Trump cites ‘imminent threat to the U.S.’
Rubio: “Iranian attack on Israel”
On operation objectives, Trump: ‘regime change’
Rubio: ‘destruction of nuclear·missile capabilities’

With regard to the ‘imminent threat’ U.S. President Donald Trump cited as the justification for the strike on Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (photo) said the threat meant ‘Iranian attack on Israel,’ raising fresh questions about the legitimacy of the strike. There are also criticisms that members of the U.S. administration are offering conflicting statements about the objectives of the military operation.

On the 2nd (local time), before giving a closed intelligence briefing to eight congressional leaders on the military operation against Iran, Secretary Rubio told reporters that “we knew there would be action by Israel, and we knew that would prompt an Iranian attack targeting U.S. forces in the Middle East,” and that “if we did not act preemptively before they (Iran) attacked us, there would be more casualties.”

The thrust is that Iran was preemptively struck because, if Israel attacked Iran, Iran could also retaliate against the United States. The remarks can also be interpreted to mean that the ‘imminent threat’ was one faced by Israel, not by the United States. President Trump, when launching the operation on the 28th of last month, said, “we will protect the American people by eliminating the imminent threat coming from the Iranian regime.”

Rubio also said that the goals of this military operation are “to destroy (of Iran) ballistic missile capability, to make it impossible to rebuild it, and to prevent covert possession of a nuclear program.” This is a different explanation from President Trump, who signaled an intent for regime change by urging “(the Iranian people) seize control of the government.” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said that day, “this is not a so-called regime-change war.”

Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee who attended the intelligence briefing that day, pointed out that the Trump administration message is inconsistent, making unclear what the ultimate objective of the operation is. Warner told CNN that over the past eight to nine days he had heard “at least four different objectives,” adding, “we cannot be certain which of them must be achieved for us to reach the final stage (to end the strikes).” He listed the objectives he had heard as ‘destruction of the nuclear·missile capabilities of Iran’ ‘regime change’ ‘sinking the Iranian fleet,’ among others.

Warner also warned, “there was no imminent threat to the U.S. homeland by Iran; there was only a threat to Israel,” adding, “if a threat to Israel is equated with a threat to the United States, we are entering uncharted territory without precedent.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (Republican) said, “had we waited for a response (of Iran) rather than acting first, the losses would have been far greater,” asserting that the operation was “defensive.”