Vetted by NeuralPress's Multi-Agent Verifier for strict factual validity and event relevance. Our compliance engine cross-checks and filters search results to ensure zero false correlations or misleading content.
Primary Sources
The US-Israel War on Iran: Analyses and Perspectives
The United States has joined Israel in an all-out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran. On February 28, 2026, a US armada of two aircraft carrier strike groups and scores of advanced aircraft, together with the Israeli air force, launched a sustained military attack on Tehran and other Iranian cities, destroying military and other official targets and killing the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and several high-ranking members of the clerical regime. In response, Iranian forces launched missiles and armed drones against Israel and US military facilities in all six Gulf Cooperation Council countries. In Israel, Iranian missiles caused serious damage, killing and injuring scores of people. Iran also struck civilian infrastructure in the Gulf, including ports and airports. The hostilities effectively forced the closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which no less than 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes. US President Donald Trump declared that the aim of the attack on Iran was regime change in Tehran—an objective that, if achieved, will change the strategic outlook for the entire Middle East, and a US goal that well may change. Arab Center Washington DC (ACW) asked its fellows and experts to provide their perspectives on the current US-Israel-Iran conflict. The Legality of Attacking Iran Susan M. Akram, ACW Non-resident Fellow; Professor, Boston University The US-Israeli attacks on Iran cannot be legally justified under any theory of the laws of war. All members of the United Nations are prohibited by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter from threatening or using force against the territory or independence of another state. Under the Charter, only the Security Council has the authority to trigger the use of force against a member state if that state has breached international peace. The sole exception to this is under Article 51, which permits the use of force in self-defense, but only in response to an armed attack. Whether a state can attack another because it believes it will be attacked has been heavily debated, but what is clear is that international law does not justify attacking another country for any of the shifting reasons that the United States has suggested for the war. So far, these are: changing the regime; protecting Iranian citizens from their own government’s atrocities; ending Iran’s ballistic missiles program; or preventing the development of putative nuclear weapons for which there is no credibl...
Voices from the Arab press: US-Israel Iran war faces political limits | The Jerusalem Post
ByTHE MEDIA LINEAPRIL 3, 2026 21:42Al-Ittihad, United Arab Emirates, March 21For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.orgAs the US and Israeli campaign against Iran continues, a key question is whether the war can proceed indefinitely without domestic political constraints in either country beginning to shape decision-making.In the US, the continuation or expansion of the conflict does not depend solely on partisan consensus in Congress, but also on the institutional balance between the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department, and security and political actors on Capitol Hill.US President Donald Trump launched the confrontation under his existing powers, framing the operations as strikes rather than a full-scale war. But if the campaign continues beyond 60 days, he may be forced to return to Congress to obtain broader authority and the financial support required for a more formal military operation.This helps explain his repeated insistence that the campaign is nearing its end, even as the use of force continues to expand and internal tensions appear to be growing between the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.In Israel, by contrast, the war has received broad political backing, including support from the opposition and from figures such as Naftali Bennett and Benny Gantz, reflecting an unusually wide consensus in favor of continuing operations against Iran and Lebanon.Netanyahu, meanwhile, has a personal political interest in sustaining this posture until the next parliamentary elections, hoping to enter any electoral battle from a position of strength amid what is seen inside Israel as an unprecedented moment of national unity.Satellite image from 2002 shows historical view of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility under construction. (credit: VANTOR/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)The continuing missile threat to Israeli skies reinforces the argument that the danger must be confronted decisively, not deferred to another gradual round of confrontation.Despite their different domestic dynamics, the US and Israel share a central objective: pressing ahead militarily before any outside power – whether Russia, France, or China – can impose a ceasefire or a new balance.Iran, too, appears determined to reject de-escalation, raising the prospect of further escalation, including more assassinations of senior Iranian figures and perhaps even the targeting of the new supreme leader.Yet Washington, unlike Israel, remains constrained by federal po...
The US-Iran War: How It Is Redefining the Global Order
The US and Israel have demonstrated overwhelming military superiority, yet Iran retains the capacity to impose costs and shape outcomes. This asymmetry ensures that the conflict will persist, not necessarily in its current intensity, but in forms that continue to unsettle regional and global stability.
Missiles Made of Words: How Western Media Narratives Shape the Iran–Israel–US Conflict | Al Jazeera Media Institute
Western media coverage of the ... This linguistic framing normalises civilian casualties and helps manufacture public consent for military aggression by dehumanising certain populations....
