As the United States and Israel began their war with Iran in February 2026, the media tried to understand why the U.S. went to war. Among the suggested explanations, two versions stand out. One, offered by The New York Times, right-wing commentators, some progressive and conservative politicians, as well as anti-Israel activists and organizations, implies that the U.S. was dragged to war by Israel and/or Jewish bodies such as the religious group Chabad. By extension, this version alleges that any price the U.S. may pay for the war, such as the killing of American soldiers by the Iranian regime, is to be blamed on Israel and “the Jews.”
Another version, which CAMERA’s Darcie Grunblatt already analyzed, was offered by MS NOW’s Rachel Maddow and suggests Arab Gulf states’ influence was a key factor behind Trump’s decision to enter the war, and that these states – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – bribed the president to attack.
“The ZOG” Argument
Blaming Jews for causing wars is a well-known, long-standing antisemitic canard, including in the U.S. The allegations that Jews/Israel control the U.S. government and politics are often expressed in terms such as the “Zionist Occupied [sometimes Operated] Government,” or ZOG. The term originated decades ago and gained popularity in neo-Nazi and white nationalist circles but has recently been adopted by some on the Left.
The Times’ Mar. 2, 2026, article, titled “How Trump Decided to Go to War,” suggests that Israel holds considerable power over the American government. Therefore, the government was dragged to intervene in a war because of Israel. The article begins:
President Trump’s embrace of military action in Iran was spurred by an Israeli leader determined to end diplomatic negotiations. Few of the president’s advisers voiced opposition.
The article then describes Benjamin Netanyahu as “determined to keep the American president on the path to war” when the two leaders met on Feb. 11, 2026, and spent hours discussing potential war and dates for attack. Shortly after the meeting with Netanyahu, the article alleges, Trump grew skeptical regarding the success of U.S.-Iran negotiations that were supposed to lead to deescalation.
The Times claimed “Netanyahu wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans [to go to war];” that despite initial misgivings and warnings (i.e., about casualties), Trump’s appetite for war was “fueled by allies like Mr. Netanyahu who pushed the president to strike a decisive blow against Iran’s theocratic government;” and that “the U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime.”
The Times’ article noted that its account of the events relied on anonymous sources that include Israeli and American officials, diplomats, President’s advisors, lawmakers, and intelligence officials.
The antisemitic undertones of The Times’ report are also evident in the newspaper’s choice to cast right-wing media personality Tucker Carlson – a known antisemite with a record of bizarre anti-Israel content and comments – as one of the few voices of reason (!!) arguing against an attack. Reportedly, Carlson urged Trump to “restrain” Netanyahu, avoid war, and not to be “boxed in by Israel,” citing concerns for U.S. military personnel, oil prices, and regional allies (The Times’ newsletter used the words “dragooned by Israel”). Trump responded that he “had no choice” but join Israel in war.
Thus, The Times described President Trump as captured by and serving the whims of a war-bent Israel, in a very similar manner to the ZOG conspiracy theory.
The “Arab Occupied Government (AOG)” Argument
Rachel Maddow’s thinking is as conspiratorial as The Times‘, but she instead focuses on Arab countries, not Israel or Jews. If anything, Maddow paints both the U.S. and Israel as doing Arab states’ bidding. Essentially, Maddow replaces Jews with Arabs as swaying the American President, portraying the Gulf states as the movers and shakers behind the decision to go to war and as the main beneficiaries from it.
Maddow’s reasoning is simple: Trump and his trusted advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner (also the president’s son-in-law) are greedy. They are motivated by financial gain, and the Gulf states are taking advantage of that. This is not the first time MS NOW has made this claim.
Maddow argues that despite all the attention on Israel and its role in the war, it is the Arab states that perennially see Iran as a regional rival and want it removed. She mentions the expensive airplane Trump received from Qatar, the UAE’s two-billion-dollar crypto deal that benefitted the Trump family, and how a different $2 billion passed from Saudi hands to Jared Kushner. Further, it was Kushner and Witkoff – whose son has financial ties with Qatar – who led pre-war negotiations with Iran. Maddow adds:
It’s those countries [Gulf Arab states] that have been assiduously buying up members of the Trump family and the Trump administration with just astonishing amounts of cash in recent years, and particularly in recent months.
And now for that low, low price, they appear to have rented the services of the United States military to start a war that they want, but that the American people do not.
Maddow displays her misunderstanding on the war when she likens the rivalry between the Gulf states and Iran to a neighborly dispute in which one person bribes two cops (Israel and the U.S.) to attack and bully their neighbor.
Drawing on logic similar to the antisemitic ZOG conspiracy, Maddow seems to be peddling a brand-new form of islamophobia, suggesting the American government is essentially “Arab Occupied.”
The Non-Conspiratorial Explanation
Both The Times’ and Maddow’s arguments are inconsistent. The Times admits the Iranians never intended to commit to zero enrichment as the U.S. demanded (while simultaneously offering free nuclear fuel). By doing so, The Times raises a different reason why the U.S. might have attacked, one that is unrelated to their focus on Israel. Maddow mentions Trump’s personal traits as a factor, and never really clarifies what type of “bribe” Israel received in exchange for attacking Iran. As conspiracy theorists often do, both reports focus on personal motives, not geopolitical, diplomatic, or military considerations – such as the impasse in the long negotiations between Iran and U.S. – as potential catalysts for the violence.
To be sure, some of Marco Rubio’s comments were unhelpful, and seemed to justify the ZOG narrative. The administration in general has struggled to justify the war in clear terms and explain to the American people why it began.
Thankfully, critical thinking yields better explanations than conspiracy journalists and politicians offer us.
Global geopolitics: Business Insider, The Diplomat, and the Free Press all noted the decision to attack Iran was not primarily motivated by Israel’s or the Gulf state’s wishes, but by the U.S. desire to do something much bigger: check Chinese aspirations for hegemony and maintain the American global order. Just like Venezuela whose president the U.S. recently captured, Iran is a major energy supplier for the U.S.’s true global rival and competing hegemon. On the other hand, Iran itself is heavily dependent on Chinese money to fund its army. It also needs China to acquire advanced weaponry that poses a great threat to American interests and personnel. Iran is essentially a Chinese outpost in the Middle East. Attacking Iran will deal a significant blow to China.
Regional allies: Global geopolitics does not mean regional allies do not matter. To be sure, Israeli concerns, as well as the concerns of the Gulf states, are very important. But as The Washington Post reported, neither Israel nor the Gulf states especially swayed the U.S. decision to strike. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia supported an attack – the latter did so in private to avoid retaliation from its longstanding regional rival – and The Post reported their views “helped,” not forced, Trump to order an attack.
Iran’s position: The Post also reported that Witkoff and Kushner’s impressions were that the Iranians were not serious in the negotiations and were not willing to give up enrichment that would enable them to develop a nuclear weapon. The Times itself reported in its mind-blowing eulogy of Khamenei that the dead ayatollah insisted Iran never give up its right to enrich uranium.
Personal vendetta: Lastly, there is the personal connection, which Trump admitted and The Post reported. The Iranians reportedly tried to assassinate Trump – twice. “I got him before he got me,” Trump said about Khamenei in an interview. These assassination attempts seemed to have shaped Trump’s decision making.
An explanation that combines geopolitics and global power, regional struggles, and personal score-setting can surely make great journalism. To tell it, some journalists would need to reflect on their own biases, see the bigger picture, and understand that foreigners are not controlling anyone. Maybe next time.
For the Spanish version of this article, see CAMERA Español.