Israel's Role in Causing the War

Last June, there was a very public campaign led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to convince cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump to join Israel in a war against Iran. Subsequently, Israel attacked Iran, and Trump joined in by sending U.S. bombers to strike Iranian nuclear sites. The fighting proved to be short-lived, lasting just 12 days. However, history seems to have repeated itself in the current war in Iran. One commonality between the June attacks on Iran and today's war is the role played by Netanyahu and Israel. Both in June and in the run-up to the current fighting, Netanyahu was essential to persuading Trump to join the war effort. The role of Israel, and more specifically Netanyahu, in leading the U.S. into this military conflict has become controversial. This was highlighted by the resignation of now-former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent. Kent resigned because of the U.S.-Israel war against Iran which he said had been started "due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."

Prior to the June fighting, I wrote a blog post titled "Israel's Efforts to Drag the U.S. into its War against Iran." I quoted a New York Times article that said:

For Mr. Netanyahu, the last several months brought to an end years of trying to cajole the United States into backing or at least tolerating his long-held desire to deal Iran’s nuclear program a crippling blow. He appears to have judged, correctly, that Mr. Trump would ultimately come around, if only grudgingly.

In that blog post, I noted that the suggestion that Israel is leading the U.S. into war is consistent with the antisemitic trope that Jews control the U.S. government. I suggested that those who blamed Israel for the U.S. involvement in the war would be branded as "antisemites" and that this would contribute to blurring the line between Israel and Jews. I believe that it is important that the distinction between Israel and the Jewish community be maintained. I also wrote that "it is incorrect and antisemitic to hold all Jews responsible for Israel's actions." Now, with the U.S. again involved in a war at Israel's behest, the same concerns are resurfacing.

In a quote very reminiscent of the one above, the New York Times wrote this month that:

The U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime.

An important role was also played by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who coordinated with Israel to help convince Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported that:

To help make the case on Iran, Graham traveled several times to Israel in recent weeks, meeting with members of the country’s intelligence agency. “They’ll tell me things our own government won’t tell me,” he said. He spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coaching him on how to lobby the president for action. Netanyahu showed the president intelligence that persuaded Trump to go ahead, Graham said.

Shortly after the outbreak of the war, Netanyahu told the press that delivering a crushing blow to Iran was "what I have longed to do for 40 years."

Once the fighting broke out, U.S. officials struggled to explain why Trump had launched the war. Briefly, the government settled on the explanation that Israel had been the instigator. This reasoning was advanced by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio:

Speaking to the Gang of Eight, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the mission’s timing and goals were shaped by the fact that Israel was going to attack with or without the United States.

Trump and his administration quickly moved away from this justification and now seem to have settled on the false allegation that Iran was close to creating a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, the suggestion that Israel dragged the U.S. into the war has become widely accepted.

What is important to understand on this point is that Israel and Netanyahu undeniably played a crucial role in convincing Trump to launch the war. Had Israel not wanted the war, there would not have been one. I don't think that this can be argued otherwise. Simply put, Israel's encouragement of Trump was fundamental to his decision.

However, ultimately, it was Trump's decision. I do not agree with the conspiracy theories that Israel — or "Jews" for that matter — had some sort of control over Trump and forced him to decide to go to war. I don't think Israel holds "Epstein" blackmail. Even if the Israelis were threatening to attack without the U.S., Trump could have threatened to withhold weapons, stop economic aid, or take any number of other measures to force Israel to stand down. Ultimately, it was Trump's decision to go to war. Israel and Graham made arguments that were convincing to Trump; they appealed to his ego, and drunk on his success in Venezuela and not being especially mentally competent in the best of times, Trump was persuaded. The distinction between Israel playing a key role and Trump ultimately being responsible may be small, but it is important.

However, that distinction is not being universally recognized, and the idea that the U.S. has gone to war because of Israel has become widespread. At the same time, my earlier concern that those blaming Israel would be accused of antisemitism is also coming to fruition. This is something that I consider an unwelcome development. It is important to recognize that there are antisemites who are arguing that Israel got the U.S. into the war with Iran. The fact that their arguments have some justification does not excuse their antisemitism. However, the fact that there are antisemites making this allegation should not be used to paint others with the same brush. As noted above, there is considerable evidence that Israel played a crucial role in encouraging Trump to launch the war. That is undeniable.

This issue became relevant again with Kent's resignation. In his resignation letter, he not only blamed Israel and its U.S. supporters for the current war, but also for the Iraq war and the battle against ISIS in Syria in which Kent's wife was killed. Kent has a long association with White nationalist personalities. Almost immediately after his resignation, he scheduled interviews with podcasters Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson, both of whom have been repeatedly accused of antisemitism. Therefore, it is not exactly outlandish to suggest that Kent may be guilty of antisemitism. At the same time, as I have emphasized, at least as far as the current war is concerned, there is considerable support for his allegation that pressure from Israel led to the fighting.

Kent's claims about Israel energized critics of Israel, many of whom seem to believe that Kent's letter justified their own positions. In addition, some critics of the war ignored Kent's mentions of Israel and, instead, focused on his argument that Iran did not present an imminent threat to the United States. In many ways, the resignation letter presented a Rorschach test in which readers all saw different things.

On the left, there was concern that Kent and others like him were essentially hijacking the anti-war cause in service of their antisemitism. For instance, as Zack Beauchamp wrote in Vox:

But the actual text of Kent’s resignation letter suggests a very different conclusion: that he is not taking an admirable antiwar stance, but laying the groundwork for an antisemitic conspiracy theory that could define the future of the GOP.

Similarly, Max Kennerly, writing on Bluesky, posted that:

Netanyahu sucks, AIPAC sucks, but "we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby" is just code for "blame Jews." Trump wasn't forced to do this. Trump's supporters—like Kent—weren't forced to elect him and embolden him. They're not absolved of any responsibility.

In this way, Kent and his resignation letter present a philosophical question. Is it possible to agree with part of what Kent says in a vacuum or must everything he writes be viewed in the context of all else that we know about him? To put it another way, can a broken clock be correct twice a day or should even those apparently correct times be viewed with suspicion?

I also question the quick reactions by those like Beauchamp and Kennerly to immediately argue that any mention of Israel actually means "The Jews." Even Beauchamp admits that:

There is some truth here: Netanyahu did indeed lobby Trump to go to war, as did pro-Israel members of the broader Republican coalition. The administration’s attempt to justify its dubious claims of an “imminent threat” from Iran by citing an impending attack on Israel also reinforced the perception that Israel forced America into war.

Beauchamp then goes on to analyze the fuller content of Kent's letter and makes a pretty convincing argument that, as a whole, Kent is laying the ground for a conspiracy theory blaming Israel and, ultimately, Jews for Trump's failure.

Moreover, both Beauchamp and Sarah Posner (writing on Bluesky) make a convincing argument that Kent is engaging in an ongoing battle among Republicans concerning antisemitism. Personalities such as Nick Fuentes, Candice Owens, and Tucker Carlson are fighting with the likes of all-around crazy person Laura Loomer, Senator Ted Cruz, and many others over Israel and antisemitism. What starts as an "America first" position often morphs into being anti-Israel and, eventually, antisemitism. What Beauchamp and others are suggesting is that, regardless of how legitimate Kent's allegations about Israel may be, offering him any credibility whatsoever ultimately strengthens the antisemitic wing of the Republican Party.

The real danger being presented is that if the Iran war goes badly, which it already appears to be doing, Trump is likely to look for a scapegoat. Perhaps that may simply end up being Lindsey Graham. But it could end up being Netanyahu and Israel. The more that the line between being anti-Israel and being antisemitic is blurred, the more dangerous that result will be for American Jews. Therefore, while there may be cases like Joe Kent who we should be careful not to anoint as truth-tellers, we should also be careful not to brush off all of those blaming Israel for the war as "Jew haters." Erasing the line between critics of Israel and antisemites only strengthens those who, in fact, hate Jews.