 "(File) US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Reuters")
The Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites on Friday have reignited tensions across West Asia placing Washington in a strategically delicate position. As Israel pursues what it claims is self-defence, the US is treading carefully between alliance solidarity, diplomatic ambitions and military caution. The gap between what the US says, wants and knows has never been more visible—or more consequential.
What the US says: Diplomatic distance with a warning
In the immediate aftermath of Israel’s strikes, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that “we are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.”
He issued a direct warning to Tehran: “Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”
His remarks echo the administration’s broader attempt to shield US forces from becoming collateral in a rapidly escalating conflict. Rubio’s statement came just hours after President Donald Trump publicly warned Israel not to go forward with the attack.
Trump had said that Israeli action at this moment could “ruin chances for a peacefully negotiated solution,” referencing the upcoming sixth round of nuclear talks with Iran scheduled for Sunday in Oman.
Despite that warning, Israel proceeded. Rubio later confirmed that Israel had “advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defence,” but offered neither endorsement nor criticism of the operation—reflecting the US administration’s desire to distance itself without disavowing its closest regional ally.
What the US wants: Preventing a nuclear Iran
Behind the carefully worded neutrality is a core strategic demand: Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon. President Trump has made this unequivocal, stating, “They can’t have a nuclear weapon. Very simple, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.”
That goal places the US in quiet alignment with Israeli concerns even as it stops short of actively participating in Israel’s military decisions. The consistency of this position across party lines is telling. Congressional voices, including Senator Lindsey Graham, have adopted a combative tone.
Impact Shorts
View All“Game on,” Graham said, framing the moment as a test of Western resolve. Senate Majority Leader John Thune backed up the administration’s messaging by reaffirming support for US defensive posture should Iran retaliate against American interests. Though public denials of involvement continue, the message to Tehran remains forceful: no nuclear weapons—by diplomacy or deterrence.
What the US Knows: Escalation is likely
While maintaining a public stance of restraint, the US is clearly preparing for the possibility of retaliation. President Trump acknowledged that American forces in the region were being repositioned: “They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place.”
Embassy staff have been evacuated in Iraq and departures were authorised in Bahrain and Kuwait signalling that the administration is treating the situation as imminently volatile.
Rubio further noted that “President Trump and the administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners.”
Intelligence assessments have reportedly warned of Iranian plans to target American bases in the Gulf if they perceive the US as complicit. Even without direct involvement, the US is now exposed to the consequences of Israel’s military gambit.
And Trump told a Fox News anchor that he was “aware” of the Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
A delicate balancing act
The Trump administration’s current posture reflects a multi-layered strategy: project diplomatic distance to preserve peace talks, signal support for Israel’s fundamental security concerns and protect American personnel from retaliation. Rubio’s measured tone—acknowledging Israel’s reasoning without endorsing it—reflects that high-wire act.
The shadow over Oman
The sixth round of nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran, scheduled to take place this Sunday in Oman, now hangs by a thread. Tehran may view Israel’s actions—and Washington’s refusal to condemn them—as proof that diplomacy is futile. At the same time, Iran’s leadership is under domestic pressure to respond forcefully. What was supposed to be a breakthrough round could now become a post-mortem on a collapsing diplomatic process.
Three realities, one crisis
The current US stance is shaped by three overlapping realities. It publicly denies involvement, it adamantly opposes an Iranian nuclear weapon, and it quietly braces for the fallout of a conflict it did not initiate but cannot entirely escape. Whether diplomacy or confrontation prevails in the coming days will depend not only on Iran’s next move , but on how credibly the US can manage the contradiction between what it says, what it wants and what it already knows.