U.S. Intel Saw No Imminent Iran Strike Before U.S.-Israel Attacks

U.S. intelligence did not indicate Iran was preparing a preemptive strike ahead of U.S.-Israeli attacks, according to people familiar with the assessments cited by The Associated Press.

The sources described U.S. intelligence findings that did not suggest Iran was on the verge of launching an imminent attack that would have required a preemptive response. The account adds a new layer to the public debate over the timing and justification for the strikes, as the region faces heightened instability and the risk of further escalation.

The assessment, as described by the AP sources, focuses on what U.S. intelligence was showing before the attacks. It does not characterize Iran’s broader capabilities or intentions beyond what was reflected in those pre-attack indicators, the sources said. The AP report attributed the information to people familiar with the intelligence.

The development matters because intelligence judgments about imminence and intent can shape decisions on the use of force, coalition coordination, and how U.S. leaders explain military action to Congress, allies and the public. It also affects diplomatic efforts by defining the baseline of what U.S. officials believed they were confronting at the moment decisions were made.

The issue comes as other related headlines point to shifting diplomatic signals and deepening military pressure. In separate reporting referenced in the broader news cycle, a White House official said Iran has suggested it is open to talks with the United States, and that former President Donald Trump is “eventually” willing. Another headline described the U.S. and Israel continuing to strike Iran while Trump signaled a willingness to speak with new leadership after the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Energy markets have also reacted to the conflict environment. Another related report said oil prices rose sharply in trading after attacks in the Middle East disrupted global energy supply, underscoring the economic stakes tied to security developments in the region.

What happens next will depend on official actions and disclosures. Intelligence findings are often discussed in classified settings, and public-facing statements can vary in detail. Lawmakers may seek briefings as questions arise about the intelligence picture before the attacks and how it was interpreted by decision-makers.

Diplomatically, any potential talks signaled in recent statements would require further engagement and formal steps, and military activity could continue to shape the room available for negotiations. The trajectory of the conflict will also be closely watched by U.S. allies and partners, as well as by markets sensitive to energy supply disruptions.

For now, the AP-sourced account places the pre-attack intelligence assessment in the center of an already volatile moment, with the consequences of the strikes reverberating across security, diplomacy and the global economy.