Senators Accuse Israel of Pushing U.S. into War with Iran

(MENAFN) Senior US senators confronted top Pentagon official Elbridge Colby on Tuesday over the legality, strategy, and true origins of the ongoing military campaign against Iran, with lawmakers openly questioning whether Israel — not America — had driven the United States into war.

Colby, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee as strikes on Iran entered their fourth day, with US and Israeli forces having already killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and numerous senior security officials since Saturday.

Committee chairman Sen. Jack Reed opened with a broadside, charging that the unfolding military operations were "completely contrary" to the Pentagon's own national defense strategy — published just 39 days prior.

Colby pushed back hard.

"I completely reject that characterization. Sir, if you'd look in the strategy, it details specifically not only the threat posed by Iran and ensuring that the president has the options to act against Iran. It also explicitly and repeatedly details that the strategy will provide the ability…to do exactly this kind of operation," he said.

Colby also noted that Israel and Gulf allies "are really leaning in" by actively supporting military operations against Iran — remarks that would fuel further scrutiny throughout the hearing.

'Did Israel Drive Us to War?'
The session grew most charged when senators turned to comments made earlier by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had acknowledged on Capitol Hill that Washington had advance knowledge of planned Israeli military action.

"We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio told reporters.

Sen. Angus King seized on the statement with barely concealed alarm.

"Have we now delegated the most solemn decision that can be made in our society, the decision to go to war, to another country? That's the implication, the breathtaking implication of Secretary Rubio's statement," King said, adding that Rubio had "inadvertently told the truth" that the war was effectively driven by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I agree with you that Secretary Rubio told the truth. I wouldn't characterize his remarks," Colby replied.

King pressed further: "I find it very disturbing that we're committing this nation to war based upon a decision by…a staunch ally, and I'm a supporter of Israel. But I don't think anybody should drive our decision to go to war."

President Trump, meanwhile, rejected the notion that Israel had pulled Washington into the conflict. "No, I might have forced their hands. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first," he told reporters at the White House.

'America First' — Unless It's Israel
Sen. Elizabeth Warren challenged Colby on the contradiction between the Trump administration's "America First" doctrine and its decision to wage war alongside Israel — pressing him directly on whether joint military action amounted to interventionism.

"I don't think this is. No," Colby replied, describing interventionism as "a more, I would say, you know, kind of responsibility to protect or something."

"Really? And we didn't do this in order to try to protect Israel?" Warren fired back.

Colby conceded it was "one of the goals."

"So it is interventionism," Warren said.

"The Trump administration first says it's going to be America First, then puts out a national defense strategy and then goes to war alongside Israel illegally, unconstitutionally," she said. "And that is now the policy of the Trump administration: say one thing in a campaign, write it down on paper, and then go do whatever the hell you want."

Regime Change — Just Don't Call It That
Sen. Tim Kaine rounded out the hearing's most pointed exchanges, grouping US actions in both Venezuela and Iran under the banner of interventionism and pressing Colby on whether killing the Ayatollah and pursuing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro constituted regime change.

"Is arresting (Venezuelan President Nicolas) Maduro and killing the Ayatollah, is that regime change?" he said.

Colby hedged: "I don't know. I think it's an interesting debate."

Kaine was unsparing in his assessment. "You are uncomfortable having your own words read to you, and you're uncomfortable saying that the assassination of a leader and the arrest of a leader, you won't acknowledge that's regime change. I think that's very instructive to those listening," he said.

On the stated objectives of the campaign, Colby told the committee they remained focused on neutralizing Iran's capacity to project military force — particularly its missile capabilities — against American forces, bases, and regional allies.

"I do think those are scoped and reasonable objectives that can be attained," he said.

Iran has since responded to the strikes with drone and missile barrages targeting Israel and US military assets throughout the region, prompting several Gulf states to shut their airspace entirely.

MENAFN04032026000045017169ID1110815867