American agencies were unable to independently corroborate several Israeli warnings, including intelligence that prompted extraordinary security measures during Trump’s NATO trip to Turkey
By Saqib S. Qureshi
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies were unable to independently verify several Israeli warnings that Iran was plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump, including intelligence that contributed to extraordinary security precautions during his trip to Turkey last month, according to people familiar with the assessments.
Israel has repeatedly provided Washington with intelligence over the past year indicating that Iran intended to target Trump, at times describing possible attacks involving snipers or missiles.
American intelligence officials examined those warnings but could not corroborate several of them, according to Reuters reporting based on interviews with U.S. officials and other people familiar with the intelligence.
The most consequential warning came ahead of Trump’s July trip to Ankara for a NATO summit.
Israeli officials told the White House that intelligence indicated Iran could attempt to target Trump while he traveled aboard Air Force One, potentially using a shoulder-launched missile.
The warning was taken seriously enough to trigger heightened protective measures.
Trump publicly boarded Air Force One before being secretly removed from the presidential aircraft and transferred to another U.S. military plane. The operation concealed his actual movements while senior administration officials, White House personnel and journalists continued aboard Air Force One.
Trump confirmed this week that he changed aircraft at the direction of the officials responsible for his protection.
“I go by Secret Service and the military,” Trump told reporters Tuesday, saying they wanted him to take a different plane and that he followed their direction.
The latest reporting, however, reveals that the intelligence behind the threat was not uniformly accepted within the U.S. government.
CIA analysts were unable to independently substantiate the specific warning, according to Reuters. Turkish intelligence also investigated the alleged threat surrounding Trump’s visit and found no credible evidence supporting it.
That does not establish that the Israeli intelligence was false or that no threat existed.
Intelligence agencies routinely operate with incomplete information, and an inability to independently corroborate a warning is different from determining that the warning was fabricated.
Israel has defended the intelligence it provided, maintaining that it acted responsibly by alerting its closest ally to information involving a potential threat to the U.S. president.
The episode nevertheless exposes differences between Israeli and American assessments at a particularly sensitive moment in relations with Iran.
Some U.S. intelligence officials have questioned elements of intelligence supplied by Israel during the broader confrontation with Tehran, according to Reuters.
Those differences carry particular significance because intelligence about Iranian intentions has influenced decisions at the highest levels of the Trump administration.
Washington and Jerusalem maintain extensive intelligence cooperation, and Israeli agencies have substantial capabilities focused on Iran. But U.S. agencies conduct their own assessments rather than automatically adopting conclusions provided by an allied intelligence service.
Iran has previously been accused by U.S. authorities of plotting attacks against Trump and other former American officials.
Tehran has long threatened retaliation over Trump’s 2020 authorization of the U.S. strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force.
That history gives U.S. protective agencies reason to treat warnings involving Trump seriously even when the underlying intelligence cannot immediately be independently confirmed.
It also helps explain why the Secret Service could take extraordinary precautions in Turkey despite uncertainty within the intelligence community over the specific threat.
Protective decisions and intelligence judgments operate under different standards: presidential security officials must weigh the consequences of ignoring a potentially credible warning, even when intelligence analysts cannot conclusively establish that an attack is imminent.
The distinction is now central to understanding Trump’s secret aircraft switch.
The operation demonstrated that U.S. security officials were unwilling to gamble with a threat involving the president.
The subsequent intelligence assessment shows something equally important: taking a warning seriously did not mean U.S. intelligence had independently established that the alleged Iranian plot was real.