The United States has voiced scepticism about Israeli intelligence indicating that Iran sought to assassinate President Donald Trump during the NATO summit in Ankara last week, a threat that nonetheless prompted a last-minute change of presidential aircraft. According to American officials cited by The Wall Street Journal, the information was deemed “not fully credible,” with some fragments offering only a partial picture. However, the intelligence was considered serious enough for Trump to depart on an older Air Force One rather than a recently gifted plane from Qatar—a precautionary measure attributed to Secret Service advice.

Viewed from Washington, the incident has stoked fears within parts of the administration that Israel may be selectively sharing intelligence to steer U.S. policy toward a renewed full‑scale military campaign against Iran. Officials told the Journal that Tehran understands any attempt on Trump’s life would trigger a decisive American military response. From Jerusalem, Israeli officials maintain that the warnings were based on Western intelligence intercepts of Iranian communications discussing the Turkish visit as a “unique opportunity.” An Israeli source told Channel 12 that they “hope Iran makes a mistake,” while acknowledging that Israel is not currently a direct party to the U.S.-Iran standoff unless dragged in by either side. Tehran has not formally commented on the assassination claims but has repeatedly vowed revenge for the 2020 killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, an act Trump authorised. Last week, the son of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei publicly threatened retaliation for recent U.S. and Israeli strikes.

The episode unfolds against a deteriorating diplomatic backdrop. A June memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, intended to pave the way for broader peace talks, is now under strain. Both sides exchanged fire on 8 July, each accusing the other of violating the accord, and Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, warned the United States it would “pay a price” for non‑compliance. American news outlet Politico, citing administration insiders, reports that if the process collapses, Vice‑President J.D. Vance—a key participant in the dialogue—could shoulder the political fallout. The memorandum has failed to resolve core disputes, including Iranian influence in Lebanon and the control of the Strait of Hormuz.

The divergent threat assessments expose a growing rift in the U.S.-Israeli alliance over how to manage Iran. Israeli officials have indicated they continue to develop military targets in Iran and would welcome an opportunity to complete their missions, yet stress that the current situation is not theirs to decide. In contrast, the Trump administration is described as still betting on diplomacy, despite the president’s own assertion that he has long been Tehran’s top target and has left instructions to unleash a thousand missiles if he is assassinated. With the memorandum on the verge of collapse and heightened military posturing on both sides, the dossier remains volatile. The next concrete step is expected to be a U.S. decision on whether to escalate military pressure or salvage the diplomatic track, a choice that will test the alliance with Israel and the President’s stated preference for negotiation over conflict.