Inside Trump’s Tight-Knit Circle as He Weighs Military Action on Iran
When it comes to deciding whether the U.S. should launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, President Donald Trump isn’t casting a wide net. Instead, he’s zeroing in on a small, trusted group of advisers who have become his go-to voices in this high-stakes game. Sources close to the administration reveal that while Trump often crowdsources opinions from allies both inside and outside the White House, the ultimate call often comes down to just a handful of key players.
The Core Circle Calling the Shots
Trump’s inner circle right now reads like a who's who of his closest confidants: Vice President JD Vance, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who’s also doubling as interim national security adviser. Another critical voice is his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who weighs in on decisions related to the volatile region.
This tight-knit group contrasts sharply with a broader range of advisors that Trump has consulted but hasn’t necessarily counted on to shape his final moves. What’s fascinating is how Trump has expanded his circle in some respects, reaching out to allies beyond the usual channels, yet at the same time, he’s sidelining some traditionally powerful voices.
Sidelining Some, Elevating Others
For instance, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who is vocally against U.S. military strikes on Iran, has been effectively pushed to the sidelines in this crucial debate. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, too, appears to have a less prominent role in these discussions—according to defense officials—though his office strongly disputes that claim.
A Defense Department spokesman, Sean Parnell, fired back at reports downplaying Hegseth’s involvement, stating:
"This claim is completely false. The Secretary is speaking with the President multiple times a day and has been with the President in the Situation Room this week. Secretary Hegseth is providing the leadership the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces need, and he will continue to work diligently in support of President Trump’s peace through strength agenda."
Whether Hegseth’s role is truly diminished or not, it’s clear that Trump’s decision-making process on Iran is anything but traditional.
Less Structure, More Freewheeling
Unlike previous presidents who relied heavily on the National Security Council (NSC) and senior officials to prepare thorough policy options, Trump’s style is less formal, more improvisational. Since returning to the White House in January, he’s dramatically downsized the NSC, cutting back on its role in crafting and vetting foreign policy and military strategies.
This means instead of sitting through carefully structured briefings and deliberations, Trump prefers informal chats, often mixing in input from foreign leaders and outside contacts. While this approach might sound dynamic, it also leaves fewer chances for advisers and military commanders to challenge his assumptions or raise red flags about potential risks.
Who’s Advising Trump on Iran?
At the heart of the military calculus are some of the highest-ranking defense and intelligence officials. Trump is reportedly taking advice from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of U.S. Central Command; and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Their input is critical given the complexities of the Middle East and the risks involved in any military action.
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump expects to make a decision about U.S. involvement in the growing Israel-Iran conflict within the next two weeks. This timeline adds pressure to an already intense decision-making environment.
Divisions Within the Administration and Allies
Interestingly, even among Trump’s supporters, the question of military strikes on Iran is contentious. Reports indicate that Trump is actively seeking opinions from a wider circle outside the White House—an unusual crowdsourcing effort that reflects deep divisions within his coalition.
This back-and-forth on military action is shaping up as a major test for Trump’s leadership style, which favors informal counsel over the traditional, bureaucratic process.
A Surprise Move on Syria Shakes the Establishment
Trump’s unpredictability is not new. Just last month, he surprised senior officials by announcing the lifting of sanctions on Syria after a meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This caught Treasury Department officials completely off guard—they had no prior notice or technical preparations for such a move, which would have required coordination with foreign banks and Syrian government officials.
This episode underscores how Trump’s less conventional decision-making style can catch even his own top aides by surprise.
The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher
With tensions escalating between Israel and Iran, the possibility of direct U.S. military involvement is on everyone’s mind. Trump’s decisions in the coming weeks could redefine the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and reshape American foreign policy for years to come.
Here are some key points to consider about Trump’s approach right now:
-
Lean, Mean Advisory Team: Trump is focusing on a small group he trusts, often excluding long-standing officials who dissent.
-
Crowdsourcing with Allies: Despite the tight inner circle, Trump is reaching out broadly to get diverse opinions, reflecting the divided nature of his support base.
-
Informal Decision-Making: Gone are the days of detailed, layered briefings; Trump prefers freewheeling conversations.
-
Surprising Moves: Lifting Syria sanctions without prep shows Trump’s willingness to pivot rapidly, keeping even his team on their toes.
-
High Stakes: With the Israel-Iran conflict intensifying, decisions now have serious implications for global security.
What This Means Going Forward
The White House’s unconventional style of decision-making might be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows Trump to act decisively without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. On the other hand, it raises concerns about whether all risks and consequences are being fully vetted.
As the clock ticks down to a possible military decision on Iran, all eyes will be on Trump’s trusted inner circle and how they navigate the precarious balance between caution and boldness.
Login