Trump tries to claim credit for Israel’s Iran attack, despite public opposition

Donald Trump, according to sources close to the White House, is navigating a delicate political and diplomatic situation as he asserts that he was fully aware of Israel’s recent large-scale airstrikes on Iran, while simultaneously maintaining that the United States had no direct role in executing or preparing the attacks.

According to online media sources, the U.S. administration’s messaging has rapidly shifted, as of Friday, June 13, 2025.

Initially, Senator Marco Rubio characterized the Israeli assault as a “unilateral action.”

But by Friday morning, Trump had taken a different stance, claiming he was informed and involved.

He framed the attack as a response to a 60-day ultimatum he had given Iran regarding its nuclear program.

“Today is day 61,” he posted on Truth Social. “I told [Iran] what to do, but they just couldn’t get there.”

Trump’s narrative paints a picture of coordinated pressure, casting himself as the diplomatic force and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the military enforcer, despite their often contentious relationship.

Although he had said publicly on Thursday that he opposed the strikes, Trump later suggested that the military action could serve as leverage to push Iran back to the negotiating table.

“They should now come to the table to make a deal before it’s too late,” he urged.

The mixed messages from the U.S., ranging from Rubio’s distancing language to the evacuation of some American personnel from the region, have prompted speculation about whether Israel acted independently.

The claim suggests the possibility to box the U.S. into supporting the strikes post facto.

Elliott Abrams, a former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy expert, suggested that Israel may have taken the initiative, gambling on Trump’s eventual approval.

“The Israelis struck and then today Trump called it ‘excellent’,” Abrams said, implying that the White House had hoped to preserve diplomatic options.

Though Israel clearly provided the U.S. with advance notice, whether the strikes were fully coordinated remains unclear.

Israeli state media suggested close collaboration, but Trump’s evolving statements raise questions about how aligned the two governments truly were.

His Thursday comments from the White House’s East Room expressed concern that an Israeli offensive could derail diplomatic efforts with Iran.

He even said he “didn’t want them going in,” and defended his decision to evacuate non-essential personnel, warning that an attack “could well happen.”

Rosemary Kelanic, Middle East director at Defense Priorities, a think tank advocating for limited U.S. intervention abroad, pointed to the late-stage evacuation.

The evacuation came just one day before the strikes, and she pointed it out as evidence of limited preparation.

“So the question for me is what did the president know and when did he know it?” she asked.

On Friday, Trump insisted to The Wall Street Journal that he was not caught off guard: “Heads-up? It wasn’t a heads-up.

“It was, we know what’s going on.”

He also hinted at additional Israeli military actions, stating that “next already planned attacks” would be “even more brutal.”

Israeli officials reportedly began briefing the press that Trump’s opposition to the strikes was merely performative and that they had received a “green light” from Washington.

Still, some analysts caution that Israel could be attempting to draw the U.S. deeper into the conflict, either strategically or by design.

Regardless of how explicitly Trump authorized the operation, it’s unlikely Israel could have mounted such a large-scale strike without U.S. awareness.

American intelligence agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, would have observed the logistical buildup, over 200 Israeli jets targeting more than 100 Iranian sites, and inferred that a major assault was imminent.

Late Thursday, U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News that missile stockpiles for Israel’s Iron Dome had been recently replenished in anticipation of a likely Iranian counterattack.

In addition, the U.S. had deployed B-52 bombers to its Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean, where B-2 stealth bombers have also been stationed since March.

Though previously used in operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen, these bombers could also be used for potential strikes on Iran.

That said, the missile resupply could also be linked to previous large-scale attacks from Iran, such as last year’s missile barrage.

Additionally, the U.S. did not target Iran’s underground Fordow uranium enrichment facility in the recent strikes.

The facility reportedly a key site still operational and central to Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

This suggests that either the operation was limited in scope or a broader campaign may follow.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook