# Israel Shares Iran–Trump Assassination Intel With U.S., Raising Escalation Risk With Tehran

*Friday, July 10, 2026 at 8:06 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-07-10T08:06:38.537Z (3h ago)
**Category**: intelligence | **Region**: Middle East
**Importance**: 8/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/10624.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: Israeli officials have passed intelligence to Washington alleging a concrete Iranian plan to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump, according to U.S. media, though American agencies have not verified the threat. The report forces U.S. security services, Iran hawks and diplomats to react to a claim that blurs counterterrorism, domestic politics and nuclear diplomacy all at once.

Israeli intelligence claims that Iran is actively considering a plan to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump are pulling one of the world’s most sensitive bilateral feuds into the middle of America’s domestic security and political landscape, even as Washington tries to keep a channel to Tehran open.

According to reports on 10 July from major U.S. outlets, Israel has shared intelligence with the United States alleging a specific Iranian plot targeting Trump. People briefed on the material describe it as pointing to a concrete plan rather than a general intent for revenge. At the same time, U.S. officials quoted in those reports emphasize that American agencies have not yet confirmed the credibility of the alleged threat.

Trump was the U.S. president who ordered the January 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, an operation that Tehran has repeatedly vowed to avenge. Since then, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have disrupted what they described as Iranian-directed plots against former officials involved in that decision, including then–Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other senior national security figures. Those earlier cases, tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, showed that Tehran was willing to authorize operations that would risk direct confrontation with Washington.

What makes the latest report different is the target’s current political status. Trump is a former president and a central figure in U.S. politics, with a security detail and public profile unlike most other Iran‑focused officials. Any credible plot against him on U.S. or allied soil would immediately escalate into a crisis that could bury already fragile efforts to manage Iran’s nuclear program, contain its regional proxies and avoid direct conflict.

Inside Washington, the intelligence is being read through more than one lens. Some U.S. officials, as cited by local media, privately question whether Israel’s government might be using the specter of an attack on Trump to push the White House toward a harder public line on Iran and away from renewed talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long argued that Tehran only responds to maximum pressure, and a dramatic, high‑profile threat could strengthen that case in American domestic debate.

For U.S. security services, however, the politics are secondary to the immediate task: reassessing Trump’s threat environment alongside that of other former officials on Iran’s public sanctions and revenge lists. That means discreet coordination between the Secret Service, the FBI and intelligence agencies about travel, public events and potential vulnerabilities, both in the United States and abroad. For Trump’s staff and supporters, it is another reminder that foreign policy decisions made in office can carry very personal security consequences years later.

For Iran’s leadership, being publicly linked to a plot against a former U.S. president would carry serious costs even if no attack ever materialized. It would undercut Tehran’s efforts to present itself to non‑Western partners as a responsible power under siege, and it would make any sanctions relief or nuclear accommodation politically toxic in Washington. That is one reason why, beyond rhetorical vows of revenge, Iran has been careful about deniability in previous cases exposed by Western authorities.

The deeper point is stark: as long as Iran keeps the idea of retribution for Soleimani on the table, every U.S. political transition will carry a shadow of personal risk for those associated with the 2020 strike. The line between state‑to‑state confrontation and individual targeting narrows when former leaders themselves become potential assets in a pressure campaign.

The next indicators to watch will be concrete security moves rather than rhetoric – any visible uptick in Trump’s protective footprint, new U.S. sanctions or public warnings focused on the Revolutionary Guard, and whether Washington chooses to confront Tehran at the United Nations or in back‑channel messages over the reported plot. How the White House balances public alarm with the need to preserve options on Iran policy will reveal whether this claim becomes a turning point or another grim data point in a long‑running vendetta.