, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens y Alex Jones.

Again, Trump reacted with violence on his social network. In a very long post he attacked them with insults and disqualifications. The message has obtained more than 50,000 likes and 13,000 resubmissions, but it has also sparked numerous counter reactions.

It seems that the trumpist bloc it cracks. Unbridled threats followed by new extensions of the ultimatum do not provide an image of solidity to the strategy on the front. Trump does not like to be criticized, much less that others can discover that in his ‘religion’ he is not infallible.

How the attack was carried out

In parallel, The New York Times It revealed how the decision to attack the ayatollah regime had come about. Signed by correspondents Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman in the White Housethe text describes Trump in a very unflattering position.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahumet on the morning of February 11 at the White House with the Cabinet chaired by Trump. Their mission: present a plan that would ensure the elimination of the Iranian leadership, the annihilation of its lethal resources and regime change.

They accompanied him David Barneahead of Mossad, the Israeli secret service, and senior officers of its Army. On the American side, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio; that of Defense, Pete Hegseth; Susie WilesChief of Staff; John Ratcliffedirector of the CIA; and Dan Cainegeneral chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They were joined by President Trump and the two advisors designated for the region: his son-in-law Jared Kushner y Steve Witkoff. The vice president JD Vance He was on an official trip to Azerbaijan and could not attend.

The Israeli plan

It consisted of four phases: eliminate the regime’s leadership, destroy its nuclear and ballistic capabilities, provoke an internal uprising, and establish a favorable government. It was the right time to act: brutal repression The protests of December and January had awakened a strong popular current against the regime. The environment was conducive and there was a solid succession plan.

The Jewish leader masterfully sold the project. He only had to say the words his host wanted to hear: an operation fast and clean that would make him the only president capable of compensating the United States for the scorn caused by a clerical regime that overthrew his ally. Reza Pahlavi in 1979.

Trump’s reaction was spontaneous: the plan sounded very good. In any case, he had already committed to a second round of talks with the Iranians. It would prove their real willingness to reach an agreement.

Netanyahu convinced him that war would be a matter of hours. If anything, a few days. All that was needed was to eliminate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and destroy the missile arsenal. The regime would fall like a ripe fruit. Trump accepted it despite warnings from his Cabinet.

Objections from collaborators

The days that followed the visit, the Crisis Room Located in the West Wing of the White House, it was very crowded. Military and intelligence officers met to analyze the proposal.

The most direct collaborators tried to moderate the initial enthusiasm. According to the general Cainethe Israelis had exaggerated the simplicity of the operation.

The first two phases were feasible, but required a lot of resources. He feared that a prolonged war weaken reserves of weapons and ammunition.

The biggest concern was the possible blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. Also the reprisals against the Gulf allies. In the meeting with the Israeli delegation he had expressed his reservations, but Netanyahu declared that the probability of that happening was minuscule.

The plan’s other goals seemed out of reach. In fact, the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe described the operation as “pantomime“. Sources consulted by the researchers indicate that Marco Rubio It was more explicit. “In other words, the plan is a ‘bullshit‘”, said.

The Secretary of State did not believe that the Iranians would reach an agreement, but he was in favor of reinforcing pressure measures on the regime rather than unleashing an dangerous conflict for the region.

The only one who encouraged Trump to accept the plan was the Secretary of Defense. Pete Hegseth argued that sooner or later they would have to face a conflict with Iran. He was a supporter of a lightning action and had full confidence in its military capabilities to achieve its intended objectives.

The vice president opposed

JD Vance He was the only member of the Cabinet who openly opposed military intervention. After returning from his trip, he commented that he saw it as a “huge distraction of resources” and “an exaggerated expense.”

He also feared the effect on public opinion months before the midterm elections. He was confident in the outcome of the negotiations and, like Caine, feared the possible effects on Hormuz and against his Gulf allies.

Trump listened carefully to his collaborators, but an internal voice told him that it was an opportunity that he should not miss. The joint attacks on nuclear facilities in June had ended successfully and without consequences. He success of the operation in Venezuela He made everything look easy.

a hunch

Analysts are considering the possibility that the president felt he had a personal debt pending settlement with the Iranians. The FBI encouraged the theory that Khamenei had ordered his execution, although evidence of this was never published.

Since Netanyahu’s visit, the option of a very forceful lightning attack was the president’s favorite. He New York Times He says that days before the intervention he spoke on the phone with his then friend Tucker Carlsonformer host of Fox News.

Tucker is an ardent supporter of non-interventionism and tried to convince Trump not to start a war. The president reassured him: “I know you’re worried, but everything is going to be okay,” he said. “Why do I know? Because it’s always like that,” he added.

El 17 de febrero se inició en Ginebra la segunda ronda de negociaciones entre Irán y EEUU. Kushner y Witkoff representaban a Washington. Tras la primera reunión, comunicaron a la Casa Blanca que la delegación iraní estaba dando largas.

Reportaron que sería difícil llegar a un acuerdo en breve. Sospechaban que se tardarían meses en conseguir un mínimo avance.

Entre tanto, la CIA y el Mossad compartieron información que situaba al líder supremo Jameneí y un número considerable de oficiales del Gobierno y la Guardia Revolucionaria en una reunión a plena luz del día y al alcance de los misiles aire-tierra. Era una oportunidad irrepetible de descabezar al régimen.

La decisión final

Era entonces, o nunca. El 26 de febrero, se celebró una nueva reunión en la Sala de Crisis de la Casa Blanca. Hegseth y Caine expusieron los planes de ataque.

Trump dijo que antes de tomar la decisión quería oír la opinión de cada uno de los colaboradores. El primero en manifestarse fue el vicepresidente Vance. Declaró que seguía creyendo que era mala idea, pero si el mandatario decidía ir adelante con el ataque, lo acataría.

El resto de los participantes se mostraron abiertamente favorables a la intervención o se abstuvieron de opinar, pero todos declararon su apoyo.

El único comentario destacable fue el de Marco Rubio. No estaba en contra de la acción, pero puntualizó: si el objetivo era anular la capacidad militar de Irán, deberían hacerlo. Si se trataba de provocar un levantamiento para derrocar al régimen, debían abstenerse.

Trump dijo que pensaba que necesitaban hacerlo. Había que destruir la capacidad iraní de fabricar armas nucleares e impedir que pudieran utilizar misiles balísticos contra sus vecinos del Golfo.

El general Caine le dijo que todavía tenía hasta las 16h de la tarde siguiente para dar la orden. El 28 de febrero, 22 minutos antes del límite indicado por el militar, desde el Air Force One se enviaba la siguiente orden : “Se aprueba la operación ‘Furia Épica’. No hay vuelta atrás. Buena suerte”.

Las claves detrás de la guerra

La primera consideración es la habilidad del primer ministro Netanyahu para vender su plan. Se centró en destacar los argumentos que eran de peso para la persona que debía tomar la decisión, aunque no convencieran a sus colaboradores: una acción limpia que le aseguraba un puesto en la historia.

El 4 de marzo, pocos días después del ataque conjunto sobre Irán, la cadena Fox News entrevistó a Benjamín Netanyahu. El presentador Sean Hannity preguntó al primer ministro si había arrastrado a Trump a la guerra.

El líder israelí sonrió durante casi seis segundos para responder que eso era ridículo. “Donald Trump es el líder más fuerte del mundo”, aseguró. Añadió que “hace lo que cree que es correcto para su país”. Pero su lenguaje corporal no sostenía su declaración.

Initially, the team rejected the idea. They raised serious objections, but Trump surpassed them with a simplistic but effective postulate: killing Iranian leaders and destroying war capabilities were in self-interest. The question of regime change was up to the Israelis.

The only one who opposed it from the beginning was Vice President JD Vance. From the first moment he highlighted the possible consequences and he remained firm in his position, even when it was evident that his leader intended to press on.

The rest of the team members expressed their doubts with more or less emphasis, but folded at the end to the interests of his boss. Personal objections dissipated as soon as his will was revealed.

The decision was not based on a deep analysis of the situation based on intelligence information or military strategy. Nor in a consensus of specialists supported by experience. It was, once again, a hunch of the president who dragged his Cabinet without resistance.

The essential argument was that it would be a lightning action similar to the intervention in Venezuela. With the supreme leader and military power removed, the Iranian people would rise up and proclaim victory. Trump would have been the champion of a new historic victory.

The TRUE It couldn’t be other than what Trump wanted it to be.