Bill Ackman is urging the US to provide military support to Israel in its efforts to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, suggesting that this action aligns with the US’s national interests and can be executed at a low cost and with minimal risk.
Over the weekend, the hedge fund billionaire shared a detailed argument on X, explaining why he believes the US should back Israel in its ongoing conflict with Iran.
“The parade was quite impressive. Our military is formidable. And now @Israel needs our assistance to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat,” Ackman tweeted on Saturday, alluding to a military parade that took place in Washington, D.C.
During the weekend, President Trump remarked to ABC News that while the US is “not involved” in the current conflict, he noted, “we may be involved. But we are not involved at this time.”
Israel has been pressing the Trump administration for involvement in the conflict against Iran. However, US officials denied such commitments to Axios, stating that there are no current plans to engage directly.
Ackman, whose wife is a former MIT academic, pointed out that Israel has made initial strikes against Iran’s military and leadership, suggesting that now, at a relatively low cost, intervention is feasible.
“At this moment, as Israeli forces are degrading Iran’s defenses, it’s the best time to dismantle their nuclear capabilities, which pose a serious threat to us all,” he stated, adding that he sees this as a critical time for action.
The founder of Pershing Square Capital Management mentioned that the approach he supports doesn’t necessitate “boots on the ground” but rather would involve providing Israel with the advanced weapons it currently lacks.
“Israel lacks the necessary tools to finish the job. We can supply those, and we don’t need ground troops,” he asserted.
Ackman continued by stressing that Israel’s military actions could be seen as a defense for everyone, urging for support to enable them to achieve their objectives.
In a subsequent post on Sunday, he addressed critics and framed his arguments as “America First,” arguing that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a direct threat to the US.
“Iran has made it clear that they are not only targeting Israel,” Ackman noted, pointing out that over the years, Iranian leaders have vocalized threats against both Israel and America.
He cautioned that a nuclear-capable Iran could disrupt global oil markets and increase domestic energy prices by jeopardizing key shipping lanes in the region.
“We may not be directly concerned about Israel, but gas prices affect us all, and we need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Ackman emphasized.
Ackman argued that dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities and weakening the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) would not only mitigate terrorism but also lower shipping costs and foster peace and economic growth in the region.
“Houthis have targeted more than 100 ships,” he reminded, highlighting the wider implications of Iran’s actions.
He claimed that the recent Israeli operations have already shown significant progress in weakening Iran’s defenses, suggesting that American support could deliver a decisive blow.
“While Israel can hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they can’t fully eliminate the threat without our backing, especially without our bombers,” he explained.
Using Trump’s words to bolster his point, he concluded, “If Iran possesses nuclear weapons, peace is unattainable.”
Ackman expressed confidence that US involvement wouldn’t lead to a prolonged conflict, labeling it a “short-term tactical participation,” and he suggested that the IRGC’s hold on power is already weakened.
“An Iran free of nuclear arms, led by new leadership, would represent a lesser risk to the United States than the current regime,” he added.
Acknowledging that limited US military assets could efficiently neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat, he argued against unnecessary worry over the implications of military involvement.
Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties urged caution regarding US engagement in the conflict.
“Israel doesn’t require US taxpayers’ funds for defense, especially for offensive actions,” stated Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY). “I will vote against funding this military initiative.”
Rep. Greg Cassar (D-Texas) articulated concerns as well, emphasizing the potential for escalated conflict.
This post has been submitted for Ackman’s response.
