Bill Ackman is calling on the US to militarily support Israel in a campaign to “destroy Iran’s nuclear capability,” arguing that such a move would be in America’s own national interest and could be carried out at low cost and minimal risk.
In a series of posts on X over the weekend, the hedge-fund billionaire laid out a detailed case for why the US should join Israel’s ongoing operations against Iran, suggesting that the moment presents “the lowest-risk, highest-probability” opportunity to eliminate a threat that some claim has endangered global security.
“The parade was great. Our military is incredible. And now @Israel needs our help to destroy Iran’s nuclear threat to the world,” Ackman wrote on Saturday, referencing the weekend’s military parade in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump told ABC News over the weekend that the US is “not involved” in the ongoing conflict, though he added: “It’s possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved.”
Israel has urged the Trump administration to join its war against Iran to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility, but while Israeli officials claim Trump expressed willingness to assist if necessary, US officials denied to Axios that they made any commitment.
They told the online news outlet that the administration is currently not considering involvement.
Ackman, whose wife, the former MIT academic Neri Oxman, is Israeli, argued that Israel’s initial blows against the Iranian military infrastructure and its top leadership late last week gave the US a chance to intervene at relatively low cost.
“Israel’s military and air force have sufficiently degraded Iran’s defenses such that this is now the lowest-risk, highest-probability moment to take out Iran’s nuclear capability, a grave threat to us all,” the Pershing Square Capital Management CEO added.
Ackman, who has been a vocal supporter of Israel and a fierce critic of colleges and universities over their attitudes toward perceived antisemitism on campus, stressed that the intervention he’s advocating would not require “boots on the ground,” but rather US bombers and bunker-busting bombs that Israel lacks.
“Israel does not have the equipment and armaments to complete the job. We do, and it does not require boots on the ground,” he said.
“The war Israel has been fighting has been on behalf of all of us. Let’s help them finish the job.”
The financier followed up with a lengthier post on Sunday in which he addressed critics and framed his argument in explicitly “America First” terms, contending that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a direct and escalating threat to the US.
“Iran has made it entirely clear that Israel is not their only target,” Ackman wrote.
“The Iranian leadership has for decades continually called not only for ‘Death to Israel,’ but also for ‘Death to America’ as the ‘Great Satan.’”
He warned that a nuclear-capable Iran would upend global oil markets and drive up domestic energy prices by threatening Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Gulf shipping routes.
“Even if you don’t care about Israel and you only care about the price of gas at the pump, you don’t want Iran to have the nuke,” Ackman said.
Ackman argued that the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the weakening of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would reduce terrorism, lower global shipping costs and open the door to greater peace and economic development in the region — what he called a “massive peace dividend” for the US.
“The Houthis have attacked more than 100 ships… massively disrupting trade,” he noted.
“Eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat and the IRGC’s funding of the Houthis will dramatically reduce these costs and risks.”
He added that recent Israeli strikes had already “made remarkable progress” in degrading Iran’s defenses and that American assistance would serve as the final blow.
“Unfortunately, however, Israel will only be able to delay Iran’s nuclear capability and not destroy it without our assistance, in particular, without our bombers and massive ordinance penetration bombs.”
Ackman cited Trump to bolster his case, quoting him as saying: “You can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.”
He concluded his thoughts on social media by dismissing concerns that US involvement could spark a wider war.
“There is no real risk of ‘being dragged into a long war,” Ackman insisted.
He described the intervention as “a short-term tactical participation” and suggested the IRGC’s grip on power was already slipping.
“A denuclearized Iran with new leadership is much lower risk to the United States than the current regime,” he said.
“You don’t need to care about Israel to conclude that using a limited amount of US military assets for a few days to eliminate Iran’s ability to become a nuclear power makes sense.”
Meanwhile, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have urged Trump not to enter the fray.
“Israel doesn’t need US taxpayers’ money for defense if it already has enough to start offensive wars,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wrote on X. “I vote not to fund this war of aggression.”
“Netanyahu’s reckless strike risks provoking a wider war and pulling in the United States.”
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) wrote on X: “Trump must oppose Netanyahu’s escalation and pursue a diplomatic path to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.”
The Post has sought comment from Ackman.
