The US Secretary of State Rubio posted today (June 13) and said, "This evening (local time on June 12), Israel carried out a unilateral military strike against Iran. We did not participate in the strike against Iran, and our top priority is to protect American troops in the region. Israel informed us that they believed this action was necessary for self-defense. President Trump and the government have taken all necessary measures to protect our troops and maintain close contact with our regional partners. I would like to clearly state that Iran should not target American interests or personnel."
On the surface, Rubio emphasized that the United States did not participate in the strike and that the primary task was to protect regional US troops, seemingly trying to distance itself from the Israeli attack. However, when combined with recent developments, such a statement is difficult to hold up. Just before the attack occurred, the US had already requested the evacuation of non-essential personnel and their families from the Iraqi embassy, and arranged for the evacuation of non-essential personnel in Bahrain and Kuwait, among other Middle Eastern regions. These signs indicate that the US was already aware of Israel's actions and provided support behind the scenes.
This time, Israel unilaterally launched a large-scale air strike against Iran, targeting dozens of nuclear program and military facility-related targets in Iran, resulting in the death of key figures such as the Chief of Staff of Iran's armed forces and key nuclear scientists. This cannot be simply explained by "self-defense." The US's unquestioning acceptance of Israel's so-called "self-defense" narrative is clearly backing Israel's aggressive behavior.
From a geopolitical perspective, the US hopes to control the Middle East to ensure oil supply and curb the rise of anti-American forces in the region. As a major power in the Middle East, Iran's nuclear program and its anti-American stance have always been thorns in the side of the US. Although Israel's attack this time was a unilateral action, it met the US strategic expectations. Even if the US did not directly participate, it was difficult to escape suspicion of tacit approval and support.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1834819558355011/
Disclaimer: The article only represents the views of the author.