US Senators Question Iran Strikes, Warn Against Aligning with “Israel’s” Agenda

By Staff, Agencies

Two senior US senators have criticized US President Donald Trump over his decision to initiate military action against Iran, arguing that there was no immediate threat from Tehran and suggesting the move aligns with the agenda of “Israel.”

Senator Bernie Sanders stated that American foreign and military policy should be shaped by the American people, not by what he described as the right-wing extremist cabinet of “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Writing on X, Sanders said Netanyahu had already secured billions of dollars in US support during the war in Gaza, launched in October 2023, and is now seeking a broader conflict with Iran — a goal he suggested Trump has supported.

According to Sanders, decisions about war and peace must reflect US national interests and democratic processes rather than the priorities of “Israel.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to justify the operation — referred to as “Operation Epic Fury” — during a closed-door briefing with lawmakers.

He cited concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, missile development, and claims regarding potential long-range strike capabilities. However, critics argue that these assertions have not demonstrated a direct or imminent threat to the United States.

Following the briefing, Senator Richard Blumenthal said he had seen no evidence of an imminent threat that would warrant military action. He emphasized that neither he nor the American public had been presented with proof that Iran posed an immediate danger to the US.

In response to the reported strikes, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard [IRG] and national army have launched missile attacks targeting US military positions in the region as well as sites in territories controlled by “Israel.” The escalating situation has led Washington to temporarily close some embassies and advise American citizens to leave affected areas.

The developments have intensified debate in Washington over the legal basis, strategic rationale and potential consequences of a widening conflict with Iran.