The US chose to strike Iran to advance its own interests, not because it was “dragged” into war by Israel, Former Israeli ambassador to the United States Mike Herzog told reporters on Tuesday.
“Before the war, I was often asked whether Israel had become the 51st state, unable to say no to the US president. That’s not the case,” Herzog said.
“Israel began the 12-day war without knowing if the US would join. We acted because it was in Israel’s best interest. President Trump ultimately joined because the operation was successful and risks were reduced.”
Herzog’s comments came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US’s attack on Iran was brought on by Israel’s action, noting that Iran would’ve targeted US bases whether or not they struck.
"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that they would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio said on Monday.
Preparations to Op. Roaring Lion started after June war
When questioned about the lead-up to the first day of Operation Roaring Lion, Herzog explained that preparations for this war began when Israel saw Iran attempting to rebuild its missile program after the 12-day war.
“On Israel’s side, the primary lesson from October 7 was that we can no longer allow strategic threats to emerge in our neighborhood in the hope of containing them. That approach failed with Hamas and Hezbollah,” he noted.
This is the second time in less than a year that the US and Israel have partnered not just defensively, but offensively, against Iran. Together, we deployed an overwhelming force, gradually degrading Iran’s strategic capabilities. It’s only the fourth day, so it’s too early to conclude, but this is highly significant.
According to Herzog, the one goal Israel is clear on is the destruction of weapons that could be used to harm citizens. The internal issue, however, is less cut and dry.
“From my understanding of US policy, there’s no belief that airpower alone can bring regime change. The approach is regime degradation - weakening the regime’s pillars in hopes of accelerating its collapse,” he said.
“The minimum objective is changing regime behavior. The maximum is regime change, ideally driven by the Iranian people themselves.”
Both US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have stated that they are aligned in the fact that the strikes will continue until their respective objectives have been achieved, but what has not been made clear is how long that is expected to take.
“President Trump has mentioned timelines ranging from days to weeks. On one hand, after amassing significant military power, the US likely wants to maximize outcomes. That takes time,” he said.
“On the other hand, President Trump has stated he dislikes long wars. There’s domestic opposition, some American casualties, rising oil prices. My assessment? Not just a few days - but probably not four or five weeks either.”
Herzog added that the timeline could be moved up due to Iran’s failing strategy of targeting US bases in the Gulf states.
“Countries that were previously balancing are now distancing themselves from Tehran. For example, Saudi Arabia previously said it wouldn’t allow its territory to be used for attacks on Iran. Now it’s considering joining efforts,” he noted.
“Iran struck targets in Qatar, which had been mediating on its behalf, and even Oman turned against them. Striking Cyprus, an EU member, further isolated them. These moves suggest desperation and may ultimately hurt Iran diplomatically.”
However, despite the fact that Iran has now targeted nearly a dozen states, Herzog stated he didn't believe there would be broad offensive participation, rather allies would provide defensive measures, as we’ve seen with Greece bolstering Cyprus, and the UK allowing the US use of bases in Diego Garcia.
“Iran’s actions have not helped its standing,” he said.
Even without additional allies joining the fray, Herzog stated that the US and Israel have operated against Iran with a level of coordination that is “unparalleled in our history.”
“It resembles Allied cooperation in World War II - combined planning and execution,” he said. “We’re operating over 1,000 miles from our borders, conducting hundreds of missions involving thousands of munitions. That requires extraordinary coordination.”
This war is different than others Americans have experienced, Herzog noted, explaining that may be why a majority of US citizens are against it.
“The legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan remains strong. Americans dislike long, costly wars,” he said
“This war is different - no boots on the ground - but many see it as a war of choice. There’s debate about whether Iran posed a direct threat to the US.”
Ultimately, public opinion will depend on the results of the war, he said, adding that there is one key reason Israelis are more accepting of a ‘preventative strike’ while Americans debate whether Iran posed a threat at all.
“Iranians chant “death to America.” Israelis believe them when they say “death to Israel,” especially after October 7.”