Bold claim, growing concerns: Rubio’s assertion about Israel steering US strikes on Iran reverberates even after a denial.
Washington, DC – On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a sweeping justification for a potential US war on Iran: Israel was planning to strike Iran, which would then push Tehran to retaliate against US assets in the region, prompting Washington to launch preemptive strikes against Iran.
Even as Trump administration officials seek to roll back recent statements, the remarks have sparked widespread unease across the political spectrum.
Recommended Stories
- Iran mourns 165 girls and staff killed in US-Israel strike on Minab school
- ‘Worst-case scenario’: Trump weighs replacing Khamenei as leader of Iran
- US midterm primary season kicks off in shadow of Iran war
Rubio’s comments stood out because many Iran analysts view the US-Israel war—and the regional retaliation it has triggered—as serving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s interests rather than Washington’s.
The United States is perceived as having outsized influence over Israel, with more than $300 billion in military aid provided since 1948, including $21 billion during what Al Jazeera described as Israel’s Gaza conflict.
Trump, when questioned about Rubio’s remarks on Tuesday, presented a different take, saying he acted because he believed Iran was preparing to attack. He asserted that Iran was ready to strike Israel and possibly others, framing the preemptive strikes as a defensive response.
Since the initial strikes, the president has argued that the broader threat posed by Iran justified US-Israeli action, a stance many experts say may conflict with US and international law. Critics note the administration has shown limited evidence of an imminent threat to US assets or a direct Iranian capability that demanded such preemptive measures.
Rubio also tried to soften his position on Monday, saying his words were taken out of context. Previously, he highlighted Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities before pivoting to the question of why now.
“We knew there would be an Israeli action,” he said. “We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and if we didn’t act preemptively before those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
‘Stunning admission’
The messaging shift on Tuesday is unlikely to quiet criticism from both Trump opponents and supporters, including MAGA voices.
Kelly Grieco of the Stimson Center commented that Rubio’s statements essentially acknowledge the United States was drawn into conflict due to Israeli plans, which could spark a serious debate about where American and Israeli interests align or diverge.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, questioned why arming and funding Israel would serve American interests by dragging the US into a war it didn’t need.
CAIR called Rubio’s remarks a “stunning admission,” arguing that they reveal the US acted under Israeli pressure rather than responding to an imminent Iranian threat, and urged Congress to pass war powers resolutions to limit presidential authority.
Looming war powers vote
Lawmakers plan to introduce war powers resolutions in both the House and Senate this week, though bipartisan support is uncertain given Republican majorities and many Republicans backing the administration’s rationale for war.
Overriding a presidential veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers, but advocates argue such measures provide a record of lawmakers’ positions.
Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders condemned the administration, saying, “Netanyahu wanted war with Iran. Trump just gave it to him.” Sanders emphasized that American policy should be decided by the American people, not a foreign leader’s agenda.
Representative Thomas Massie, who leads the push for war powers, warned that domestic costs would rise and that defense industry profits would benefit most from continued conflict.
Reaction from MAGA circles was swift and critical. Proponents like Matt Walsh blasted Rubio for signaling that Israel forced the United States into war, calling it a dangerous admission. Matt Gaetz similarly criticized the messaging as diminishing American autonomy on foreign policy.
Ali Harb contributed reporting.
