US strikes on Iran triggered by Israel’s plan to launch attack Rubio says

Published: March 3, 2026 . The English Chronicle Desk . The English Chronicle Online

A senior U.S. official has claimed that the United States’ pre-emptive strikes on Iran were driven in part by intelligence that Israel was planning its own military action against Tehran, prompting Washington to act first to shield American forces from expected retaliation, according to remarks by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The comments deepen debate in Washington over the justification for the widening U.S.–Israeli offensive against Iran and its legal basis under U.S. law.

Rubio, speaking to reporters at the U.S. Capitol, framed the joint strikes by U.S. and Israeli forces as a defensive measure. He said senior U.S. officials believed an Israeli attack on Iran’s military infrastructure would “precipitate an attack against American forces,” and that allowing that sequence to unfold could have resulted in significantly higher U.S. casualties. For that reason, he said, the United States and Israel “pre-emptively” struck Iranian targets in late February and early March.

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces,” Rubio told reporters, adding that if the U.S. had waited to be struck first, “we would suffer higher casualties,” and that acting before Iran’s expected retaliation was judged necessary for U.S. military personnel’s safety.

Rubio characterised the perceived threat as “imminent,” linking it to Iranian missile and drone capabilities and to Tehran’s reported intent to respond forcefully against U.S. and allied forces if attacked. He reiterated that the principal objectives of the military campaign were degrading Iran’s ballistic missile and naval threat, and stated that Washington hoped internal Iranian pressures might one day transform Tehran’s political system, though regime change was not officially the war’s stated aim.

The secretary’s remarks came as the conflict — which has seen American and Israeli air and missile strikes deep inside Iran, including in Tehran — continues to spread across the region. Iran has retaliated with rockets and drones aimed at U.S. bases, diplomatic facilities and allied states, raising concerns about further escalation. Rubo’s framing underscores a U.S. view that early action was necessary to protect American interests in the face of a regional security environment already animated by months of tension.

Rubio’s comments have divided opinion among U.S. lawmakers. Some Republicans have supported the administration’s defensive framing, while critics — including some Democrats — have questioned whether there was credible evidence of a direct and imminent Iranian strike against U.S. forces or whether the narrative conflates allied intentions with threats to justify broader military engagement.

The debate touches on constitutional and strategic questions about executive war powers and the threshold for using military force, especially at a time when U.S. personnel have already suffered combat casualties and when the conflict’s endgame remains unclear.

Read More At>>