In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
Posted by Joshua Scheer
Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged this week that the United States anticipated Israeli military action against Iran and believed it would trigger retaliatory strikes on American forces — a scenario that ultimately led Washington to join the offensive.
Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, Rubio said U.S. officials “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” and expected it would “precipitate an attack against American forces.” He added that failing to strike first would have meant “higher casualties.”
This shows how Israel is dictating foreign policy, with Trump’s throat-clearing, unwavering support for Israel attacking the country despite the American population not supporting this misadventure.
Couldn’t Trump have been more like Biden and Harris, who scolded Bibi and yet allowed the genocide to take place in the first place?
Remember Biden’s delusion in claiming he had “done more for the Palestinian community than anybody.”
That assertion stands in sharp contrast to accounts from within his own administration. Maryam Hassanein, a former Interior Department political appointee who resigned, directly rejected that narrative.
“I think his legacy is the opposite,” Hassanein said. “He’s the president who’s done the most harm to Palestinians.”
To go off on a long tangent about the great foreign policy and immigration failures of the Biden White House would be too much to recount here. However, they were only revealing what is now clear as day: the Democratic Party is complicit in the empire. The question now is not whether that is true, but how to confront and change it.
What this demonstrates is something that has long been known: Israel is the United States’ ride-or-die friend. But at this point, it has become a Thelma & Louise moment — driving off a cliff and taking the whole world with them.
The remarks suggest the Trump administration viewed participation in the war as a preemptive necessity rather than an independent strategic choice. Critics argue the statement instead underscores Washington’s unwillingness to restrain Israel — even when U.S. forces would be drawn into direct conflict.
Netanyahu’s Long-Pursued Campaign
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly described the operation as the culmination of decades of advocacy for confronting Iran militarily. He said the strikes were carried out with “the assistance of the United States” and framed the campaign as something he had sought to achieve for 40 years.
The comments reinforced concerns among some analysts that Israel’s strategy effectively shaped U.S. decision-making.
Could Washington Have Prevented the Escalation?
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer now with the International Crisis Group, argued that the U.S. maintains substantial leverage over Israel due to its military and financial support. According to data from Brown University’s Costs of War Project, the U.S. has provided over $21 billion in military aid to Israel since October 2023 and more than $300 billion in total assistance since Israel’s founding.
Finucane suggested that if Washington had strongly opposed Israeli strikes, it may have been able to delay or deter them. Whether Iran would have refrained from retaliatory action is a separate question, he noted.
Mounting Casualties and Political Fallout
The joint U.S.–Israeli campaign has resulted in significant casualties. Iranian authorities report hundreds killed, including civilians. U.S. Central Command confirmed American service members have also died in the fighting.
Meanwhile, members of Congress — including senior Democrats on foreign affairs and armed services committees — have requested clarification from the administration regarding the legal justification for the operation, its objectives, and what would constitute mission success.
The war marks the second major U.S.–Israeli confrontation with Iran in less than a year, deepening instability across the region and intensifying debate in Washington over executive war powers.
A Question of Agency
Rubio’s framing raises a deeper question: was the United States genuinely compelled by strategic necessity — or simply unwilling to restrain an ally intent on escalating the conflict? The truth is that Washington’s worldview has become increasingly unmoored from any sense of proportionality or restraint. This same person in Rubio has defended coilionelism.
The U.S. provides Israel with extensive military assistance and diplomatic cover, making it difficult to claim neutrality in moments of crisis. There was no imminent threat of an attack, and Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon — a point underscored by Tulsi Gabbard, but whats she know, shes just the Director of National Intelligence. The fact remains that a far smaller nation is effectively pulling the last global superpower into a widening regional confrontation — one that carries risks far beyond the immediate battlefield.
How this ends is anyones guess most likely not well but don’t worry you can still gamble on and profit from it.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.