Follow us on social

2023-01-30t171455z_269846990_rc2do98pzutz_rtrmadp_3_israel-usa-blinken-netanyahu-scaled

Is Israel playing hardball, sucking the US into plot to attack Iran?

Not only would such a move be unconstitutional, but strategically stupid

Analysis | Middle East

The Israeli government has been keeping the Biden administration in the dark about the details of its planned reprisal against Iran.

According to sources tapped by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, the Netanyahu government has not shared information with the U.S. about what it is going to do “even after American military officials have discussed possibly supporting Israeli retaliation with intelligence or airstrikes of their own, according to two U.S. officials.”

Israel’s lack of communication with the U.S. is remarkable on its own, but the fact that the U.S. military has been floating the possibility of launching airstrikes on Iranian targets to support Israel’s attack is alarming.

The U.S. cannot legally initiate hostilities against Iran in support of an Israeli reprisal, no matter how the administration might try to dress it up as a “defensive” action. It is also completely unacceptable under our constitutional system for U.S. forces to participate in an attack on another country without Congressional debate and authorization. Unless there is an attack on the United States or its forces, the president cannot order the military to engage in hostilities on his own. The U.S. military shouldn’t be participating or assisting in such an attack just because the president says so.

Any U.S. support for an Israeli attack on Iran would be a serious mistake. Direct Israeli attacks on Iran will not end the back-and-forth reprisals between the two states. They practically guarantee that the Iranian leadership will feel compelled to respond in kind again. If Washington is seen as assisting the Israeli attack in any way, that could also expose U.S. troops and ships in the region to Iranian retaliation.

Obviously direct U.S. strikes on Iranian forces or installations would invite more attacks on American personnel and interests.

While the Biden administration continues to provide unconditional backing to Israel no matter what its government does, U.S.-Israeli relations have still sunk to new lows. Israel has repeatedly carried out attacks in Syria, Lebanon and Iran without giving Washington much or any advance notice despite the extensive support and protection that the U.S. has been providing.

In the case of the intense air strikes that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah along with possibly hundreds of civilians, the Israeli government reportedly gave the U.S. no notification before launching the attack. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu may have assumed that the strikes were so aggressive that the U.S. would oppose them if it knew about them earlier.

According to journalist Laura Rozen, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, from traveling to the United States this week to meet with the Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Netanyahu reportedly insisted that he would not permit Gallant to go to Washington until Biden called him and the Israeli cabinet approved the attack plan. The president and the prime minister have not spoken since August. There was a report on Wednesday that Biden would speak to Netanyahu that day.

The Biden administration is responsible for encouraging what international relations scholar Barry Posen has called “reckless driving” by the Israeli government. Posen explained the “reckless driving” concept in his book Restraint this way: “Small states, or non-state actors, which for any number of reasons have become confident in the U.S. commitment, behave recklessly. They pursue their own narrow interests even when they are at variance with the interests of the United States.”

Because the U.S. has reflexively backed Israel every step of the way and helped to shield Israel from the consequences of its attacks on other countries, Netanyahu has taken advantage of that unwavering support to take far greater risks than he likely would have otherwise. This has been disastrous for the region and terrible for U.S. interests, and it has been made possible by Washington’s excessive commitment.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reportedly described Israeli behavior as “playing with house money.” As a Washington Post report put it, Austin meant that Israel was “taking big shots at its adversaries, knowing that the United States, as Israel’s chief ally, would throw its military and diplomatic weight behind it.” Administration officials do recognize the perverse effect that their lockstep support has on Israeli decision-making, but they are unwilling to change course and rein Netanyahu in.

The U.S. should be urging Israel to refrain from further attacks on Iran and Iranian forces, and it should be using its considerable leverage to make sure that Israel doesn’t attack. Given the relatively limited damage and lack of casualties from Iran’s two missile barrages, another round of strikes would only stoke conflict and provoke more reprisals. Neither Israel nor the United States can afford a war with Iran, and our government should be doing everything it can to make that war less likely.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no will in the Biden administration to halt the slide to a larger conflict that involves U.S. forces.


L-R: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after their meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, on Monday, January 30, 2023. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS
Analysis | Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.