John Kerry has stated that three former US presidents — Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden — rejected a proposed war plan on Iran put forward by Benjamin Netanyahu, while Donald Trump later approved a version of it despite internal resistance within his administration.
Kerry explained that Netanyahu had repeatedly presented the case for military action against Iran to earlier US administrations, arguing that such a move could trigger regime change and spark a popular uprising within the country. However, according to Kerry, Washington consistently declined to pursue that path. He emphasised that the assumptions underlying the proposal — particularly the expectation that people in Iran would rise up — did not materialise and were not supported by past outcomes.
He further alleged that the justification for such a war had been misrepresented, stating that “we were lied to about what that war was about,” while cautioning against repeating mistakes seen in earlier conflicts. Drawing parallels with both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, Kerry highlighted the long-term consequences of military interventions and stressed the importance of transparency with the public, particularly when decisions involve sending soldiers into conflict.
The issue gained renewed attention in the context of the recent conflict with Iran, which escalated earlier this year. According to reports, Netanyahu discussed a potential large-scale strike during a visit to the White House in February. Initial reactions from members of Trump’s team were reportedly dismissive, with some officials describing the proposal in strongly negative terms and raising concerns about its feasibility and consequences.
Despite those internal objections, the proposal aligned with Trump’s broader strategic outlook on weakening Iran’s leadership and reducing its regional influence. Within a short period, Trump moved forward with an adapted version of the plan, approving what was later referred to as Operation Epic Fury.
Kerry’s remarks underline a clear contrast between earlier administrations that chose restraint and the later decision to proceed with military action, while also reigniting debate over the risks, assumptions, and long-term implications of intervention in Iran.
