Trump Says No to Netanyahu’s Iran Strike Plan – The Untold Story Behind a Global Flashpoint

Paromita Das
New Delhi, 19th June:  A Chilling Proposal Behind Closed Doors

In an astonishing behind-the-scenes revelation, former U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly rebuffed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s covert plan to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This bold request emerged in the heat of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion—an aggressive campaign that struck deep into Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure. Far from routine strategic maneuvers, the operation hinted at a broader ambition: dismantling not just Iran’s military capabilities, but its clerical leadership at the highest level.

Netanyahu’s proposal to kill Khamenei was no ordinary military tactic. It represented a dramatic escalation—a deliberate attempt to decapitate the leadership of a sovereign nation. But when this plan reached the ears of Trump, the former president is said to have dismissed it with a terse but clear judgment: “Not a good idea.” His decision, according to CBS News citing three senior U.S. officials, was final. Trump, known for his hawkish stance on Iran, showed unexpected caution. The reason behind his refusal may lie in a deep understanding of the geopolitical shockwaves such an act could have triggered.

The Erosion of the Begin Doctrine

This episode reveals a shift not just in tactics, but in ideology. Historically, Israel adhered to what was known as the Begin Doctrine—named after Prime Minister Menachem Begin—which justified preemptive strikes against nuclear threats in neighboring states. This policy was evident in past operations like the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the 2007 strike on Syria’s nuclear site. However, Netanyahu’s strategy has pushed well beyond this precedent.

Rather than focusing strictly on infrastructure, Netanyahu now targets the very ideology and leadership of Iran. His justification is striking: eliminating Khamenei, he claims, would bring a swifter end to the decades-long enmity between Israel and Iran. In public video messages directed to the Iranian people, Netanyahu has intensified psychological pressure, urging them to rise up and free themselves from clerical rule. He has painted a future in which peace between Israel and Iran is possible—if only the regime falls.

Iran’s Countermoves and a Nation on Edge

In response to the heightened threat level, reports suggest that Khamenei and his family have been relocated to a fortified underground facility. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has assumed direct control over his security, while Khamenei himself is said to be personally overseeing military preparations. These steps underscore the seriousness with which Iran views the threat—not merely as bluster, but as a real and present danger.

The current moment is one of the most perilous for Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. That movement ended the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and brought the clerical regime to power. Since then, Khamenei, who succeeded the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini, has ruled for more than thirty years. Despite internal unrest and international pressure, the regime has remained remarkably resilient.

Why Iran’s Opposition Remains Fragmented

Many in the West hope that an internal revolution might rise from within. But the reality is more complex. Iran’s opposition forces are splintered and weakened. The People’s Mujahideen of Iran (MEK), once a formidable force, lost domestic legitimacy after siding with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Exiled and unpopular at home, it now operates mainly from Albania.

The Green Movement, which briefly ignited Iran’s youth and civil society in 2009, lost momentum and remains mostly dormant. Its leaders are still under house arrest, their calls for reform fading into memory. Monarchists, led by exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, advocate for a return to secular monarchy, yet lack tangible grassroots support inside Iran. Even Pahlavi himself has warned that foreign military intervention might backfire—uniting Iranians around the regime rather than dismantling it.

The Specter of Another Middle East War

Analysts are deeply skeptical about the feasibility of forced regime change. Dr. Zakir Hussein, a renowned expert in Middle Eastern affairs, argues that dismantling Iran’s deeply rooted clerical system would require nothing short of a full-scale invasion. He estimates that it would take at least 200,000 U.S. troops on the ground for a period of five years—comparable to the Iraq War.

Such a commitment would not only be politically unsustainable in the United States but strategically reckless, especially at a time when global power dynamics are rapidly shifting. The U.S. must now navigate an increasingly multipolar world, with China, India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia asserting their independence and influence. China’s rise, in particular, poses a strategic challenge that Washington cannot afford to ignore. In this context, being drawn into another Middle Eastern quagmire would be a catastrophic distraction.

A Strategic Pause or a Missed Opportunity?

Trump’s rejection of Netanyahu’s assassination plan could be interpreted in multiple ways. Critics might say he missed a golden opportunity to eliminate the ideological core of Iran’s regime. But others would argue that this decision reflects rare prudence—an understanding that assassination could lead to unintended consequences far graver than the problem it was meant to solve.

While Netanyahu continues to push forward with a strategy combining military strikes, public appeals, and psychological warfare, the ultimate success of such a campaign remains uncertain. The lack of a clear successor to Khamenei, combined with the absence of a cohesive internal opposition, means that removing one man—even one as powerful as Iran’s Supreme Leader—would not necessarily change the system.

The Limits of Force in a Changing World

In the end, this dramatic episode reveals more about the limits of military power than its possibilities. Netanyahu’s plan was bold, even cinematic. But without American backing, without a viable alternative inside Iran, and without a clear understanding of what would follow, it was ultimately a gamble too great—even for Trump.

The Iranian regime has proven that it can survive war, sanctions, and isolation. Regime change, as history teaches us, is rarely clean or quick. Unless Israel and its allies can find a way to support an organic, internal transformation within Iran, the dream of a “free Iran” will remain just that—a dream.