It’s been nearly three weeks since the United States and Israel launched a joint operation against Iran, sparking a new war in the Middle East. The conflict has rapidly escalated and spread well beyond the region, while wreaking havoc on global energy markets.

The war is unpopular in the United States. The Trump administration has struggled to offer consistent justifications and objectives, and U.S. voters are facing pain at the pump as the conflict drives up gas prices. Some in the United States also feel that Israel pressured Washington into the war and that it’s not America’s fight—a perception echoed by a top Trump administration official who resigned this week in protest over the war.

Foreign Policy sat down with Ofir Akunis, the consul general of Israel in New York, on Wednesday to get his thoughts on the blame that some in the United States are placing on Israel, the state of the war, and the Israeli government’s goals moving forward.

Akunis, a longtime ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was especially critical of the lack of support from Europe, as U.S. President Donald Trump has fluctuated between calling for help from allies to protect the Strait of Hormuz from Iran and denying that the U.S. needs any assistance.

Akunis also suggested that the United States knew that Israel would attack Iran’s energy infrastructure, such as the South Pars gas field that was struck on Wednesday, saying that “it wasn’t a surprise to the American administration that it will be part of the program, that it’ll be part of the plan.”

But that seems to contradict Trump’s statement on Wednesday night, when he wrote on Truth Social that “Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Pars Gas Field in Iran” and that “[t]he United States knew nothing about this particular attack.” Akunis did not offer a comment when contacted on Thursday.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Foreign Policy: Joe Kent, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, resigned from the Trump administration yesterday over the war with Iran. He effectively suggested that Israel dragged the United States into the war. What’s your response to that?

Ofir Akunis: First of all, in general, it’s not my job to be in the middle of domestic issues and internal debate. But in general, I can say that everyone must ask themselves, first of all, why they [the Iranian regime] are saying, for the last 47 years, “death to America.” If someone is saying that he wants to kill you—you better believe him. We learned it from the Second World War. We need to believe them because actually they are the new Nazis of the world. It’s not Israel, it’s the ayatollahs.

I don’t know this guy [Kent]. I have a lot of appreciation for the years that he served this beautiful place, the United States of America. In general, I will say, I cannot understand people who are saying that it doesn’t matter, it’s not important, it’s a waste of time in Iran. No, it’s not. It’s the future of the world.

The whole story of this war is Western civilization versus the ayatollahs. That’s it.

FP: But at a time when antisemitism is pervasive globally, is it a concern to you that there is a sentiment in the United States—Israel’s closest ally—on both sides of the political spectrum that Israel is dictating U.S. foreign policy?

OA: Israel is not doing it.

By the way, I want to be even sharper than what you said—Israel is the only ally of the United States these days. What happened to the United Kingdom? The no. 1 ally of the United States since the end of the Second World War. Their prime minister declared two days ago that they will not be part of the war. And so have the French president and others.

You heard the president [Trump] yesterday about NATO. The only ally of the United States these days is the state of Israel. Real allies don’t turn their back on you when you need them. It’s unbelievable the current situation in Europe. It’s a shame to the Europeans.

I’m very angry about it. It’s a huge change in Europe. Take a walk in Brussels. Take a look in London. It used to be a British place. It used to be. No more. Why? Because of the weakness.

The problem, since the early 1990s, is the world was thinking that if it will be nice to the ayatollahs and to the terrorists, everything will be OK. And they will say, I want to establish a new community in Sweden or in Germany or in London or in England or here in the United States. Then it will be heaven on earth. And then you wake up to these terror attacks [Akunis pointed to an image of the World Trade Center as it was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001]. This terror attack is not by Israel.

FP: It wasn’t by Iran, either. It was al Qaeda, a Sunni terrorist group. We can’t blame all Muslims for 9/11.

OA: It was not [Iran]. OK, but so what? Al Qaeda, it’s the same idea. It doesn’t matter. You’re right. So what? It’s the same idea—to destroy.

This weakness is, as I said, the biggest problem of the Western world. To be naive, that’s the whole issue.

FP: Relatedly, you released a statement yesterday in which you cited former U.S. President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks when he said that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” And you said, in the same way, if you don’t stand alongside the United States and Israel, then you “support the ayatollahs.” A lot of Americans are not supportive of this war—polling shows that a majority are not supportive—and I think that’s born from the experience of the war on terror and the economic and human costs of that. Is it not fair for Americans to want clear answers from their government on why the U.S. is at war?

OA: I prefer a world where the opposition leaders can criticize me or the prime minister or the president. A democracy. I am for criticism.

So, what is their alternative? Let’s see. They can oppose. It’s OK. This is part of our democratic world.

In Europe, by the way, there is no opposition. Everybody is against the war there.

When you prefer to enjoy your silence, what are the ayatollahs understanding from this situation? That you are not against them, that actually you are against your own government.

FP: Can you not question the reasons for the war without also being in favor of the Iranian regime?

OA: You can say that we are against them, we understand the Iranian threat, but there is another way. Nobody is saying it.

By the way, in Israel, there’s a huge consensus. [Yair] Lapid, [Gadi] Eisenkot, [Benny] Gantz—they understand the threat.

FP: But is it not also the proximity of the threat for Israel that makes it different? It’s difficult for many Americans to understand why the U.S. has gone to war with a country as far away as Iran, especially when it doesn’t currently have intercontinental ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran wouldn’t have that capability until 2035. So, it’s hard to tell Americans that—

OA: So, let’s wait? Let’s wait until they can use their intercontinental ballistic missiles with the nuclear warheads? Let’s just wait? Why do we need to act now? Let’s wait.

Adolf Hitler invaded Poland and then the Netherlands and then Belgium and then France and then the United Kingdom. We don’t want to wait because we learn from history.

I don’t understand why I need to convince the American people or the Europeans or the Japanese that someone wants to kill them. They are saying it. I’m not saying it. Why do I need to convince anybody? If someone wants to destroy my country, my culture, my attitude to the world—I need to say, “No, it’s OK, let’s wait until 2035”?

FP: Yesterday, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar suggested that Israel has already won the war with Iran but that the mission will continue until it’s complete. What does that mean? When will the mission be perceived as complete?

OA: We are giving the tools to the Iranians to decide that they want a different government, a different regime, let’s say. I hope that one day it will be a democracy.

We will not do it for them, OK? They will take the decision to rebel. This is not the situation right now, after two and a half weeks—they are not there.

But as we can all see, they [the Iranian regime] still have the ability to launch missiles all over. Tel Aviv. Jerusalem. Civilians, by the way, they’re targets. Hospitals, schools, etc. And so we need this threat to come to an end—their missiles. And of course, to destroy their nuclear sites. We must be sure, not like the previous operation [in June]. It was too short.

Now we must be sure that the mission is over. It’s not over yet.

FP: So, it’s fair to say that it’s the hope of the Israeli government to see regime change in Iran? Do you think that the U.S. and Israel are aligned on this goal?

OA: But only if the Iranians will do it. The Iranians should take their future in their own hands.

FP: Qatar’s foreign ministry expressed serious concerns about Israeli strikes on Iran’s South Pars gas field and the potential impact on global energy markets. Does Israel intend to continue strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure?

OA: First of all, it’s in the hands of the minister of defense in Israel. And as we all heard, it wasn’t a surprise to the American administration that it will be part of the program, that it’ll be part of the plan. The head of the opposition in Israel, Mr. Lapid, was actually the first to say publicly that we need to do it. And, of course, we prefer that we not find ourselves in a situation of high oil prices. We want economic stability. But we will actually achieve stability after the oil tools will not be there and the oil will not be in their hands. One of the main reasons that Iran became such a strong country is their oil fields.

FP: Is it fair to say that taking the fight to Hezbollah in Lebanon is more of a priority for Israel right now than Iran itself?

OA: It’s an Iranian unit. Part of the operation against Iran is to hit and to destroy Hezbollah as well. Hezbollah is just a nickname. It’s an Iranian unit. That’s it. So there’s a lot of Iranian units in Iran, there are a few militias in Iraq, and there’s the front unit in Lebanon on our border. And we know that we must finish the work with them as well. There will not be a threat anymore.

FP: Is the goal to eliminate the group entirely? Is that even possible? You’ve been fighting against Hamas for years, but it still exists.

OA: We need to do it.

We want peace with Lebanon, with the Lebanese government. Beirut, the Paris of the Middle East. We didn’t ruin the Paris of the Middle East. First of all, the Palestinians did it, the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization], the Syrians, and Hezbollah and the Iranians, they destroyed this beautiful place. We don’t have territorial conflict between Israel and Lebanon. We don’t want even one inch from Lebanon. It’s a beautiful place. Let’s reopen the railway between Beirut, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Gaza, to Cairo. Is it possible? The answer is yes. But there’s one condition. No Hezbollah in Lebanon, no Hamas in Gaza, and we can resume agriculture, tourism. You name it. There’s a huge potential.

FP: Over 1 million have been displaced in Lebanon since the operation began. You say Israel didn’t destroy Beirut, but there are Israeli bombs dropping on Beirut right now.

OA: Only in Dahieh. Only on the Hezbollah headquarters.

FP: But are you worried that further destabilizing Lebanon could make a lot of your goals tougher in the long run?

OA: I’m worried that the French president who said that he would actually take responsibility for the new Lebanon. He’s doing nothing. He is not putting Hezbollah under pressure. Where is he? Where is the French president?

I want all the people who left south Lebanon to be there tomorrow and be safe. And we can eat hummus there. I want them to come and sit there and live their lives there. I have nothing against them. But I have a lot against the Iranian unit who occupies there. We want to eliminate the terrorists, not the Lebanese.