Megyn Kelly Questions Purpose of US Military Strikes on Iran
In a controversial statement, SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly has asserted that American troops who perished during recent military actions against Iran under former President Donald Trump may have sacrificed their lives "for Iran or for Israel" rather than for the United States. Kelly, who has previously shown support for Trump, voiced deep reservations about the clarity and objectives of the mission known as Operation Epic Fury.
Kelly's Skepticism Over Military Objectives
During her broadcast, Kelly pondered the rationale behind the deployment of US forces, asking pointedly: "The guys and the gals who have to actually carry out this mission … why again? And put their lives on the line … for whom, again?" She emphasized her personal stance against military engagements that serve foreign nations, stating, "My own feeling is no one should have to die for a foreign country. I don't think those four service members died for the United States. I think they died for Iran or for Israel."
Kelly acknowledged that early public opinion polling on Operation Epic Fury has been sharply divided, and she indicated a leaning toward opposition to the attacks. She criticized what she perceives as undue influence from conservative media figures and donors, including Fox host Mark Levin, commentator Ben Shapiro, and Senator Lindsey Graham, in shaping US foreign policy.
Rubio's Revelation on Israel's Role
Kelly's comments preceded a significant disclosure by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who admitted that the preemptive strikes against Iran were initiated after intelligence indicated Israel was planning an assault. Rubio explained that American troops in the region faced an imminent threat of retaliation from Iran following any Israeli action.
On Capitol Hill, Rubio briefed congressional leaders, stating, "There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us, and we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded." He added that the Department of War concluded a defensive posture post-Israeli attack would lead to higher US casualties, with five American soldiers already killed in combat.
Political and Public Backlash
Rubio's revelation sparked outrage across the political spectrum. Congressman Joaquin Castro reacted on social media, accusing Israel of endangering US forces and criticizing the administration's compliance. Conservative pundit Matt Walsh condemned the admission, calling it "the worst possible thing he could have said" and suggesting it revealed US involvement was coerced by Israel.
Rubio defended the decision, arguing that preemptive action was necessary to prevent greater loss of life, and claimed Iran had already positioned missiles on alert. However, he did not specify potential US targets or their ranges.
War Powers and Constitutional Debates
In response to the strikes, war powers resolutions have been drafted in both the House and Senate to limit presidential authority in ordering such actions. Despite Democratic support and some Republican backing, the GOP-controlled Congress has not passed these measures. Rubio noted that similar votes have repeatedly failed and that no administration, regardless of party, has recognized such resolutions as constitutional, asserting full compliance with existing laws.
Kelly reflected on Trump's motivations, suggesting he aimed to avoid prolonged conflict but described his approach as inconsistent regarding the war's duration. She expressed concerns about the risks of regime change and extended prayers for the Trump family amid heightened tensions.
