Israel’s determination to attack Iran and the certainty that US troops would be attacked in response forced the Trump administration to carry out pre-emptive strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a new explanation for Washington’s surprise entry into the conflict.
The reasoning drew divided criticism among top members of Congress who on Monday night received the Trump administration’s first briefing since it ordered the air campaign to begin over the weekend.
Blond; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; and joint chiefs of staff, Chairman Dan Caine; spoke to lawmakers behind closed doors on Capitol Hill ahead of a vote scheduled later this week in the House of Representatives on a war powers resolution that presents an unlikely opportunity to force Trump to end hostilities against Iran.
“It was very clear that if Iran was attacked by anyone – the United States, Israel or anyone else – they were going to respond, and they would respond against the United States,” Rubio told reporters at the Capitol.
“We knew there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that would precipitate an attack on American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively pursue them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer greater casualties.”
JD Vance said in an interview on Fox News on Monday night that the United States’ goal was to ensure that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
“The president wants to make it clear to the Iranians and the world that he will not rest until he achieves the very important goal of ensuring that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” the vice president said.
Vance has been the member of Donald Trump’s administration most opposed to military interventions and has spoken less frequently than Rubio about US actions in Iran.
Since the conflict began, the United States and Israel have carried out waves of airstrikes across Iran, and Tehran has responded with drone and missile strikes against US-aligned countries across the Middle East.
The air campaign has killed several of Iran’s top military and political leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US military has acknowledged the deaths of six service members, while the Iranian Red Crescent Society said more than 500 people have died in the country.
Reactions to the administration’s explanation for entering the war divided along partisan lines: Republicans were quick to defend Trump’s tactic, while Democrats condemned what they see as an unnecessary conflict with unclear objectives.
“This is Trump’s war. This is a war of choice. It has no strategy, it has no end,” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said before entering the briefing.
On his way out, Schumer said lawmakers present asked “a ton of questions” but found the officials’ answers to be “completely and totally insufficient. In fact, at least for me, that briefing raised a lot more questions than it answered.”
Mark Warner, Democratic vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said he was concerned about the implications of the United States allowing Israel to force it into a new war.
“There was no imminent threat to the United States of America from the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory,” Warner said.
On Monday night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News that Iran had been building new underground sites “that would make its ballistic missile and atomic bomb programs immune within months.”
“If action is not taken now, action cannot be taken in the future,” he said.
Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon.
In recent media interviews, Trump has outlined several goals of the war, including destroying the ballistic missile capabilities of Iran and its navy, preventing the country from developing a nuclear weapon, and cutting off Tehran’s support for proxy forces elsewhere in the Middle East.
Rubio, however, mentioned only two goals to reporters: destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and its navy. After the classified briefing, Warner said he wasn’t sure what Trump’s ultimate goal is.
“I think the president needs to go before Congress, really, the American people, and decide among these four or five goals that have been set, what is the real goal?” said the Virginia senator.
“What is the goal? What is our exit plan? What obligation do we now have to the Iranian people if they rise up, based on their call to take to the streets? And what is the imminent threat to US interests from causing this conflict?”
Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House and a close Trump ally, defended the president’s course of action, saying he had ordered a “defensive operation.”
“Israel was determined to act in its own defense here, with or without American support. Why? Because Israel faced what they consider an existential threat,” Johnson said.
Although the goal of the war, he said, was not “to enter and end the regime,” he applauded the ayatollah’s death.
“That happened and, in my opinion, it’s a huge step forward for freedom-loving people around the world,” Johnson told reporters, speaking alongside the Republican chairmen of the House Intelligence and Appropriations Committee; The presence of the latter is an indication that lawmakers could soon be asked to approve additional defense funds needed for the war.
Trump ordered the attack on Iran without first seeking permission from Congress, although Rubio said a group of lawmakers known as the Gang of Eight – made up of the Democratic and Republican leaders in each chamber, as well as top lawmakers from both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees – were notified before the attack began.
Later this week the House is expected to consider a war powers resolution that, if enacted, would force Trump to end hostilities against Iran. He faces a high bar. Republicans control both houses of Congress and rarely oppose Trump in significant numbers.
Even if Congress passed the resolution, Trump could veto it and Congress could override it only with a two-thirds majority vote.
Previous war powers resolutions introduced in this Congress have been rejected, and Johnson said he was confident the latest one would not pass the House.
“The idea that we would take away the ability of our commander in chief, the president, and take away his authority right now to finish this job, is a terrifying prospect to me. It’s dangerous,” Johnson said. “I’m certainly hopeful and I think we have the votes to overturn it.”
