Advisers Urged Restraint as Trump Weighed Iran Strike, Exposing Deep Divisions Over War Powers

WASHINGTON — As tensions with Iran escalated in recent weeks, President Donald J. T̄R̄UMP came close to authorizing a military strike that could have dramatically widened an already volatile regional standoff, according to several officials familiar with internal deliberations.

But in a striking episode that underscores both the fragility of Mr. T̄R̄UMP’s national security apparatus and the shifting balance of power in Washington, two of his closest advisers — Jared Kushner and Steve Witoff — intervened behind the scenes to press for restraint. Their arguments, officials said, ultimately persuaded the president to stand down.

The aborted strike has not been publicly acknowledged by the White House. Yet interviews with administration officials, congressional aides and foreign policy analysts depict a moment of high-stakes decision-making that revealed deep fractures inside the administration and growing constraints on presidential war-making authority.

At issue was whether to respond militarily to a series of provocations attributed to Iranian-backed actors. Hawks within the administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, were said to be prepared to support a forceful response intended to reestablish deterrence.

According to two officials briefed on the discussions, preliminary military options were presented to the president. The atmosphere in the Situation Room was tense, one official said, with advisers debating the risks of escalation against the costs of inaction.

Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witoff, however, urged caution. They relayed what they described as back-channel communications indicating that Tehran had signaled a willingness to de-escalate, including a halt to certain punitive actions against domestic protesters. They argued that a strike at that moment could derail fragile diplomatic signals and risk triggering a broader regional conflict.

More pointedly, they warned of the domestic political consequences. Mr. T̄R̄UMP’s relationship with Congress over the use of military force has deteriorated in recent months, particularly after lawmakers from both parties advanced measures aimed at reasserting congressional authority over war powers following a controversial U.S. operation in Venezuela. In that case, critics accused the president of acting without adequate consultation or authorization.

“If this goes badly, you will be alone,” one official paraphrased the argument made to the president. “There will be no political cover.”

The intervention appears to have been decisive. The president chose not to proceed with the strike. But officials say he was angered by what he viewed as internal resistance at a moment when he believed American credibility was on the line.

The episode highlights a central tension in Mr. T̄R̄UMP’s second term: the push and pull between a president inclined toward displays of force and a governing structure increasingly defined by institutional checks and internal counterweights.

On paper, the president retains broad authority as commander in chief. In practice, that authority is shaped by advisers who control information flows, frame strategic options and anticipate political fallout. The Iran deliberations illustrate how influence can operate not through formal veto power but through persuasion and risk calculation.

“It’s a reminder that presidents are rarely acting in a vacuum,” said Elizabeth Saunders, a foreign policy scholar at Columbia University. “Advisers matter enormously, especially when they can connect strategic decisions to domestic political consequences.”

The domestic context has been unusually fraught. In recent weeks, Congress has advanced bipartisan efforts to limit unilateral presidential military action. Lawmakers cite concerns about executive overreach and the need to prevent entanglement in new conflicts without explicit authorization.

Republican unease has been particularly notable. After the Venezuela episode, several GOP senators publicly criticized the administration’s approach and supported measures requiring consultation before additional deployments. Some privately expressed frustration with what they described as an unpredictable decision-making process.

That backdrop shaped the Iran debate. Even officials who supported a tougher posture acknowledged that the president’s room for maneuver had narrowed.

“The strategic question was intertwined with the political one,” said a former senior Pentagon official. “Could the administration sustain the consequences of escalation — diplomatically, militarily and domestically?”

Within the administration, the deliberations also exposed an enduring divide between hardliners who argue that visible force deters adversaries and pragmatists who fear that miscalculation could spiral into war.

Mr. Vance and Mr. Rubio have generally supported assertive responses to Iranian actions, reflecting a belief that hesitation emboldens adversaries. Their allies argue that failing to respond risks undermining deterrence and projecting weakness.

By contrast, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witoff have emphasized negotiation and risk containment. Both men, though not traditional national security figures, have wielded considerable influence with the president. Their critics contend that back-channel diplomacy can blur lines of accountability; their supporters say it creates flexibility when formal channels stall.

The president himself has oscillated between the two camps. He has long expressed skepticism of prolonged military engagements while simultaneously favoring bold, high-visibility actions intended to demonstrate strength.

“Mr. T̄R̄UMP’s instincts are not easily categorized,” said Kori Schake, a former National Security Council official. “He dislikes being boxed in. But he also responds to arguments about personal and political exposure.”

That dynamic raises questions about how future crises may unfold. Some analysts worry that a president who feels constrained — by Congress or by advisers — may become more inclined to assert authority abruptly, particularly if he perceives that his leadership is being challenged.

Others view the episode as evidence that guardrails remain intact. “This is what deliberation looks like,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia and a longtime advocate of congressional war powers. “Advisers present arguments, Congress asserts its role, and the president ultimately decides. The fact that he chose restraint suggests the system is functioning.”

Still, uncertainty lingers. The White House has declined to comment on the reported deliberations, and it remains unclear whether the diplomatic signals cited by Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witoff represent a durable shift in Iranian behavior.

For Iran, the episode offers a window into Washington’s internal calculations. Analysts caution that adversaries may interpret visible domestic constraints as signs of division, potentially testing boundaries further.

At the same time, open debate within an administration can signal prudence rather than weakness. “There’s a difference between unpredictability and flexibility,” said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution. “The question is whether allies and adversaries can distinguish between the two.”

For Mr. T̄R̄UMP, the aborted strike may prove consequential beyond the immediate crisis. It underscores the evolving reality of his presidency: formidable authority tempered by institutional pushback and competing counsel.

The next confrontation — whether involving Iran or another flash point — will test whether this episode was an anomaly or a harbinger. Will the president embrace constraints as part of strategic discipline? Or will frustration with internal and external limits prompt a more unilateral approach?

In Washington, where power is rarely absolute and decisions reverberate far beyond the moment, the answers may shape not only the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy but also the balance between executive action and democratic oversight in an era of renewed global tension.