US President Donald Trump is known for lashing out at journalists; Secretary of State Marco Rubio far less so.
So Rubio’s words at a press conference on Tuesday were telling.
“And if you’re going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do. All right?”
Rubio was referring to remarks he made the day before about the timing of Saturday’s joint Israel-US attack on Iran.
He said Trump had concluded diplomacy with Tehran had run its course and that the mission’s objective was to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capability. Washington believed that if Iran were attacked – by Israel or anyone else – it would immediately retaliate against US forces in the region. Knowing that Israel intended to strike, and that waiting for Iran to hit first would likely cost American lives, the administration decided to act preemptively.
In other words, this operation needed to happen no matter what.
But that explanation did not travel well.
Narrative becomes Israel dragging US to war
In headlines around the world, Rubio’s remarks quickly became this: Israel “dragged” the US into war.
That is a particularly damaging optic – both for Washington and for Jerusalem. It feeds directly into a narrative long advanced by voices on both the far Left and the far Right: the idea that the US is repeatedly being pulled into wars that primarily serve Israeli (read: Jewish) interests.
The “tail wagging the dog” trope is not new. But moments like this give it fresh oxygen.
What is at stake in that framing is more than media spin. If this war is perceived in the United States as one fought primarily for Israel’s benefit, public support – already fragile – could erode quickly. If, however, it is seen as a conflict driven by American strategic concerns, the political calculus changes dramatically.
That battle over perception – over whether this is Washington’s war or Netanyahu’s – may shape the level of support the war receives in the US.
Leading the charge on the far Right was, predictably, Tucker Carlson. On his podcast, he framed the question this way: how did “this tiny country” persuade the world’s greatest superpower – “the greatest military in history” – to do something that would hurt its own interests?
“The truth is,” he said, “and this is hard to say as a proud American, but the United States didn’t make the decision here — Benjamin Netanyahu did.”
Carlson, however, was hardly alone. Commentator Megyn Kelly went further still, arguing on her show that four American service members killed in the fighting “did not die for the United States” but, rather, “for Iran or Israel,” adding that “no one should have to die for a foreign country.”
If Carlson gave voice to that argument on the Right, variations of the same theme could also be heard on the Left.
Sen. Bernie Sanders accused Trump of gambling with American lives “to fulfill Netanyahu’s decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran.”
And Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, a progressive Democrat who has been mentioned as a possible 2028 presidential contender, posted this on X: “So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war? So much for America First.”
Different political camps. Same underlying accusation.
That convergence matters politically because it lands in an American public environment already very wary of US involvement in Mideast wars.
Recent polling suggests just how skeptical the American public is.
A CNN poll conducted shortly after Saturday’s operation found that nearly six in 10 Americans – 59% – disapprove of the attack. The partisan divide, however, is dramatic: 77% of Republicans approve – suggesting that, despite Carlson’s loud criticism, his views are not widely shared within the party – while only 18% of Democrats do.
Those numbers closely mirror broader attitudes toward Israel itself.
A Gallup poll released late last month found that roughly 70% of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians. Among Democrats, that number drops to just 17%.
In other words, the political lines almost perfectly overlap. Those who sympathize more with Israel – overwhelmingly Republicans – tend to support the strike. Those who sympathize more with the Palestinians – overwhelmingly Democrats – largely oppose it.
The alignment is striking.
And it suggests that as the war continues, public support in the US could erode further – especially if American casualties mount.
It is worth noting that the CNN poll showing majority opposition came immediately after what many analysts described as the most successful opening strike imaginable. Iran’s political and military leadership was decapitated in one dramatic blow. Yet even then, American public opinion was already leaning against the war. And wars rarely become more popular as they drag on.
As the conflict develops, there will inevitably be valleys alongside the peaks – alongside dramatic moments such as the killing of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, the destruction of Iran’s navy, and the complete Israeli-American dominance of the skies.
Each setback, each American casualty, each disruption to global markets – whether through oil shocks, rising gasoline prices, or turbulence on Wall Street – will provide fresh ammunition to those eager to argue that the US was dragged into this war by Israel.
Iran understands this dynamic well.
Tehran is clearly hoping that prolonged fighting, regional disruption, and economic shock will gradually sour American public opinion and pressure Trump to step back.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wasted little time exploiting Rubio’s remarks. In a post on X, he wrote: “Mr. Rubio admitted what we all knew: US has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel. There was never any so-called Iranian ‘threat.’ Shedding of both American and Iranian blood is thus on Israel Firsters.”
The narrative was obvious. And it spread quickly.
This explains why the administration moved rapidly to try to shut it down.
The first to do so was Trump himself. Asked at a press availability whether Israel had pushed him to attack, he rejected the idea outright.
“We were having negotiations with these lunatics,” he said of the Iranians. “And it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”
Then it was Rubio’s turn to clarify. In doing so, he introduced a phrase familiar to Israeli ears: “zone of immunity.”
According to Rubio’s explanation, Iran had been steadily building a massive arsenal of missiles and drones capable of striking American forces across the region. The goal, he suggested, was to create a strategic shield – a zone of immunity – behind which Iran could safely advance its nuclear program.
“They wanted to reach a point where you couldn’t touch them,” Rubio said. Once that point was reached, Iran could do “whatever the hell they wanted with their nuclear program.”
The logic is not new.
More than a decade ago, then-defense minister Ehud Barak warned that Iran might soon reach precisely that point: a “zone of immunity.”
In a 2012 interview with CNN, Barak argued that Iran’s nuclear facilities were being hardened and dispersed to such a degree that a moment might soon arrive when Israel would no longer be technically capable of launching a strike that could set the program back – a moment which would give them immunity.
That looming threshold, Barak argued at the time, might make military action unavoidable.
That strike did eventually come – though 14 years later.
Rubio’s argument echoes Barak’s concern, but applies it somewhat differently. In Rubio’s telling, the immunity Iran sought was not just a matter of technological advancement and protection for nuclear facilities but hard deterrence: a vast missile and drone arsenal capable of making any attack unbearably costly for anybody.
In other words, a shield behind which the nuclear program could advance. And the consequences of that, Rubio argued, would be unacceptable.
“This terroristic regime cannot ever be allowed to have nuclear weapons,” he said. “We saw what they were willing to do to their own people. Imagine what they would do to us.”
That same argument was echoed by Netanyahu in an interview Tuesday evening with Sean Hannity on Fox News.
Israelis are accustomed to hearing Netanyahu warn that Iran seeks to destroy Israel. But in this interview, he struck a somewhat different note, placing the emphasis squarely on Iran’s hostility toward the United States.
“This is a regime committed to destroying the United States of America,” he said, describing Iran’s leadership as fanatically dedicated to that goal.
It was a notable shift in emphasis. Netanyahu has long warned about Iran’s calls to wipe Israel off the map. But in this interview, he repeatedly framed the threat in terms of Iran wanting to wipe America off the map as well – arguing that Iran’s missile and nuclear programs were ultimately aimed not only at Israel but at the United States itself.
In making that case, Netanyahu also took pains to frame Israel not as the driver of American action, but as a partner – a “very strong and able partner” – in confronting a shared threat.
That formulation is not incidental. It presents Israel as a capable ally acting alongside the US, not as the country pulling Washington into a war.
Trump undoubtedly understood the political risks of this war going in.
Even before the first strike, he knew the war would likely be unpopular with large segments of the American public. He saw the prewar polling that showed consistently that more Americans opposed the US initiating a strike than supported it. For instance, a University of Maryland poll taken in early February put those numbers at 49% against, and only 21% in favor.
He also knew his political opponents would use it against him in the upcoming midterm elections.
And yet he moved forward anyway.
That decision – taken despite the political risk – is both telling and notable.
