US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Israel's determination to strike Iran compelled the United States to take action. This statement prompted a new wave of criticism as the Trump administration continues to alter its justification for military engagement with Iran.

Rubio made these remarks on Monday while briefing lawmakers on Capitol Hill, more than two days into the ongoing strikes against Iran. His comments sparked accusations that Israel is influencing US policy decisions. Rubio later clarified that the US would have attacked Iran regardless, citing threats from its missile program, nuclear ambitions, and drone projects.

"The imminent threat is that we know if Iran is attacked—and we believe they will be attacked—they will immediately act against us," Rubio told reporters. "We will not wait to be hit before we respond."

This rationale was later echoed by US House Speaker Mike Johnson but faced immediate criticism. Among the critics were members of President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) faction, including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who demanded a "strategic explanation."

"Have we outsourced the most solemn decision in our society—the decision to go to war—to another country?" Independent Senator Angus King of Maine questioned a senior Pentagon official during a hearing on Tuesday. "I believe no one but US interests should dictate our decision to go to war."

Rubio's explanation adds another layer to the numerous justifications provided for the US strikes, which resulted in the deaths of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, dozens of other senior leaders, and targeted Iran's ballistic missile and drone programs.

President Trump and other US officials have previously offered varying reasons—from pushing for regime change and supporting protesters to preventing the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons. The administration has also stated its intent to destroy Iran's ballistic missile program and end its support for regional proxy militias.

"They are shifting blame," said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "The obvious follow-up question is, did they wish Israel wouldn't do this? Presumably, they were fine with Israel preparing to act."

On Tuesday afternoon, the White House began pushing back. "Based on how negotiations were going, I think they would have struck first," Trump said when asked if Israel forced his hand on Iran. "I didn't want that to happen. If anything, I might have pushed Israel to act."

White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt also shared a link on platform X to an article in the National Review titled "No, Marco Rubio Did Not Claim Israel Dragged Donald Trump Into War With Iran."

These statements have also raised questions about whether the US action complies with international law, although the Trump administration has previously downplayed such concerns.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, dismissed the notion that risks to Israel equate to an "imminent threat" to the United States. Trump administration officials have been eager to establish this point, as proving an imminent threat allows the US to launch strikes without congressional authorization.

"We've seen the objectives of this operation change, I believe, four or five times now," Warner stated following Rubio's Monday briefing. "A week ago, it was Iran's nuclear capability. A few days later, it became destroying ballistic missiles. Then, in the president's own words, it turned into regime change."