The Pro-Israel U.S. General Quietly Influencing Trump On Iran

There are clear signs the U.S. may soon join Israel’s ongoing offensive against its longtime foe Iran. American military assets are on the move. Over the last few days, the Air Force has sent dozens of refueling aircraft — which resupply jets, enabling longer bombing runs — to the Middle East, and a U.S. aircraft carrier has begun heading to the region.

Though President Donald Trump and his aides continue to send mixed messages over the possibility of direct U.S. involvement, it’s becoming easier for Trump to order U.S. forces to fight.

The choice to participate in a war against Iran still rests with Trump, but the military build-up suggests the increased influence of the member of his national security team who may be most supportive of an Israeli-American operation against Iran: Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the U.S. military commander for operations in the Middle East.

Decisions in Washington don’t just stay in Washington — they shape lives everywhere. HuffPost is committed to reporting on how policies affect real people. Support journalism that connects the dots. Join our membership program today.

People familiar with Kurilla told HuffPost he is especially close to Israel, even by the standards of other American officials who have worked with the longtime U.S. partner. That proximity has largely been to Israeli military and intelligence officials who have long treated Iran as an incontrovertible neighborhood threat — while the U.S., further away and with its own interests, has attempted diplomacy with Tehran.

“He had better information about what they were up to and what they were seeing in their intelligence before we got it than anyone else in our government,” said a former U.S. official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly.

Since Trump took office, some conservatives, including in the administration, have been wary of Israel’s military-first approach to Iran and of Kurilla’s role in particular, noting the president’s repeated promises to avoid costly, unstrategic foreign wars.

“Based on my experience with [Kurilla]… he takes a fundamentally different view of the importance of the Middle East than a lot of other people in the administration. And he also, I think, believes that a military campaign against Iran will not be as costly as others,” Dan Caldwell, a former Trump appointee at the Pentagon, told the show “Breaking Points” on Monday. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence you see a lot of the pressure ramping up to do something prior to his retirement time.”

Kurilla, a four-star Army general, has held his position since April 2022 and is scheduled to step down in the coming months. He oversaw the U.S.’s expanded military support for Israel following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on the country. He repeatedly visited Israel to coordinate U.S. cooperation in its brutal subsequent military operations in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, and to bolster Israeli defenses after Israeli strikes last year twice prompted retaliatory attacks by Iran.

Under President Joe Biden, Kurilla was involved in planning with Israeli counterparts about a possible joint U.S.-Israeli strike against Iran, the former U.S. official told HuffPost. Under Trump, he has continued discussions about such a plan and clashed with political appointees at the Pentagon who have sought to redirect the military’s attention to Asia.

With Kurilla’s departure nearing, American and Israeli officials enthusiastic about a U.S. strike on Iran — a prospect national security experts see as risking an uncontrollable spiral of violence — have sought to achieve that goal while the general is still in office. Now, pro-strike figures may see Trump’s looming decision on whether to approve such an attack as their best, final chance for one, and go all-out to ensure the president offers a green light.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies in the U.S. say the current moment presents a unique, irresistible chance for Israel to debilitate its foes in the region, pointing to developments like Israel’s weakening of the Lebanese group Hezbollah and the unexpected fall of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, both allies of Iran.

Those hawks envision a historic achievement that outshines the mounting human cost of U.S.-backed Israeli wars. Some American officials across the Biden and Trump administrations have bought into that narrative too, seeing it as a way to claim credit for securing Israel’s position post-Oct. 7 and to deflect criticism over the suffering of Palestinians, Lebanese and others and the U.S.’s role in documented violations of domestic and international law.

Kurilla has indicated he views Israel’s pummeling of its enemies — even without a clear plan for how to translate warfare into stability — as offering a model for U.S. military choices. He used its targeting of Hezbollah as the basis for a war plan he developed against Yemen’s Houthi militia.

But that vision appears to conflict with Trump’s own stated desire to reach an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. While some advocates of the Israeli assault claim it will help nuclear diplomacy, most experts doubt Tehran will negotiate while it is being bombed or if it feels it is being pushed toward a total capitulation.

U.S. intelligence has not borne out Israel’s claim that Iran was, prior to the launch of the war on Friday, rushing toward building a nuclear weapon, a choice Iranian officials have said they would not pursue, per a Wall Street Journal report on Tuesday and recent testimony from the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

The most-cited goal of advocates of a joint U.S.-Israeli attack is for Washington to use massive bombs and bombers, which Israel lacks, to target Iran’s deeply buried Fordow uranium enrichment plant.

Analysts note Iran’s reaction would likely be intense and unpredictable, potentially including attacks on U.S. forces or global trade routes, and that even destroying Fordow would not eliminate Tehran’s nuclear expertise, while potentially emboldening hawks to seek further violence to topple the Iranian regime.

Reached for comment for this story, a U.S. Central Command spokesperson directed HuffPost to the White House. Spokespeople there did not respond to a request for comment.

Kurilla likely has uncommon sway on Iran in an administration where other power players have lost or given up influence.

Scandal-ridden Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has struggled to staff the political ranks of the Pentagon or position himself as a major player in policy. In the Middle East, Kurilla is seen as having “an outsize role” because of “instability” at the Defense Department, a regional source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told HuffPost.

“Kurilla is both a prominent figure, in that everyone knows his name and previously few [in U.S. Central Command] would enjoy such a public profile, and leadership is engaging with him over Hegseth because he’s useless,” the source continued. (Hegseth is, in any case, close with Netanyahu.)

Meanwhile, other players in U.S. national security circles have either been weakened or have shown themselves less inclined to advocate for particular ideas — even those they had previously endorsed — than to demonstrate fealty to Trump, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who plans to fire nearly 2,000 diplomats despite his past support for the agency he now leads.

Kurilla’s influence “is empowered and emboldened by the complete dismantling of the State Department and its embassies all over the world,” the regional source said.

Middle Eastern governments close to the U.S. are attempting to encourage de-escalation, but they have failed to restrain other American-backed offensives currently led by Netanyahu. “20 months into the Gaza war, I think there is both exhaustion and relative hopelessness at being able to sway U.S. minds on these conflict dynamics,” the source said.

Military commanders like Kurilla have expertise in battlefield wins but not in long-term strategy or managing domestic political outcomes of particular national security choices, noted Rosemary Kelanic, the Middle East program director at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Kurilla seems very interested in the U.S. getting more engaged in the region… and seems to be interested in military solutions that take a long time to come to fruition and involve a lot of resources, none of which I think is something President Trump is particularly interested in,” Kelanic said. “I worry about civil-military relations and what the appropriateness is of military commanders pushing for certain policy outcomes.”

Under Trump, who she said “hero worships the military,” there’s a particular risk of a figure like Kurilla dominating internal discussions.

“It’s always hard for a president to stand up to the military… that’s especially hard for Trump because he sort of views the military as this almighty power that the United States has,” Kelanic said. “If the military comes in with the stars and badges, it’s hard not to be swayed by them. I think the military is doing it because they have the U.S.’s best interest at heart, but they only have part of the picture.”

Kurilla has gained “exceptional access” to the Oval Office under Trump, which even the past chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, C.Q. Brown, lacked, a former Pentagon official told Nikkei Asia. (In addition to pushing out diplomats, the Trump administration has replaced senior military personnel, including Brown.)

Trump may yet choose to keep the U.S. out of the war with Iran, instructing Kurilla and other aides to present the American military buildup as a negotiating tactic with Tehran.

“If we can get Israel to stop even temporarily and the U.S. stays out itself, then the U.S. and Israel can go to Iran and say… let’s go to the table,” Kelanic said. Still, reestablishing trust with Iranians for talks will be challenging, she said, and before even getting there, the U.S. will need to restrain Israel.

Kurilla has previously conveyed to Israelis that Trump has not wanted to attack Fordow, and endorsed the idea of a deal preventing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. He is “hawkish but reasonable,” the former U.S. official said.

A Biden administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, presented Kurilla’s mindset as common among U.S. military officers in his position “because all of them came up with the Iraq War,” during which Iran-backed militias extensively attacked American troops.

Vice President JD Vance used a Tuesday post on X to suggest Trump remained leery of intervention abroad. “People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals,” Vance wrote.

And the Trump administration on Sunday sent Middle Eastern governments another diplomatic note saying the U.S. did not plan to become involved in the war, echoing a heads-up Washington sent before Israel’s attack, an Arab official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told HuffPost.

Still, it will be an uphill battle to avoid U.S. involvement, given pro-war voices’ effectiveness so far in convincing Trump that the Israeli campaign is a winning proposition. The president’s increasingly bellicose rhetoric, the composition of his team and the unified front among savvy hawks — from Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to pro-Israel hard-liners like the lobby group AIPAC — all point to an imminent decision for the U.S. to strike Iran, an outcome presidents have sought to avoid for decades.

“It would take some herculean leadership by Trump to avoid it,” Kelanic said, noting the president’s capacity to craft a complex, effective policy is weaker because he “kneecapped the federal government.”

Some forces outside the administration believe they can create public pressure for peace. Several lawmakers announced on Monday night that they would support a resolution barring U.S. involvement in Israel’s campaign.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is helping lead the effort alongside Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), told HuffPost he believes if the bill can secure a vote, it could win support from “at least 200 Democrats” and more than 40 Republicans, and that he hopes to organize such a vote in the coming days. (Massie is currently the only Republican supporting the measure.)

“Kurilla’s job is to be prepared for all scenarios. The problem is the political leadership,” Khanna said, saying Democrats, in particular, should demonstrate the U.S. would not provide a “blank check” for Netanyahu.

But that’s effectively been Washington’s pattern for nearly two years, even as the U.S. has been repeatedly implicated in alleged Israeli war crimes, and as tensions and instability have grown in the Middle East.

“This crisis is taking place as a result of a bipartisan delusion that the U.S. benefits when the Israeli government can bomb anyone, anywhere, and experience no consequences from its most important backer,” Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of the advocacy group Win Without War, told HuffPost. “Trump owns the current war, but it is unimaginable that we would even be in this position without the Biden administration’s failure to rein in Netanyahu’s bombing in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and beyond.”

It’s up to the president to decide whether to break with that status quo. “Kurilla has the upper hand. But the decision is Trump’s,” Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Pentagon official, wrote on X on Monday.