Rubio Spurs Backlash With Latest Rationale for Attacks on Iran
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sparked fresh criticism over the Trump administration’s shifting rationale for the Iran war after he suggested that Israel’s determination to strike the country had forced the US to act.
The remark — made when Rubio went to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers Monday after more than two days of strikes — spurred accusations that Israel was dictating US policy decisions. Rubio later clarified that the US would have attacked Iran in any case because of the threat posed by its missile, nuclear and drone programs.
“The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked — and we believe they would be attacked — that they would immediately come after us,” Rubio told reporters. “We were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.”
The rationale, later echoed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, drew immediate fire. Critics included members of President Donald Trump’s MAGA wing such as former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who demanded a “strategic explanation.”
“Have we now delegated the most solemn decision that can be made in our society, the decision to go to war, to another country?” Senator Angus King, an Independent of Maine, asked a top Pentagon official in a hearing on Tuesday. “I don’t think anybody should drive our decision to go to war but the interests of the United States.”
Rubio’s explanation added an additional layer to the various rationales the US has offered for the strikes, which took out Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other senior leaders, as well as targeting Iran’s ballistic-missile and drone programs.
Trump and other US officials have cited various reasons — including regime change and supporting protesters to the need to prevent the Islamic Republic from getting a nuclear weapon. The administration has also said it wanted to destroy Iran’s ballistic-missile program and end its support for militant proxy groups across the region.
“They’re deflecting causation,” said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the right-leaning Cato Institute think-tank. “The obvious follow on question is did they want the Israelis not to do that? Presumably they thought it was OK that the Israelis were going to move.”
On Tuesday afternoon, the White House started to push back. “Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first,” Trump said, when asked if Israel forced his hand on Iran. “I didn’t want that to happen. So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”
Read More: Trump’s Iran Strikes Usher In Era of Unrestrained American Power
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also posted the link to a National Review article on X with the headline, “No, Marco Rubio Didn’t Claim Israel Dragged Donald Trump Into War With Iran.”
The comments also raised questions about whether the US campaign complies with international law, though the Trump administration has previously brushed aside such concerns.
“Normally, self-defensive force is lawful against an attack or an imminent attack — this operation doesn’t meet common interpretations of that rule,” said Matthew Waxman, chair of the National Security Law Program at Columbia University’s Law School.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, rejected the idea that risks to Israel translate into an “imminent threat” to the US. Trump administration officials have been eager to make that case because demonstrating an imminent threat allows the US to launch strikes without seeing authorization from Congress first.
“We’ve seen the goal for this operation change now I believe four or five times,” Warner said after Rubio’s briefing on Monday. “A week ago it was about the Iranian nuclear capacity. A few days later it was about taking out the ballistic missiles. It was then, in the president’s own words, about regime change.”