Marco Rubio says US followed Israel into attacking Iran – whose war is it?

Americans across the political spectrum are outraged after the US Secretary of State revealed the US only attacked Iran when learning Israel was planning an attack.

Briefing a group of Congressional leaders on the joint US-Israeli offensive, Marco Rubio said fears of an ‘imminent threat’ to US troops prompted them to join military action Israel had planned.

‘The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us, and we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded,’ he said.

‘We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting more serious damage. Had we not done so, there would have been hearings on Capitol Hill about how we knew that this was going to happen, and we didn’t act preemptively to prevent more casualties and more loss of life.’

Rubio’s explanation of why the US joined what could turn out to be a lengthy war in the Middle East has sparked fury from both Republicans and Democrats, who suggested the US is in a war because Israel ‘forced our hand’.

Despite this, Rubio doubled down on his remarks, saying the operation ‘needed to happen’ one way or another.

The American public is ‘fatigued’ by conflict

Dr Bamo Nouri, senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of West London, told Metro that claims of danger from an ‘imminent’ threat to justify war are something Americans are familiar with.

‘After Iraq and Afghanistan, many voters are wary of pre-emptive logic that can feel elastic once events are in motion. The frustration we’re seeing isn’t simply an anti-intervention reflex; it reflects a deeper fatigue and a demand for a higher bar before force is used,’ he said.

Dr Katayoun Shahandeh, senior teaching fellow at the University of London, told Metro that Rubio’s argument that Iran would have attacked American troops anyway allows the administration to pose the strikes as anticipatory self-defence rather than escalation.

She added: ‘Tensions between the United States and Iran have been building for months – through troop repositioning in the region, heightened alert levels, increasingly forceful rhetoric, and closer coordination with Israel.

‘But there is clear war-weariness among many Americans after decades of involvement in the Middle East.

‘Even voters who support a strong national defence are cautious about being drawn into another prolonged regional conflict. So, when military action is described as pre-emptive, but appears to follow months of mounting tension, it can trigger scepticism.’

Who is driving the escalation in the Middle East?

Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a professor in global thought and comparative studies at SOAS, University of London and author of What is Iran? told Metro that Rubio’s statement was nothing but ‘primitive propaganda’.

‘There was no imminent threat. Iran and the United States were in the middle of diplomatic negotiations to resolve the nuclear issue. Iran has not attacked any country for three centuries,’ he said.

‘This war is an Israeli ploy to subdue Iran. The Trump administration has been too weak politically to withstand the Israeli demands. That is one of the real causes of this war, and anyone who studied this region and US foreign policies towards it knows this.’

Dr Shahandeh told Metro the US-Israel relationship is also under intense scrutiny as of late, given that the strikes have been coordinated closely with Israel.

‘For some Americans, the concern is not about the alliance itself – support for Israel remains significant – but about strategic autonomy.

‘Americans do not want the United States to appear as though it is reacting to Israel’s timetable or being pulled into a conflict dynamic set by another government.’

For Republicans, this forms in the way of ‘America First’ support, which in turn, shows scepticism about foreign entanglements.

For Democrats, it’s an increasing wariness of aligning with Israeli military strategy automatically.

Dr Shahandeh added: ‘In both cases, the anxiety is about whether US action is clearly and independently anchored in American national interests.

When Trump took office for the second time and promised voters an end to ‘forever wars’, Americans assumed this meant exhausting diplomatic channels and only using military action for immediate threats, Dr Nouri added.

What makes this time even more fiery is that the line between the old playbook and the new ‘American First’ rhetoric is muddied, he said.

‘For a public already sceptical of overseas commitments, the question isn’t just whether the intelligence was sound,’ Dr Nouri explained.

‘It’s whether this marks a necessary defensive move – or the opening chapter of another escalating cycle in the Middle East.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.