BLAMING BIBI: Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed Says Netanyahu Helped Push Trump Into Iran War
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat, is accusing Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu of helping draw President Donald Trump and the United States into the war with Iran, arguing that Americans are now paying the price through higher gas and grocery costs.
The accusation, made during an interview with NewsNation’s Leland Vittert, has revived the contentious debate over the extent to which Netanyahu influenced Trump’s decision to join Israel in launching the Feb. 28 attack on Iran. The issue comes just weeks before Election Day, with El-Sayed preparing to face Republican Mike Rogers in a closely watched Senate contest.
“We are in the war in Iran in part because of the advocacy of the Israeli prime minister,” El-Sayed said.
El-Sayed went further, pointing specifically to Netanyahu’s direct discussions with Trump and senior administration officials before the military campaign began.
“There’s no disagreement on that. He came to the Situation Room and advocated for the war, and we’re now paying … for it. Our gas, our groceries are unaffordable, and that’s on top of the billions in tax dollars that we spend sending our money over there.”
El-Sayed tied the seven-month conflict directly to the affordability crisis facing American families. Oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been severely disrupted during the war, driving global energy prices sharply higher and placing additional pressure on transportation and consumer costs.
The Democratic candidate said his opposition goes beyond the Iran conflict and reflects his broader objection to American taxpayers financing foreign military operations.
“I have been more than extremely clear about this: I don’t want our tax dollars being used to subsidize war abroad,” El-Sayed said. “I don’t want our tax dollars being used to fund, unconditionally, foreign militaries.”
In another portion of the NewsNation interview, El-Sayed expanded that argument to include U.S. support for Israel.
“We want a world with less war. We want a world where our money is spent to build our schools here rather than to fund war and apartheid and genocide abroad. We want a world where all kids get to live their best, most dignified life.”
“And when you think about our current public policy, whether it’s a war in Iran we shouldn’t be fighting, or it’s subsidizing foreign military, that does not seem to me to be in the best interest of kids, all kids.”
El-Sayed’s claim that Netanyahu helped drive Washington toward war draws on a dispute that has followed the Trump administration since the opening days of the conflict. Netanyahu met with Trump and senior administration officials in the White House Situation Room on Feb. 11 and made an extensive case for military action against Tehran, presenting Iran as vulnerable to a potentially decisive strike.
Additional reporting after the war began described further discussions between Trump and Netanyahu in the days before the attack. In one pivotal Feb. 23 telephone conversation, Netanyahu reportedly provided Trump with intelligence about a gathering of Iran’s senior leadership in Tehran. U.S. intelligence subsequently examined the information as Trump considered whether to authorize the operation.
Administration officials initially made comments that critics interpreted as evidence that Israel’s plans had significantly affected Washington’s timing. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said shortly after hostilities began that the administration already knew Israel intended to act and expected Tehran to retaliate against American forces in the region.
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” Rubio said, explaining that the administration decided it could not simply wait for Iran to respond against U.S. personnel and facilities.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, after receiving a classified briefing, similarly said Israel was “determined to act with or without the U.S.” The prospect that Israel would strike Iran and Tehran would then retaliate against American forces, Johnson said, presented Trump with a consequential choice.
Those remarks prompted Democrats as well as some conservative critics of the war to accuse Netanyahu of effectively forcing Trump’s hand. The administration strongly rejected that characterization.
Trump himself pushed back on the suggestion that Netanyahu had maneuvered Washington into the conflict.
“I might have forced their hand.”
Rubio also disputed the interpretation of his initial comments, insisting that military action against Tehran “had to happen anyway.” He argued that Israel’s intentions affected the timing and coordination of the operation, rather than determining Trump’s underlying decision to use force.
As controversy over his remarks grew, Rubio complained that portions of what he had said were being selectively presented “to reach a narrative.”
Netanyahu has likewise denied dragging the United States into the conflict, saying Trump “does what he thinks is right for America.”
The disagreement has become more politically significant as the war has stretched beyond seven months. What began with joint American-Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 has developed into a prolonged regional confrontation, disrupting energy markets and putting pressure on the Trump administration as Americans face increased fuel costs.
Trump has maintained that his decision was based on American national security interests and the threat posed by Iran, while his administration has pointed to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities and threats against U.S. forces as justification for military action. Critics have questioned the administration’s rationale and demanded a clearer strategy for ending the conflict.
Congress has repeatedly confronted the administration over the war. Lawmakers have advanced several war-powers measures seeking to end or restrict American military operations against Iran, reflecting continued disagreement over both Trump’s authority to wage the campaign and the costs of remaining involved.
El-Sayed’s comments are also consistent with the sharply critical position toward Israel that he has taken throughout the Senate campaign. During the Democratic primary, he accused American foreign policy of being heavily influenced by Israel and AIPAC and referred to Israel as a “rogue state.” He has repeatedly argued that Washington should place conditions on military assistance to foreign governments.
The Michigan Democrat’s latest comments came during a week in which his foreign-policy views were receiving increased national scrutiny. During a separate Fox News appearance, El-Sayed was challenged about previous statements involving terrorism and made clear that he condemns terrorism regardless of the perpetrators or victims.
“The victim is never at fault, and terrorism is wrong no matter who perpetrates the terrorism, who it is perpetrated against. Terrorism is wrong, and we need to root it out,” he said.
El-Sayed’s criticism of Netanyahu and the Iran war is likely to become a major issue when he and Rogers meet Thursday night in Grand Rapids for their first general-election debate. The two are competing for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Gary Peters, with the race drawing national attention because of its potential importance in determining control of the Senate.
{Matzav.com}
