Sources say the US is likely to join Israel’s war against Iran

The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to escalate tensions with Iran by directly entering Israel’s ongoing military campaign, raising fears of a catastrophic regional war. Sources indicate that U.S. airstrikes could begin as early as Monday, despite warnings from Tehran that American bases across the Middle East will be targeted in retaliation. While the White House frames its actions as necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, intelligence agencies have repeatedly stated there is no evidence Tehran is pursuing a weapon—exposing the war push as a manufactured crisis designed to justify military aggression.

Key Points:

Trump Administration’s stance:

• The Trump administration is considering direct U.S. airstrikes on Iran, potentially starting as soon as Monday.
• Military planners have reportedly drawn up strike options targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, missile sites, and Revolutionary Guard positions.
• The Pentagon has mobilized additional forces in the Persian Gulf, including F-35 stealth fighters and B-52 bombers, signaling imminent action.
• Such a move would mark a dramatic shift from covert operations to overt military confrontation, risking rapid escalation.

Israel’s stance:

• Israel lacks the military capability to strike Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear facility and is urging U.S. involvement.
• Israeli officials have privately acknowledged that their conventional forces cannot penetrate Fordow’s fortified defenses without U.S. bunker-busting munitions.
• Netanyahu’s government has already intensified lobbying efforts in Washington, framing a preemptive strike as necessary to prevent an existential threat.
• However, military analysts warned that even a successful strike would only delay Iran’s nuclear program while provoking severe retaliation.

Iran’s stance:

• Iran has warned it will retaliate against U.S. bases if attacked, risking thousands of American casualties.
• The Islamic Republic possesses precision-guided missiles capable of striking U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf, where tens of thousands of troops are stationed.
• Proxy forces in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq could also be mobilized, opening multiple fronts against U.S. and allied forces.
• A single miscalculation could spiral into a broader conflict, drawing in regional actors like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Intelligence agencies:

• U.S. intelligence agencies confirm there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon, undermining the justification for war.
• The 2023 National Intelligence Estimate reiterated that Iran has not resumed weaponization efforts, despite enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels.
• Former CIA officials have warned that exaggerating Iran’s nuclear ambitions risks repeating the intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq War.
• The disconnect between intelligence assessments and political rhetoric suggests an ulterior motive behind the push for military action.

US policies right now:

• Trump’s threats of military force coincide with stalled nuclear talks, revealing a strategy of coercion over diplomacy.
• The administration has rejected European-led efforts to revive the JCPOA, instead demanding unrealistic concessions from Tehran.
• Hardliners in Washington and Tel Aviv view diplomacy as a delaying tactic, preferring regime change through economic and military pressure.
• This approach risks isolating the U.S. diplomatically while pushing Iran toward more aggressive nuclear posturing.

A manufactured crisis: The truth behind Iran’s nuclear program

For years, the U.S. intelligence community has maintained that Iran is not actively developing nuclear weapons. In 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. More recent assessments, including those under the Trump administration, reaffirm this stance. Yet, despite this consensus, Washington and Tel Aviv continue pushing a narrative of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat—a narrative contradicted by facts.

Iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate limits on uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. Ali Larijani, an aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned in April that an attack by the U.S. or Israel would force Iran to reconsider its nuclear stance. “We are not moving towards weapons, but if you do something wrong… you will force Iran to move towards that because it has to defend itself,” Larijani said.

• The IAEA’s latest reports confirm that while Iran has expanded uranium enrichment, there is no evidence of weaponization activities.
• Former U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have admitted that Iran’s nuclear program was never an imminent threat.
• The persistent exaggeration of Iran’s capabilities suggests a deliberate effort to manufacture consent for military action.

The war strategy: Coercion over diplomacy

The Trump administration’s approach to Iran has been marked by threats rather than genuine negotiation. Despite Tehran’s openness to a diplomatic solution, Trump has repeatedly warned that military force remains an option. CENTCOM commander Gen. Michael Kurilla confirmed this week that he has provided the president with a “wide range” of military options, signaling readiness for war.

This strategy mirrors past U.S. interventions where fabricated threats justified military action. The parallels to the Iraq War—where false claims of weapons of mass destruction led to a disastrous invasion—are impossible to ignore. Now, history risks repeating itself as Trump and Netanyahu push for war under similarly dubious pretenses.

• The administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign has failed to force Iranian capitulation, leaving military action as the last resort.
• Diplomatic channels have been deliberately sabotaged, with Trump dismissing negotiations as “weak” and ineffective.
• The reliance on coercion over dialogue ensures that any conflict will be far bloodier and more protracted than policymakers anticipate.

The consequences: A regional war with no winners

If the U.S. launches strikes on Iran, the consequences will be devastating. Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh has already warned that Tehran will target American bases across the Middle East. With advanced ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. installations, an Iranian counterattack could result in thousands of casualties among U.S. troops.

Beyond the immediate human cost, such a conflict could destabilize the entire region, dragging in neighboring countries and disrupting global energy supplies. The Biden administration’s quiet support for Israel’s strikes—despite public denials—reveals a dangerous escalation in U.S. foreign policy, one that prioritizes aggression over peace.

• A prolonged war could trigger a global energy crisis, with Iran likely blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil passes.
• Russia and China may exploit the chaos, providing Iran with advanced weaponry while undermining U.S. influence in the region.
• The humanitarian toll would be staggering, with millions of civilians caught in the crossfire of a conflict with no clear exit strategy.

The current trajectory risks plunging the Middle East into an unwinnable war. Unless cooler heads prevail, the U.S. and Israel may soon find themselves entangled in a conflict far costlier than they anticipated, with repercussions echoing across the globe. The world cannot afford another war built on deception—the stakes are simply too high.

Sources include:

News.antiwar.com

News.antiwar.com

TheHill.com