Did the United States know the attack of Israel all the time?

Foreign diplomats mixed in an event in Tehran this week with a little urgency, waving away when there was a position of the United States to withdraw some unnecessary individuals from the Middle East.

Iran and the United States The crisis of nuclear talks was scheduled to hold on Sunday, and Washington was exposed, not only the consensus among diplomats, but at the summit of the western companies in the region.

Less than 30 hours later, Israel struck, Air strikes That struck nuclear sites and the main military facilities of Iran, killing the four best leaders.

It was not the American evacuation that seemed to be a hoax, as it became clear now, but the idea that the Trump administration was preparing for more conversations – a device to attract Tehran into a false sense of safety, and to reduce it in the latest deadly attack by Israel.

It seems that the trick has succeeded. One of the Arab diplomat and a Western diplomat told the Financial Times that they believe Withdrawing American employees It was a trick for the financial leverage in the talks.

Their hypothesis – which was shared by Iranian politicians, businessmen and foreign diplomats months ago Donald Trump Often it has been continuing, the United States will withdraw its ally Israel from any attack.

Many of these people believed that it would not be until July or August, as soon as possible, that the conversations would work their path. There were suggestions in Washington that Trump’s relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu TenseAnd that the United States was losing its patience with the Israeli Prime Minister.

Now, since the Israeli attack brings a new eruption of the war in the Middle East wearing the war, the United States finds itself involved in another regional conflict-the type of war that Trump pledges to remove his country.

On Friday, with Iran’s revenge by launching a barrage of missiles in Israel, US officials told FT that the United States is helping its old ally to shoot down missiles.

How much is the US participation all the time?

Aaron David Miller, a former US State Department negotiator in the Middle East in Carnegie International Peace, said: “Washington knew” this was coming, and they helped maintain this imagination that there would be a meeting “on Sunday between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragshi and Steve Witkev, Trump’s envoy.

“Therefore, they collaborated with the Israelis in the trick, and it clearly succeeded.”

Even when Israel was attacking Iran, the United States was not ready publicly. Foreign Minister Marco Rubio confirmed that it was a “unilateral” action that Israel took, and that the United States “did not participate.”

It was missing from his statement, the typical American focus on his “IronClad” support for his ally.

Hours later, both Netanyahu and Trump admitted that the United States had been aware of the plans.

“It was not the case. It was not,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Friday.

A major change in his tone was his comments to the American media on Thursday, where he told reporters that in an attack by Israel, the talks may “blow” the talks. “It may help it, in fact,” added. “But she can give her too.”

Perhaps that is part of the deception.

Miller suggested that the Israeli overthrowing strategy – its deadly attacks against the upper copper of the Iranian military leadership – was among the reasons that were preserved from the complex trick.

“The Israeli Prime Minister did not dare do this if he got” no “from Trump.”

“It is just fair to wonder whether the Americans are part of a advanced deception campaign all the time,” said Emile Hookim, Director of Regional Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Hakim said that Trump loves decisive military power, so he may demand credit to attack Israel.

“But Netanyahu is likely to be registered in his own plan.”

Some people have speculated that Trump was circulating during a trip at the end of last week to Camp David, the presidential decline in Maryland.

A person familiar with the situation said that Israel’s final preparations for strikes came on Monday and that the Trump administration was informed of the plan and did not cause any objection.

The person said, “The United States knew all the time.”

In a televised speech on Friday, Netanyahu said that Israel had told the United States about imminent attacks “through many meetings.”

“American support – or at least does not oppose America – is something we want a lot,” he said.

On the social truth platform, Trump also hinted that he knows what Israel will do after that. “There was already a great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this massacre, with the upcoming attacks that were already planned more brutal, ending.”

Even when the president publicly pushed a diplomatic solution, “Israel is likely to have come to Trump … and said that Iran is taking steps to shorten the penetration and weapons.”

“The classic yellow light” – not “hell no,” added, but not support too.

“I don’t think this is the case for weeks or months … Trump was only pretending to go to get rid of the Iranians in the event of identification,” said Phil Gordon, who was a national security adviser to former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Other foreign policy experts in the Middle East said that the theory of resourcefulness would have been very complicated for a minor leader in the operational details.

“He is not a detailed man,” said Elliot Abrams, the US special actor for Iran and Venezuela during the first Trump administration. This was a position, “You don’t want to know in advance when and what.”

He pointed out that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, kept the United States in the dark around other operations.

And if the conflict between Israel and Iran turns into a greater conflict, the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu can fade again.

While the two now appear closer than they had a few days ago, analysts warned that this may not last.

Susan Malone, a former foreign ministry advisor at the Brukinsian Foundation, said that the relationship could fade again if the United States was dragged into a wider war, “Something that President Trump carried during his political career.”

Gordon said of Trump: “We have seen him heating and cold to people over time,” Gordon said.

John Aterman, a former foreign ministry official at the Center for Strategic and International Thought Studies, said Trump was also more comfortable with uncertainty than other world leaders, and more willing to take geopolitical events upon their arrival.

Trump’s “secret weapon” was that while other leaders were seeking certainty, he was “ready to deal with mystery, with uncertainty, with risk.”

Participated in additional reports by Raya Galabi in Beirut, Dimitri Sevastopolo in Washington and Andrew England, London