Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/06/2026 7:27:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has offered a striking explanation for why the United States attacked Iran: Washington, he said, “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” anticipated that Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces, and therefore hit first to reduce American casualties. The formulation is not only politically convenient; it is conceptually confused. It implies that the United States acted because Israel was going to act—yet also insists that the operation “needed to happen,” as Rubio put it, regardless. That is, the argument simultaneously portrays America as reluctantly reacting to an ally and decisively pursuing its own war aims—an oxymoron that muddies responsibility rather than clarifying it.
Rubio’s framing is worth taking seriously precisely because it is likely to be repeated. In a party contesting the balance between “America First” restraint and hawkish power projection, blaming a war on an ally can be electorally useful. It allows a would-be presidential contender to have it both ways: to claim toughness against Iran while displacing accountability for the decision to fight. And historically, narratives in which the United States is said to fight someone else’s war, under pressure from Jewish actors or Israel’s agenda, have too often been a gateway for conspiratorial and antisemitic politics at home. That risk is heightened in a polarized environment and with the 2028 election cycle already in view.
It is legitimate to debate whether the United States should be fighting Iran. It is legitimate to question strategy, costs, objectives, and exit plans. What is not legitimate, absent evidence, is the claim that Washington entered war unwillingly because Israel manipulated or compelled it.
The historical record does not support that argument.
The confrontation between the United States and Iran did not begin with Israeli action.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The US confrontation with Iran stretches back more than four decades—to the 1979 hostage crisis, to attacks on U.S. personnel in Lebanon in the 1980s, to the sanctions regimes of the 1990s, and to the long shadow conflict between U.S. forces and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq after 2003.
Successive Democratic and Republican administrations have identified Iran as a strategic rival, a proliferator risk, and a sponsor of armed networks hostile to U.S. interests. Those assessments were not drafted in Jerusalem. For better or for worse, they emerged from U.S. intelligence collection and analysis and the policymaking process.
The article points out America’s longstanding dispute with Iran but it actually does not refute what Rubio said. It’s a case of the headline overpromising what the text of the article actually delivered.
That being said, I think Rubio’s comment was ridiculous anyway. I
bkmk
Compelled.
The title is 100% untrue. The are Israel’s b-:/tch.
“No, Israel did not compel the U.S. to wage war on Iran”
True. They just said ‘we’re going in and if you don’t go in as well, “you suck and our billionaire donors will not back you “.
Not that our warpigs Lindsey, Bolton, Boeing, NorthrupGruman, LockheedMartin, Raytheon, et al. needed any encouragement..
Rubio said the quiet part out loud. I guess the alternative is that we dragged poor Israel into war with Iran.
I watched a short video of Trump from 1980 saying that the U.S. should hit Iran hard and destroy their nuclear program.
That is pretty consistent if you ask me and I don’t think Israel was putting any pressure on him back then to say that.
This is, like, just my opinion dude...
The U.S. and Israel had both agreed on an attack,
and were waiting for the right opportunity.
Israel detected the right opportunity,
and it was GO TIME!
They did not “compel us”,
they identified the best opportunity to accomplish
what both countries had already agreed to do.
The joint operation was planned a while ago. Israel was tasked with targeting Iran’s military and leadership infrastructure, while the U.S. was tasked with the destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, navy, and nuclear program.
Negotiations with Iran were going nowhere and Trump gave them a 10-day countdown. After it expired Israel had reliable time-sensitive intelligence on a leadership meeting taking place and committed to act on it. It was a highly synchronized and integrated tactical strike.
Stop making sense.
Oh, and we have an opportunity to remove one of China’s pieces from the board.
Which follows removing one of their other pieces a short while ago. Venezuela.
And Cuba is in the hopper.
And the Panama Canal.
When people visit George Washington’s grave, they don’t observe any rolling motions. But they do hear a ghostly voice repeating over and oner “ avoid foreign entanglements...avoid foreign entanglements....avoid foreign entanglements...”.
RE: But they do hear a ghostly voice repeating over and oner “ avoid foreign entanglements...avoid foreign entanglements....avoid foreign entanglements...”.
____________________________
Well, a mere two Presidents later, Thomas Jefferson forgot or ignored what George Washington warned against and sent the Navy to confront the Barbary Pirates in Libya ( Tripoli ).
It was one of the earliest and clearest examples of an American president using military power overseas without a formal declaration of war. The reason was simple and very modern‑sounding:
⭐ Jefferson sent troops to Libya to stop state‑sponsored piracy, ransom demands, and extortion by the Barbary States.
The “Barbary States” — Tripoli (Libya), Algiers, Tunis, and Morocco — operated a state‑run piracy and hostage‑taking economy in the late 1700s and early 1800s.
They seized merchant ships, enslaved crews, and demanded:
• tribute payments
• ransom
• annual protection money
European nations paid because it was cheaper than fighting. We didn’t.
When Jefferson became president in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded higher tribute from the U.S.
Jefferson’s response was blunt: No.
He believed:
• Paying ransom encouraged more attacks
• The U.S. should not be extorted
• A navy existed to protect commerce
• American honor and sovereignty were at stake
Tripoli declared war on the United States by cutting down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate — a formal act of war in that era.
Jefferson then sent the U.S. Navy.
This became the First Barbary War (1801–1805).
Key events:
- U.S. Marines landed in North Africa
- The famous march “to the shores of Tripoli”
- The burning of the captured USS Philadelphia
- Naval victories that forced Tripoli to negotiate
It was the first major overseas military action in U.S. history.
The “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli” line in the Marine Corps Hymn is directly inspired by the U.S. campaign against the Barbary Pirates in Libya.
I cannot help but ask — What if Washington was STILL President, would he have done what Jefferson did?
A bit disenginous to compare what Jefferson did in 1803 in North Africa to what has been happening for the last sixty years in the Mideast. In 1803 American commerce was being directly attacked by pirates, American citizens were being taken hostage, imprisoned and even enslaved. Action which was clearly self defensive was necessary. There was no such pattern of infringement on Americans that initiated American intrusive involvement in the Mideast. That initial involvement led to the complex entangled web that Washington so feared.
RE: In 1803 American commerce was being directly attacked by pirates,
Aren’t our commercial ships being attacked by Houthis in the Red Sea?
Also, there was no threat of ballistic missiles and nuclear tipped warheads during Jefferson’s time.
And that too. China is already gasping for air.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.