King Questions Whether U.S. Has “Now Delegated” War Decisions to Other Countries

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) today questioned whether the United States' decision to strike Iran was heavily influenced because American decision makers knew Israel was planning to take in the immediate future. In a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Senator King questioned Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby, for answers regarding the military operation being carried out in Iran despite widespread agreement from the President and his administration that Iran didn't present an imminent threat to the United States or American interests.

The Senator's questioning comes in response to Secretary of State Marco Rubio's public statement that suggested American strikes on Iran were preventative in nature to protect American assets in the Middle East and defend against retaliation from the Iranian regime in the event of an attack on Iran by Israel or another ally. Rubio told reporters Monday that "we knew there was going to be an Israeli action" and that the United States military was motivated to act because an Israeli strike would likely lead to Iranian counterattacks on Israel and American locations in the Middle East.

Senator King began, "When I woke up Saturday morning to the news, the first question that popped into my mind was why now. Why now? What was the precipitating factor? There was discussion of an imminent threat of missiles, there was discussion of rebuilding the nuclear capacity but none of those were imminent in any way. Yesterday Secretary Rubio told us why now, in a stunning statement. " 'We knew there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces and we knew if we did not preemptively go after them before they launched these attacks we would suffer higher casualties." 'Have we now delegated the most solemn decision that can be made in our society, the decision to go to war to another country? That's the implication. That is the breathtaking implication of Secretary Rubio's statement which to me is the only explanation I have seen as to why this action was taken when it was. There were no objective facts on the ground that said this is something we have to do now. There were no missiles being loaded on launchers, there was not a nuclear bomb being rolled out. I would like some response on policy. Is it now the policy on the United States that we are going to be taken into a war by the prime minister of another country?"

"Well sir, what I would say and I think Secretary Hegseth and General Caine did this yesterday, and the President has talked about this as well, is the very rapid buildup and reconstitution of Iran's missile, ballistic missile, cruise missile, and one way attack drones," replied Under Secretary Colby.

"That has been going on for some time. The question is why was it Saturday or Sunday?" asked Senator King.

Under Secretary Colby responded, "Well I think there was a perception that this threat has been manifest. They've, as the President said, they've been killing Americans for 47 years and this is something where we can see where this is going and they are going to be able to have, with have this missile shield."

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator King is recognized as an authoritative voice on national security and foreign policy issues. Immediately following the American airstrikes Iran, he released a statement asking for answers and consultation with congress before proceeding with further military action in the Middle East. Senator King is also a co-sponsor to the a war powers resolution S.J. Res 104 that is expected to come up for a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.

###