US considers joining Israeli strikes on Iran as Ayatollah Khamenei becomes focal point

On June 17, 2025, United States President Donald Trump convened a high-stakes National Security Council meeting in the White House Situation Room to address escalating military hostilities between Israel and Iran. The closed-door session, which lasted roughly 80 minutes, focused on evaluating whether the United States should participate directly in Israel’s ongoing strikes on Tehran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. While no decision has been announced, senior Israeli officials indicated that they are awaiting Trump’s green light for joint operations—raising global concerns over a possible multi-front war in the Middle East.

What options did Trump discuss with his security team regarding a potential strike on Iran?

The White House confirmed that the June 17 National Security Council meeting was focused on the Israeli–Iranian conflict but declined to disclose specifics. However, reports from NBC News and CNN citing officials close to the administration suggest President Trump is reviewing military strike options. Present at the meeting were key national security figures including Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

According to those briefed, the proposals ranged from conventional airstrikes on Iranian missile sites to more targeted kinetic operations involving stealth bombers and long-range precision munitions. No formal order has been issued, but the operational posture of U.S. forces in the region has changed significantly. A second carrier strike group has been deployed to the Arabian Sea, and additional destroyers have entered the eastern Mediterranean.

How has Trump’s stance on Iran changed and what historical context informs this moment?

Trump’s posture toward Iran has shifted since reinstating his “maximum pressure” strategy in early 2025, which reimposed oil and banking sanctions that crippled Iran’s economy. This came after indirect nuclear negotiations in Oman collapsed in June. For the first time since 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared Iran non-compliant, citing uranium enrichment exceeding civilian levels.

Trump has made increasingly aggressive statements, recently asserting that the United States has “complete and total control” over Iranian airspace. He also revealed that he knows the exact location of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but has chosen not to target him “for now.” His demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” has alarmed diplomats and regional analysts alike, suggesting an ideological escalation beyond military objectives.

What diplomatic tensions are emerging globally in response to Trump’s next move?

The potential for U.S. entry into Israel’s military campaign has drawn a polarized international response. G7 nations have expressed support for Israel’s right to self-defense but are urging Washington to act with restraint. Russia, China, and Turkey have condemned Israeli actions and warned the U.S. against escalation.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Secretary-General has appealed for calm, and the IAEA has cautioned against any strikes near nuclear sites. Iran’s foreign ministry called the White House’s posture a “violation of international law,” while Israeli sources insist they are preparing for a protracted campaign regardless of U.S. participation.

What support systems has the United States put in place for citizens in the region?

To safeguard Americans caught in the region, the U.S. State Department has activated a 24-hour Middle East Task Force. Spokesperson Tammy Bruce confirmed that the unit has issued over 30 region-specific security alerts and updated travel advisories for Iraq and Israel. U.S. embassies in Amman, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi are reportedly coordinating evacuations and emergency contacts.

Bruce said the task force is tasked with keeping U.S. nationals, diplomatic personnel, and consular staff informed amid “rapidly evolving security developments.” The Department is also in active touch with allied embassies for intelligence coordination and shared airlift capacity.

What is the risk of Iranian retaliation if the United States launches a military strike?

U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran could retaliate directly if American forces join Israel’s campaign. Possible Iranian responses include missile attacks on U.S. bases in Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq, as well as cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure. While no such actions have materialized yet, missile activity in Iran’s western regions has reportedly increased, according to Defense Department sources.

In the past 72 hours, Israeli strikes under Operation Rising Lion have targeted Iran’s Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites, prompting threats of retaliation from Tehran. Iranian state media broadcast footage of missile readiness drills and warned that “any involvement from the United States would unleash a regional firestorm.”

How are oil markets and financial institutions responding to the escalating conflict?

Global markets have begun pricing in the risk of a prolonged Middle East confrontation. On June 17, Brent crude prices surged 4.3% to cross $93 per barrel, marking a three-month high. Traders cite concerns over supply disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes.

Meanwhile, U.S. equity futures dipped as investors brace for a Federal Reserve decision on interest rates later this week. Analysts at JPMorgan and Barclays warned that any direct U.S. military action could trigger an inflationary spike and lead to volatility in global equities, particularly in energy and defense stocks.

What are the strategic concerns among institutional voices and think tanks in Washington?

Institutional sentiment is fractured. Some hawkish think tanks, including the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, advocate for “decisive deterrent action” against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In contrast, voices at the Atlantic Council and Brookings Institution caution against entering what could become an unmanageable regional war.

A policy memo circulating in Congress this week urges the Biden–Trump continuity government to seek legislative approval before initiating hostilities. The memo, backed by centrist senators, argues that Trump’s statements could inadvertently escalate the crisis if not clearly linked to congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution.

What happens next and how might Trump’s decision affect global and domestic dynamics?

With the Middle East Task Force activated, intelligence flights ongoing, and Israeli requests intensifying, Trump is approaching a turning point. His decision could have sweeping ramifications—ranging from military entanglement and energy market volatility to diplomatic realignment with NATO and G7 allies.

Domestically, Trump faces pressure from within his own coalition. MAGA-aligned lawmakers and commentators such as Tucker Carlson are urging restraint, warning that voters did not elect Trump to fight another Middle Eastern war. At the same time, Republican defense hawks see this as an opportunity to neutralize Iran’s nuclear progress once and for all.

For now, the world waits—diplomats on edge, citizens under alert, and markets in suspense—as Washington deliberates whether to remain a superpower in name or action.