Washington Admits: War on Iran Came at Israeli "Request"

Washington – Said Arikat – 27/4/2026

In a striking development with serious political and legal implications, the US State Department, in an official statement issued last week, admitted that the United States is engaged in its military conflict with Iran "at the request" of Israel, a rare admission that directly reveals the extent of the Israeli role in pushing Washington towards the confrontation, which the administration has named "Operation Epic Wrath."

The statement was issued by the State Department's legal adviser, Reed D. Rubenstein, in an attempt to provide legal cover for the ongoing war. The American official said that the United States "is engaged in this conflict at the request of its Israeli ally and within the framework of collective defense, in addition to exercising its inherent right to self-defense."

This statement, despite its legal phrasing, seemed closer to a political acknowledgment that the decision to go to war was not stemming from a direct threat to American national security, but rather a response to considerations related to Israel's security and its regional calculations. This brings back to the forefront an old question in Washington: To what extent does Israel shape the priorities of the world's first superpower?

The use of the term "collective defense" indicates an attempt to rely on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which stipulates the right of states to individual or collective self-defense if subjected to armed attack. However, this justification faces fundamental flaws, as there is no binding mutual defense treaty between the United States and Israel, unlike Washington's agreements with NATO countries.

More complicated is that many observers point out that the United States and Israel initiated the attack on Iran, which weakens the logic of "self-defense." US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had previously stated that Washington acted because Israel was preparing to strike Iran, and that a potential Iranian response might include American bases in the region.

Thus, the administration's logic is based on a preemptive premise: attacking Iran because Iran might later respond to an Israeli attack. This is a logic that international legal experts see as a loose expansion of the concept of legitimate defense, allowing for preventive wars under open pretexts.

Rubenstein also reiterated the White House's traditional argument that the United States has been in a continuous conflict with Iran for decades, based on attacks carried out by Tehran-allied groups against American forces in the Middle East. However, this narrative ignores a long history of mutual confrontation, including Washington's support for Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, as well as continuous sanctions, covert operations, and economic pressures.

Domestically in the US, this admission may raise new questions within Congress regarding war powers and the legality of the administration's involvement in a broad conflict without clear legislative authorization. It also provides the administration's opponents with valuable political material to argue that American soldiers are being dragged into conflicts that serve the interests of another country before American national interest.

Regionally, the message received by Arab and Islamic capitals is that Washington is no longer an arbiter or a potential mediator, but a direct partner in a security project led by Israel. This understanding weakens what remains of the United States' image as a balancing power and strengthens trends towards seeking alternative alliances.

The statement reveals that the US-Israeli relationship has long since transcended the boundaries of a traditional alliance to the level of direct influence on decisions of war and peace. When Washington declares that it is fighting at Israel's request, it implicitly acknowledges that the ally's calculations have become part of the American decision-making mechanism. This shift not only weakens the independence of foreign policy but also sows doubts among other allies who may ask: Are American interests weighed by a national standard or solely by Israel's security and political priorities?

Reliance on the concept of "collective defense" in this case opens a wide door for reinterpreting international law according to power balances. If it becomes possible to wage war because an ally feels threatened or plans an attack, the lines between deterrence and aggression quickly blur. This approach may later be used by other powers to justify similar interventions, which means weakening the United Nations system itself, and transforming international legitimacy into a selective tool that major powers use when they wish and ignore when they want.

The essence of the danger is that the United States, when waging war in response to Israeli demands, shows a willingness to engage in a broad regional confrontation that extends beyond the direct conflict with Iran to the ignition of multiple arenas in the Middle East. Such a path not only threatens regional security but also exposes the global economy to severe disruptions in energy markets, trade, and supply chains, exacerbating existing crises. And when this happens to serve Israel's priorities, the cost of the decision transcends politics to affect global stability as a whole.