US Warned Iran of Israeli Plot, Report Claims

The United States reportedly asked several Middle Eastern countries to warn Iran about an alleged Israeli plot targeting two of Tehran’s senior negotiators during sensitive ceasefire talks earlier this year. The reported Israeli plot raised concerns in Washington that any attack could derail ongoing diplomacy and reignite regional tensions at a critical stage of negotiations.
According to a report by The New York Times, US officials feared Israel might attempt to assassinate Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf while negotiations over an interim peace arrangement were underway. The warning reflected growing concern that such an operation could destroy fragile diplomatic progress.
US sought regional help over Israeli plot concerns
The report said Washington privately asked regional partners to alert Iranian authorities about the potential threat. US officials reportedly believed that protecting the negotiating team was essential to keeping diplomatic channels open and preventing another escalation in the region.
Moreover, the reported move highlighted a widening gap between the United States and Israel over how to handle the conflict with Iran. While Washington focused on securing a negotiated settlement, Israel reportedly continued pursuing broader military and strategic objectives.
US officials told the publication that the diplomatic process became the priority once negotiations intensified in April. As a result, any strike against senior Iranian negotiators could have undermined months of diplomatic work and complicated future peace efforts.
Israeli plot reflected policy differences
According to the report, Israel had previously targeted senior Iranian officials during the early stages of the conflict. Those included Ali Larijani, a senior national security official, and former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, both of whom had maintained communication channels with Washington.
Although Araghchi and Ghalibaf might have been viewed as legitimate military targets before negotiations gained momentum, US officials reportedly concluded that circumstances had changed. Therefore, Washington considered protecting the negotiation process more important than supporting further military actions.
The differing approaches reflected broader strategic disagreements. The United States sought to reduce tensions through diplomacy, whereas Israeli officials reportedly favored continued pressure on Tehran’s leadership and military infrastructure.
Iranian negotiators tightened security
Iran reportedly responded by strengthening security around its negotiating delegation after receiving the warnings. Officials sought additional guarantees through Pakistani and Qatari intermediaries before participating in scheduled diplomatic meetings.
Before a planned meeting in Islamabad with US Vice President JD Vance, Iranian representatives reportedly requested assurances that Israel would not target their delegation during transit. Iranian officials cited in the report said Pakistani fighter jets escorted their aircraft through Pakistani airspace to enhance security.
Furthermore, the delegation reportedly encountered additional concerns during its return trip. Iranian security services warned of intelligence suggesting Israeli fighter aircraft had entered Iranian airspace, prompting authorities to divert the plane carrying Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf.
Despite the heightened security environment, the Iranian delegation continued attending scheduled diplomatic meetings and maintained contact with US officials through multiple rounds of negotiations.
Nuclear talks continued despite tensions
The negotiations later expanded through meetings held in Qatar and Switzerland, where Iranian and US officials continued discussing measures aimed at reducing tensions and addressing Tehran’s nuclear program.
Eventually, both countries signed a framework agreement in June that launched a new 60-day negotiating process. The agreement also included discussions covering Iran’s nuclear activities and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important global shipping route.
However, the framework reportedly faced criticism from Israeli officials. They argued that the agreement failed to achieve Israel’s broader wartime objectives because it did not force political change in Tehran or significantly weaken Iran’s military capabilities.
Even so, US officials viewed continued dialogue as the best path toward preventing further conflict. They reportedly believed diplomacy offered greater long-term stability than additional military escalation.
The reported warnings to Iran illustrate the delicate balance Washington attempted to maintain between supporting its regional ally and preserving diplomatic negotiations. As discussions continue, the differing priorities between the United States and Israel may remain a key factor shaping future developments surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and regional security.