At one point, the Israelis showed Mr. Trump a short video—a montage featuring potential new leaders who could take the helm of the country in the event of the hard-line government’s collapse. Among those featured was Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah—a Washington-based dissident who was trying to position himself as a secular leader capable of steering Iran toward a post-theocratic government.

Mr. Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions that they presented as pointing to an almost inevitable victory: Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a matter of weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it would be unable to block the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood of Iran striking U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal.

Furthermore, Mossad intelligence indicated that street protests within Iran would resume, and with the assistance of Israeli intelligence in inciting unrest and uprisings, an intensive bombing campaign could create the conditions for the regime’s overthrow by the Iranian opposition.

The Israelis also raised the prospect of Iranian Kurdish fighters crossing the border from Iraq to open a ground front in the northwest, which would further stretch the regime’s forces and hasten its collapse.

Mr. Netanyahu delivered his presentation in a confident, monotone voice. It seemed to make the right impression on the most important person in the room—the American president.

“That works for me,” Mr. Trump told the prime minister. For Mr. Netanyahu, this was a signal of a likely “green light” for a joint U.S.-Israeli operation.

Trump’s advisers warned that Israel was overstating its capabilities, but he brushed aside their concerns:

“Regime change… that’s their problem.”

He focused on eliminating the leadership and crushing the Iranian army, believing it would be quick and decisive.

Trump asked each advisor to voice their opinion. J.D. Vance said it was a bad idea, but he supported Trump’s actions; Marco Rubio supported only military strikes, not regime change; the military outlined the risks but did not object; the political team warned of a negative international reaction but did not oppose the operation.