Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

CBS: Trump Pledged to Back Israeli Strikes on Iran’s Missile Program — What It Means for the Middle East

CBS and Reuters report that during a meeting with Netanyahu, Donald Trump said he is prepared to support an Israeli operation if talks with Iran fail. We explain which options the Pentagon is considering, what technical and diplomatic obstacles stand in the way, and why this matters for regional security.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 16, 2026 · 2 min read

CBS: Trump Pledged to Back Israeli Strikes on Iran’s Missile Program — What It Means for the Middle East
Дональд Трамп та Беньямін Нетаньягу (Фото: Will Oliver / EPA)

What it's about

According to CBS News, U.S. President Donald Trump during a December meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would back Israeli strikes on Iran’s ballistic missile program if no agreement is reached between Washington and Tehran. The information is based on accounts from several unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

"If an agreement between Washington and Tehran cannot be reached, I will support Israel's strikes on Iran's missile program"

— CBS News (citing unnamed officials)

What the Pentagon is discussing

U.S. military and intelligence are holding internal consultations on possible forms of support: from aerial refueling for Israeli aircraft to arranging flight routes through the airspace of third countries. At the same time, a number of states — Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — have publicly said they will not allow the use of their skies for strikes on Iran.

In parallel, the U.S. military presence in the region is being reinforced: reports mention the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East. According to sources and Reuters, U.S. forces are also preparing for scenarios that could require prolonged operations lasting weeks.

Why it matters

There are four key reasons why a U.S. decision would have wider effects:

  • Deterrence and reinforcing allies. U.S. support could provide Israel with operational capabilities and political cover for complex strikes.
  • Diplomatic pressure on negotiations. Such a U.S. stance shifts the balance of leverage in Geneva, where another round of talks with Iran is planned.
  • Logistics and regional constraints. Without permission for overflight or logistical support, an operation would become significantly more difficult and risky.
  • Risks of escalation. Even limited strikes could provoke a response from Iran or proxy forces in the region, leading to broader hostilities.

What sources and experts say

The reporting is based on material from CBS News and Reuters, as well as comments from U.S. officials. Analysts note that readiness to provide military support often has a dual effect — it can deter but also accelerate the slide toward real confrontations if diplomacy fails.

Brief conclusion — what’s next

The decision to directly support Israeli strikes will depend on three variables: the outcome of talks in Geneva, the willingness of regional states to provide logistical corridors, and the final political decision in Washington. For the international community, the key question for now is whether diplomacy can neutralize the risks created by the combination of tough rhetoric and an increased military presence.

So far there is a mix of verbal backing and practical discussions, but the ultimate choice — between strikes and a deal — has not yet been made. Whether the show of resolve turns into an actual operation will depend on whether the technical and political means to implement it can be found.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026