BREAKING: U.S. Apache CRASHES In Hormuz; Trump STOPS Israel Strike On Iran | TBN Israel

Israel was preparing for a much more significant strike in Iran with dozens of aircraft, targeting petrochemical complexes and potentially energy facilities, in response to Iranian aggression. However, former President Trump intervened, ordering Israel to stop. This decision was driven by the US's desire to prevent a broad regional escalation and preserve ongoing contacts for a potential agreement with Tehran, despite having initially approved a 'measured' Israeli response.

Dozens of Israeli aircraft were waiting for the order and then Donald Trump called. Today, we will bring you the behind-the-scenes story of the decision to stop the IDF from continuing the strikes in Iran. Israel was already preparing for a more significant strike. But in the morning, when a broader escalation developed, Trump ordered him to stop.

While both the US and Israel are aligned against Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional proxies, their immediate interests diverge. Israel seeks to continuously weaken Iran and Hezbollah without an end date or a need for an agreement. The US, particularly under Trump, seeks a 'clear, decisive win' or an agreement for internal political and diplomatic reasons, even if it means halting allied military actions. This creates a tension where the US prioritizes its own strategic calculus, as articulated by Vice President Vance, 'Israel can like it or not, but this is what is good for the United States.'

Israel wants to weaken Iran as much as we possibly can without an end date. We don't need to have an agreement. We don't need to end this war. We want to fight Hezbollah and weaken Iran... Trump has different interests. For Trump, for internal political reasons, for diplomatic reasons, there is a need, a desire to one way or another have an agreement. That is true. That is not the same interest as Israel. Vance added, 'Israel can like it or not, but this is what is good for the United States.'

Iran's strategy involves using Hezbollah in Lebanon as a proxy to test boundaries and influence US-Israel dynamics. By firing towards Israel in response to Israeli strikes in Beirut, Iran attempts to establish an equation where any Israeli action against Hezbollah in Lebanon triggers a direct Iranian response. This aims to force the US to pressure Israel into a ceasefire in Lebanon, thereby protecting Hezbollah through diplomatic means rather than direct military confrontation, turning Israeli strikes into a diplomatic crisis with the White House.

The Iranian regime made a fateful decision last night to fire towards Israel in response to the strike in Beirut. This is the largest stage so far in Iran's attempt to bind Lebanon into the framework of the ceasefire in order to strengthen the influence of the Revolutionary Guards over the state of Lebanon and to ensure the survival of the Hezbollah terrorist organization... The Iranian message was simple. If Israel strikes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran will respond directly against Israel. This is exactly the equation that Israel is not prepared to accept.

Despite public statements from US officials suggesting they asked Israel to stop or that Israel acted independently, the hosts argue that behind-the-scenes coordination between the US and Israel is 'far more coordinated than people believe.' They suggest that public statements are often for PR, diplomatic appeasement, or to manage geopolitical tensions with other allies, while actual military and intelligence cooperation remains extremely tight, with shared command centers and daily communications.

Behind the scenes, Israel and the United States, this is my public my private opinion, I believe are working far more coordinated than people believe. We know that Trump knew about Israeli attacks in Lebanon, already had given the green light to that, and then after these attacks happened, said no, no, we asked Israel not to attack. The truth is that PR, that working with news outlets, that working the let's call it the geopolitical tension between the United States and its allies in the Gulf states, or the United States and Iran, when it comes to public statements, sometimes there's a gap between that and what the US actually wants to do.