Trump: "Might have forced Israel's hand on Iran"

I never said it was anti semitic to disagree with the current government of Israel.

Even lots of Israelis do.

I was talking about something else entirely - people claiming that this is Israel's war and the US are just "joining in" to quote @kirinm

Why is it anti semitic to disagree with the current government of Israel? Is it anti Islamist to disagree with the current Iranian regime? Is it anti American to disagree with the actions of President Trump?

No surprise there.

I still think that is not applicable.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is what Rubio actually said at the first press conference when asked Are you saying the U.S. was forced to strike because of an impending Israeli action?

No, first – well, two things I would say. Number one is: no matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That’s the question of why now. But this operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage.
Look at the damage they’re doing now. And this is a weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. So that had to happen. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what.

https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/03/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-press-6/

I attribute it to antisemitism when people don't bother reading what was actually said but instead rush to twist things to suit a certain narrative. Even in Rubios initial statement about it he was asked did the US go in because of Israel and he said No.

Agree, not afree lol

I afree that Rubio and tge press and Trump, as usual, have developed a "when I said this, I meant that, in that context..." issue. And it can be that the press has taken statements out of context, it would not be the first time.
But it has been reported so in UK press. So you cannot attribute people talking about it to antisemitism amongst those reading what was widely reported.

I know exactly what Rubio said.

Just because Israel told the US that they had decided to attack Iran, that does not mean that the US attacked Iran because of Israel. We know they were very close to attacking from the fact that they had moved warships etc into the region.

This is what Rubio said yesterday to the press:

Okay ... somebody asked me a question yesterday – did we go in because of Israel. And I said – you asked me that, you, that follow up. And I said no. I told you this had to happen anyway. The President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made.

The President systemically – made a decision to systematically destroy this terroristic capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear in that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them.
That’s what I said yesterday, and you guys need to play it. 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?

https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/03/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-press-7/

@Twiglets1 you cannot really use that line of argument because is not any of the posters that said US attacked because Israel was going to attack, it was Rubio, yesterday. I am pretty sure you can access his speech on youtube or transcripts on newspapers.
It was Rubio who said it. It does not paint a good picture. And now Trump is rushing around to change the picture.
But it is not originated on antisemitism. It is what US representatives said.

Thanks Kirinm.
I know indeed the Pentagon is contradicting Trump. And this is not a good sign.

Agree that Israel were going to attack Iran. America have joined in the war for their own reasons however which makes it a joint US/Israel war.

I don’t think @Twiglets1should ‘give it a rest’ as you kindly put, she has a point.

Oh do give it a rest. Israel were going to attack Iran. America have joined in but not because there was any threat.

This isn’t made ffs. America have said it!

Appreciate these posts on the bigger picture.

The old antisemitic troop that the Jews control everything… Trump does what Trump wants to do. I thought everyone knew that at least, whether they like or loath him.

This is Israel’s war with Trump joining in

People say 'It's all about oil' as if that completely invalidates a war

I think people are just highlighting that it is not about the reasons Trump has given for the war to his citizens, whether oil is a valid and justified reason to go to war is an entirely different topic for discussion.

People say 'It's all about oil' as if that completely invalidates a war. Natural resources are always a major strategic part of any hot or cold war.

China is heavily dependent on cheap oil imports from Iran. They allow it to consistently undercut other economies and are helping it on its way to becoming the new world superpower.

In turn, the Iranian regime gets money and Chinese technology which allow it to survive sanctions and continue its campaigns of oppression, terrorism and proxy wars.

In turn, if Iran became the China-dependent dominant power in the Middle East it would allow China to control the Suez canal and the Strait of Hormuz, effectively controlling much of the world's economy.

So, yes, a lot of this is about oil, but who has oil and who gets oil is important.

I think Kemi will have some fun with that on PMQs.

Though actually, I do agree with Starmer's stance at the moment.

Me too

That is more like it!
I buy this explanation.

So what happened to Rubio's take on this? Do they actually talk about these things? Because .....
I do not believe a word any of them say.
I am surprised they manage to tie their shoes on in the mornings.