‘We fight or we die’: How days of frantic diplomacy and dire warnings culminated with Israel’s attack on Iran

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Israel Launches Military Strikes on Iran Following Diplomatic Ultimatum from Trump"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.8
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

In the spring of this year, President Donald Trump issued an ultimatum to Iran’s Supreme Leader, demanding the country strike a nuclear deal within 60 days or face dire consequences. Despite Trump's public insistence on pursuing diplomacy, Israel was privately making preparations for a military strike against Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conveyed to a group of visiting House lawmakers that Israel had resolved to attack Iran regardless of U.S. approval, emphasizing the existential threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. On the 61st day following Trump’s ultimatum, Israel executed a significant military operation targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and military leadership. This operation was not a spontaneous decision but rather the culmination of years of planning and coordination between Israeli and U.S. officials, who were aware of the impending strike and had been rallying international pressure on Iran even as negotiations continued until the last possible moment. Netanyahu described the attack as a necessary measure to ensure Israel's survival against what he deemed an imminent threat from Iran.

The backdrop to this military action was a complex interplay of diplomatic efforts and escalating tensions. The Trump administration had sought to renegotiate a nuclear deal after withdrawing from the previous agreement in 2018, but Iran had continued advancing its nuclear program. As negotiations unfolded, Israeli intelligence, particularly from the Mossad, had been actively gathering information and positioning resources to carry out an attack if necessary. The strikes on Iran were characterized as a "full-spectrum blitz," significantly damaging Iran's nuclear capabilities. In response, Iran initiated counterattacks against Israeli military targets, escalating the risk of broader conflict in the region. The U.S. government, while distancing itself from the strikes, was closely monitoring Iran's actions, recognizing the potential for retaliation that could involve U.S. interests in the Middle East. The situation remains precarious, with ongoing concerns about how Iran might respond, including possible cyberattacks against U.S. infrastructure as tensions continue to heighten.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a complex narrative surrounding the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, particularly in the context of diplomatic negotiations and military actions. The backdrop of this situation involves former President Donald Trump's ultimatum to Iran, which serves as a crucial turning point leading to Israel's decision to launch strikes against Iran.

Diplomatic Tensions and Military Decisions

The piece underscores the intricate balance of diplomacy and military strategy. Trump's ultimatum aimed to create a window for negotiation, but it reveals the underlying urgency felt by Israel regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities. The language used by Netanyahu, stating “We fight or we die,” emphasizes the existential threat perceived by Israel. This framing may serve to justify military action in the eyes of both the Israeli public and international observers.

Perception Management

There appears to be a deliberate attempt to shape public perception regarding the necessity and inevitability of military action. By highlighting Israel's determination and advanced planning, the article conveys a sense of urgency and moral justification for the strikes. The emphasis on Trump’s deadline being “not a bluff” further seeks to legitimize the attack as a necessary response rather than an impulsive decision.

Information Control

The article does not explicitly mention any alternative perspectives or the potential ramifications of a military strike, which could suggest an effort to control the narrative. This omission may aim to suppress dissenting views that advocate for continued diplomatic engagements or highlight the risks associated with military actions.

Manipulative Elements

The news report has a significant degree of manipulative language, especially in its portrayal of the Israeli perspective as one of survival. This approach can evoke strong emotions and rally support for military interventions, aligning public sentiment with government actions. The framing of the issue as a binary choice—fight or die—leads to a simplification of a complex geopolitical situation.

Comparative Context

In comparison to other reports on similar geopolitical tensions, this article leans heavily toward justifying military action. It lacks a balanced view that incorporates the potential consequences of such actions on regional stability and international relations. The focus on the immediacy of the threat posed by Iran aligns with narratives prevalent in certain political circles that advocate for a hardline stance.

Potential Consequences

The implications of this news story could resonate through multiple domains, including public opinion, international diplomacy, and stock markets. As tensions escalate, investors may react by shifting their portfolios away from sectors vulnerable to geopolitical instability, impacting oil prices and defense stocks in particular.

Target Audience

The article seems to resonate more with audiences that support a strong military stance against perceived threats, especially among pro-Israel advocates and hardline political factions. It aims to reinforce the belief in the necessity of preemptive action and could galvanize support for military funding and strategic alliances.

Global Power Dynamics

This incident has significant ramifications for global power dynamics, especially concerning U.S.-Middle East relations. It echoes current discussions around military readiness and international diplomatic efforts concerning nuclear proliferation, making it highly relevant to today's geopolitical landscape.

Use of AI in News

While it is unclear if AI was directly used in crafting this article, its structured presentation and emphasis on particular narratives suggest possible influence from algorithms designed to optimize engagement. If AI were involved, it might have shaped the article's tone and focus to align with reader preferences or prevailing media trends.

Final Thoughts

Overall, while the article contains elements of factual reporting, its framing and language suggest a degree of manipulation aimed at justifying military action against Iran. This could potentially skew public understanding of the situation, emphasizing urgency and threat over diplomatic solutions.

Unanalyzed Article Content

President Donald Trump issued an ultimatum this spring to Iran’s Supreme Leader: Strike a nuclear deal in 60 days, by mid-June, or face consequences. He urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on attacking Iran to give the negotiations space to progress. But even as Trump administration figures were publicly projecting determination to pursue a diplomatic solution, Israel was privately warning the US that it had already decided to attack. Late last month, a small group of House lawmakers visited Netanyahu in Jerusalem, where he stated firmly that Israel was going to strike Iran – and they were not seeking permission from the US to do so, according to a person who attended the meeting and another person briefed on it. “We fight or we die,” Netanyahu told the lawmakers, according to the people. In response, two of the lawmakers in attendance May 26, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas and Rep. Michael Lawler of New York, urged Israel to coordinate with the US and stressed that the country must let Trump’s 60-day ultimatum for Iran run its course. On Friday, day 61, Israel launched unprecedented strikes on Iran, targeting its nuclear program and military leaders. “This didn’t just happen overnight,” the attendee told CNN, adding that Trump’s 60-day deadline “was not a bluff.” Trump made a similar point to CNN Friday. “Iran should have listened to me when I said — you know, I gave them, I don’t know if you know but I gave them a 60-day warning and today is day 61,” he said. The attack was much longer in the making – the result of years of meticulous planning by Israel and days of high-stakes talks between Tel Aviv and Washington, according to officials CNN spoke to in both countries. It has long been a priority for Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, which Netanyahu described Friday as a “threat to Israel’s very survival.” The Trump administration knew in advance it was coming and that Netanyahu was unlikely to be dissuaded, with the US rallying international pressure on Iran even as diplomats sought to keep negotiations alive to the last minute. An Iran deal Trump has long fashioned himself a dealmaker and, after pulling the US out of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal in 2018, made clear at the beginning of his second term that he would like to find a new diplomatic solution with Iran. But in the intervening years, Iran had made significant strides toward obtaining a nuclear weapon. The president and top officials had asserted Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon – but it was unclear whether they would allow Iran to enrich uranium, which hawks in the US and Israel strongly opposed, or how any deal would be different from the Obama agreement. Israel, meanwhile, was watching Iran’s enrichment efforts with heightened concern and making meticulous plans for an attack. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad put spies on the ground inside Iran and smuggled weapons into the country, according to Israeli security officials, and would use the weapons to target Iran’s defense from within. The officials said Israel also established a base for launching explosive drones inside Iran. Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz on Friday said the strikes’ timing was aimed at both thwarting Iran’s capabilities and removing the threat of destruction from Israel. “We are at a key point where, if we miss it, we will have no way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons that will threaten our existence,” he said. “We have dealt with Iran’s proxies over the past year and a half, but now we are dealing with the head of the snake itself.” Trump had long warned of potential military strikes if a new nuclear deal wasn’t reached, and Tehran, in turn, said that any attack on it would drag the US into a broader Middle Eastern conflict. Negotiations on a new deal, led by special presidential envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and moderated by Oman, began in April. The group last met for talks on May 23 in Rome – three days before Netanyahu told US lawmakers he planned to strike – with a sixth round initially scheduled for Sunday in Muscat. On Thursday, hours before the Israeli strikes began, the International Atomic Energy Agency board, a United Nations nuclear watchdog, met and adopted a resolution declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. The resolution ultimately passed with 19 nations voting in favor, three against, and 11 abstentions, according to Reuters. Two days earlier, the US sent a demarche to eight countries that it viewed as potentially persuadable, urging them to either vote with the US on the IAEA vote or not vote at all, according to a US official. The move marked a major engagement from the US on the issue, which Israel pointed to as one of its rationales for its strikes. Still, White House officials continue to argue after the strikes that the president is committed to salvaging the ongoing nuclear talks. Witkoff is “ready” to meet Iranian officials when they are, whether it be in Oman on Sunday as previously scheduled or at some date thereafter, according to a source familiar with discussions. Trump suggested Friday that Iranian officials had been in touch with him as he continued to express optimism about a deal. “They may have another opportunity. We’ll see,” Trump said. “They’re calling me to speak,” Trump said in an interview with NBC News. Asked who was calling, he said, “The same people we worked with the last time … Many of them are dead now.” Israel plans The US had a relatively clear picture of the scope of the Israeli operation as early as last week, when some intelligence officials were already receiving multiple updates daily and were planning for different contingencies depending on how Iran responded, according to one source with direct knowledge of that planning. Although Israel minimized what it shared with the Trump administration, that source said the US understood the targets and order of operations – even if the extent of the damage to Iran, including losses to its leadership, and the question of how Iran would respond remained unknown. On Sunday evening and Monday, Trump and top advisers, including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, huddled at Camp David for previously scheduled meetings on a number of foreign policy issues. Among the topics of discussion at the retreat: how to get an Iran nuclear deal done without an escalation. And the clock was ticking. That same weekend Witkoff engaged in direct messaging with his Iranian counterpart in the talks, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, according to a source familiar with the matter. Early in the week Witkoff also reached out to the Omani intermediaries with a new idea for a possible deal framework, according to a source familiar with the matter. The initial proposal from the US tabled during the 5th round of talks in Rome – which Iran was privately opposed to – was changing. It was unclear what prompted the proposal of a new concept, but by Friday, some people involved in the talks began to think that it was a stalling tactic by Witkoff. But a senior administration official said no stalling tactics were used, with Witkoff working “from the outset to reach a deal under the timeline set by President Trump.” Before he departed Camp David, the president and Netanyahu spoke by phone to discuss Iran. During their call, Trump asked Netanyahu to stop talking about an attack on Iran, a source familiar with the conversation said, and halt the leaks and reports about plans. After the call, the president cast some doubt on prospects nuclear talks would bear fruit. “We’re trying to make a deal so that there’s no destruction and death. And we’ve told him (Netanyahu) that, and I’ve told him that. I hope that’s the way it works out, but it might not work out that way. We’ll soon find out,” Trump told reporters. In a podcast taped the same day, Trump acknowledged to the New York Post he was getting “less confident” about the possibility of a deal. Trump’s rhetoric was becoming less optimistic at the same time US officials were beginning to believe that Iran was not going to accept a deal with the US terms. A brewing attack Public signs that something was afoot began to emerge on Wednesday afternoon, US time, when the US State Department prepared to order the departure of non-essential personnel from the US embassy in Iraq and US consulate in Erbil, as well as nonessential personnel and family members at the US embassies in Bahrain and Kuwait, due to what sources described as increased security risks in the region. The president was aware of the decision, a White House official said at the time. Trump began to nod publicly at the possible attack, warning during an East Room event about the potential for a “massive conflict” in the Middle East that could take place “soon.” “We have a lot of American people in this area, and I said, look, we gotta tell them to get out cause something could happen – soon. And I don’t want to be the one that didn’t give any warning and missiles are flying into their buildings,” he said. Top Trump officials were instructed to call their counterparts in the region on Thursday with a message that was heavy on the need for diplomacy and emphasized that the US was not involved. They were not always successful in getting through; Tulsi Gabbard, for example, was unable to reach her Israeli counterpart. By late Thursday, it was clear to the Trump administration that Israel could not be dissuaded from launching the attacks, according to two other US officials who spoke to CNN at the time. One of the officials said the US thought it might be able to delay the operation by a matter of hours to put in place protections for its own forces in the region, but no more. Trump spoke with Netanyahu multiple times on Thursday. Trump convened a Cabinet-level meeting Thursday as the strikes took place. A carefully balanced message soon went out. “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” Rubio said in a terse statement. “Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.” ‘Full-spectrum blitz’ Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress were not surprised that Israel took the step, though some were privately taken aback by the scope. House Speaker Mike Johnson was briefed ahead of the strikes on Thursday, one person said, though there was no Gang of Eight briefing in Congress, per two congressional sources. Top lawmakers, including committee leaders, were scrambling for briefings from the administration on Thursday night and Friday. And even though US diplomats had worried about the increasing likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran, they were still surprised when it happened Thursday night. “Maybe Donald Trump knew but I don’t think the rest of us did,” one senior US diplomat told CNN. Going into the attacks, intelligence officials believed Iran would have to take stock of what they had left before retaliating, a US official said. The regime would have to assess whether it has enough left to be a credible deterrent to ensure its survival – or whether they are already on a path to being deposed. If the latter, officials expected Iran could respond with strategic strikes using what was left of their most sophisticated weapons and terror attacks using their various proxy groups in the region. Initial battle damage assessments indicate that the Israeli strikes on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility were extremely effective and went far beyond superficial damage to exterior structures, knocking out the electricity on the lower levels where the centrifuges used to enrich uranium are stored, two US officials told CNN. “This was a full-spectrum blitz,” said another source familiar with early damage assessments. By Friday night, Iran had carried out attacks on “dozens of targets, military centers and air bases,” belonging to Israel, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said in a statement. It was not clear how much more would be coming. The US is also closely monitoring events in Iraq, where there is a particular concern about the safety of US troops – not only because of the proximity to the Iranian border but also because there are a number of deeply ideological proxy militia groups loyal to Iran operating there. And although US intelligence officials believe Iran will respond to Israel directly first, they also believe it’s possible that Iran may eventually launch cyber attacks against domestic US critical infrastructure in retaliation. “The situation is pretty fluid,” a US official said Friday as Iran’s response began. “I think it’s gonna be a long night.”

Back to Home
Source: CNN