World
Iran and the U.S.
Documents & links
Overview/Summaries
Iran and U.S. Resource and Info Doc
note: Updates to this page stopped the week of March 14
What is happening?
On Saturday, February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a major coordinated military strike on Iran, saying they were responding to what they call an “imminent threat.” The operation has been widely reported as the most serious escalation in the Middle East in years.
- The offensive targeted dozens of military and government sites across Iran. It also hit civilian targets, including a girls school.
- Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attack, though Iranian officials were slow to confirm it publicly. His son has been named as successor.
- Iran has launched missile and drone retaliation against U.S. and Israeli forces and bases, as well as on targets in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.
- Tensions are rising, with Iranian retaliation targeting US bases and other nations in the Middle East and with Israel and Hezbollah engaging in strikes. (See live updates on the resources tab)
- The retaliatory strikes from Iran have expanded to target other nations in the Middle East and Turkey. European nations have begun moving troops to the area. (see live updates in resource tab)
Who are the major players? (See resources tab for crucial historic information)
United States
Leads a joint military offensive with Israel.
President Donald Trump publicly announced “major combat operations” and framed the campaign as defensive and aimed at preventing nuclear and missile threats.
The US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in July of last year.
Israel (a major non-NATO ally of the United States with historic tensions with Iran)
Actively participating and calling the campaign necessary to eliminate what it calls an existential threat from Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities.
Israel struck Iran last year beginning a Twelve-Day War, in which Iran retaliated. The US involved itself by bombing nuclear facilities.
Iran (Islamic theocratic nation with historic widely known resentment for the United States and Israel)
Target of the strikes.
Recently faced civil unrest with widespread protests in January, and also was weakened by US military strikes on uranium enrichment sites last year.
Has launched retaliatory attacks on U.S. and Israeli targets in the Gulf region.
Why is this happening?
While the situation is still rapidly developing, it’s tied to long-standing tensions that include:
Nuclear & Missile Programs
The U.S. and Israel argue Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs present imminent threats, despite Iran denying plans to build nuclear weapons.
Diplomatic Negotiations Failed
U.S.–Iran talks earlier in February failed to bridge differences over nuclear limitations and missile restrictions.
Historic Regional Conflict
Iran and Israel have been in indirect conflict for years through proxy groups and military posturing. Recent events represent the most direct military confrontation between them.
“War of Choice” Analysis video by the New York Times
For the United States, Trump claimed the strikes were necessary and urgent. However, Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the US (in fact their missile capabilities were limited due to the July 2025 attacks). Rather the United States chose to attack due to the weakened state of the Iranian regime and its nuclear sites. This is called a preventative war.
Trump’s “Appeal” to the Iranian People:
On February 28, Trump addressed the war in Iran and spoke about the U.S’s reasoning behind getting involved. He called on the Iranian people to take action, saying, “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.” He continued, “For many years, you have asked for America's help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond.”
What does this mean for…
The United States
Trump launched the strikes without congressional authorization, and bipartisan war powers resolutions from Kaine/Paul in the senate and Massie/Khanna in the house are expected to come to votes this week. but even if they pass, trump would veto and congress almost certainly lacks the two-thirds majority to override. The core domestic tension is that this looks like the start of another open-ended middle east war that nobody voted for, at a time when Americans want the government focused on cost of living, not regime change in foreign nations. The constitutional separation of powers is being tested again and, like with Iraq, congress is debating after the fact.
After Iran Strikes, Congress Confronts Its Limited Power Over War | TIME
Iran
Khamenei is dead, 40+ officials killed, and Iran's own foreign ministry admitted the military has lost control over several units. The regime is in its most fragile state since the 1979 revolution, with no clear succession plan visible to the outside world, and the brutal crackdown on protesters earlier this year already shattered public trust in the government. Reporting suggests the regime's violence against its own people actually created widespread hopes among Iranians for an American attack. Long term, Iran faces either a power vacuum, internal collapse, or hardliner consolidation, and none of those outcomes are stable. Trump encouraged the People to rise up and take control, but will this actually happen?
Prelude to the 2026 Iran conflict - Wikipedia (HARRY HIGHLY RECOMMENDS READING THIS!!!)
Israel
Israel got the joint operation it's long wanted to neutralize Iran's nuclear program and decapitate its leadership at a scale it couldn't achieve alone. but Iran has retaliated directly, killing at least 10 Israelis including 9 in a synagogue shelter in Beit Shemesh. Hezbollah has also resumed attacks on northern Israel from Lebanon, effectively killing the 2024 ceasefire. The strategic win is real but the immediate security cost is high and the region around Israel is now actively on fire.
The Iran Strikes, Explained: How We Got Here and What It Means | AJC
The Economy
Oil surged past 9% on Monday with Brent in the high $70s after tanker traffic through the strait of hormuz essentially stopped. About 20 million barrels per day, roughly 20% of global demand, normally flows through that strait. Markets aren't in full panic yet because stockpiles are decent and traders are betting on a short conflict, but if this drags out the 4 to 5 weeks Trump suggested, gas prices spike and inflation comes roaring back. Analysts warn a sustained disruption could tighten financial conditions globally and push fragile economies toward recession within weeks.
Global order
The U.S. and Israel assassinated a head of state and launched a regime change operation without UN authorization, without congressional approval, and while nuclear talks were still happening. The UN secretary general condemned it, France called for an emergency security council meeting, and countries from pakistan to north korea have labeled it illegal aggression. This sets a precedent that powerful states can unilaterally decide if a government needs to go and act on it with overwhelming force, which fundamentally undermines the post-WWII sovereignty framework and hands countries like Russia and China a ready-made justification for their own future interventions.
US-Israel strikes on Iran: February/March 2026 - House of Commons Library
Is it a regime change operation? The Trump Administration is contradictory and unclear on what their goals were for these strikes. They say they aim for regime change– but are saying it’s up to the Iranian people to rise up and take the opportunity. Yet at the same time, they are also willing to hold talks with the new leaders of Iran. Watch this video for more: Opinion: Ezra Klein for the New York Times
Historical Context: Under the Shah, Iran was heavily influenced by the U.S., with wealth concentrated among elites while many faced poverty and repression. (american.edu, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/6/life-under-the-shah-pit-was/?utm_source=chatgpt.comthecrimson.com) The 1979 Islamic Revolution replaced this with a theocracy promising independence from foreign powers and class equality, but also centralized power under religious leaders and saw a decrease in rights, especially women’s rights. (human.libretexts.org) Today, many Iranians see U.S. and Israeli actions as continuing foreign interference, shaping defensive responses. Others argue that the government uses this history to justify repression at home, so reactions reflect both past grievances and current politics.
Reactions and Statements:
Executive Branch perspectives:
- Donald Trump:
- On Dec 29, 2025, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to discuss U.S. support for Israeli action against Iran. A few days later, Trump stated publicly that the U.S. military was prepared to support protesters in Iran.
- In an interview with the New York Times on Sunday, Trump said that the U.S. military intended to sustain the assault on Iran for “four to five weeks” if necessary.
- Trump said he hoped that Iran’s elite military forces would turn over their weapons to the Iranian populace and “surrender to the people.” These same forces opened fire on and killed thousands of protestors in January.
- The Trump administration has said that Iran’s supposed plots to kill U.S. officials including Mr. Trump influenced the U.S. military decision to launch a bombing campaign in Iran.
- Pete Hegseth:
- During his press conference this Tuesday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told reporters that the war against Iran is one of retribution and that there would be “No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don't waste time or lives.”
- Marco Rubio:
- Despite calling an Iranian attacks on U.S. forces an “imminent threat,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio then said that the U.S. attacks were designed to pre-emptively deter Iran from taking decisive action against the U.S.
- He stated that the aim of the war was to destroy Iran’s capability to construct nuclear weapons, which had not been mentioned in any other previous reasoning behind the U.S.’s involvement in the war.
Legislative Branch perspectives:
- Mike Johnson:
- Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said that in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran, the U.S. would become another target and would sustain great losses. He stated that “if we had waited to respond, before acting first, then those losses would have been far greater.”
- Chuck Schumer:
- New York Democrat and minority leader Chuck Schumer expressed concern about “mission creep”一 the continual change in objectives on the part of Republicans in support of the U.S. entering a war with Iran. As he exited a classified briefing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Gen. Dan Caine (Trump’s top military advisor), he said the meeting was “very unsatisfying” and that the administration had “different answers every day” about why the president ordered the strikes on Tehran.
- Primala Jayapal:
- After a second day of closed-door meetings concerning the escalating conflict between the U.S. and Iran., Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington revealed that they had to received no additional information on what the imminent threat that Iran posed to the U.S. was. She stated, “There were a lot of references to the 47 years of Iran being a problem. That is not imminent. That is in the past. Imminent means immediate threat to the U.S.”
- Sara Jacobs:
- Representative Sara Jacobs, Democrat of California, said that administration officials had “pushed back on the idea that Israel was calling the timing. But then they kind of said that Israel was calling the timing. So it was all very incoherent.”
Iranian leaders perspectives:
- Mustafa Hijri:
- Mustafa Hijri, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Iran, said that his organization was part of an alliance of groups from Iran’s ethnic minorities, some of which would “when necessary, may engage in armed resistance as part of their struggle.”
- Ali Larijani:
- Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council who viewed as the leader of the Iranian government behind the scenes. In a television broadcast, he urged Iranians to “stand firm and defend their land.”
Big Change Seems Certain in Iran. What Kind Is the Question.
Iranian citizen perspectives:
From NYT article Big Change Seems Certain in Iran. What Kind Is the Question.: “Most people aren’t chasing deep meaning,” said Payman, 45, a businessman in Tehran. “They just want a normal life: family, work, small goals. If that becomes possible, a lot of people might stop pushing for bigger change.”
A resident of a suburb near Tehran described people honking their horns, shouting out windows, and “dancing and singing in the street” on Sunday to celebrate the death of Ayatollah Khamenei.
Large groups of people also gathered to mourn Khamenei’s death and chanted “Death to America.” Khamenei’s followers largely consisted of ultra-religious/and or pro-government groups.
Neighboring Middle East countries perspectives:
- Majed al Ansari:
- Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesman Majed al Ansari spoke about Iran firing missiles and drones at its neighbors in the Gulf. "There are attacks on infrastructure. There are attacks on our residential areas. And the effects of these attacks are very clear. When it comes to possible retaliation, all options are with our leadership. But we have to make it very clear that attacks like these will not go unanswered and cannot go unanswered."
'All red lines have been crossed': Gulf states weigh response to Iranian strikes
- Anwar Gargash:
- Anwar Gargash, a senior diplomatic advisor to the Emirati president wrote in a post on X directed towards Iranian leaders, "Your war is not with your neighbours. Return to your surroundings, and deal with your neighbours with reason and responsibility before the circle of isolation and escalation widens."
- Ishaq Dar:
- New York Times live updates: “Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, warned Iran that it has a mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia, which considers an attack on one nation to be an attack on both. ‘It is a sovereign agreement and we are bound by that,’ Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar told the Pakistani Senate. The Iranian leadership, he added, ‘should keep that in mind.’”
World leader perspectives:
11. Friedrich Merz:
- After meeting with Trump in the Oval Office on March 3, 2025, the Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz told reporters that the American government “does not have a clearly formulated strategy for the future civilian leadership of this country.”
12. Mark Carney:
- Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada told reporters that while Canada would help with efforts to reach a settlement, he emphasized that “Canada would not participate in the military action against Iran.”
13. Chinese government:
- In public statements, the Chinese government said it was “unacceptable” to “kill the leader of a sovereign country” and called for an immediate diplomatic solution to the conflict. China is the largest buyer of Iran’s oil.
Resources
Resources:
Updates/Overview:
- Live Updates: NYT
- First Week of War Summarized - NYT
- What to Know About the U.S. Attacks on Iran - The New York Times
- What to know about the joint U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran | PBS News
Photos and Maps
- After Attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel, See Photos and Videos From the Middle East - The New York Times
- Maps: Where the U.S-Led Strikes Hit Iran and Tehran’s Retaliation - The New York Times
Analysis and Implications:
Iran’s Regime May Survive, but the Middle East Will Be Changed - The New York Times
Trump Tells Iranians to ‘Take Over’ Their Government. But How? - The New York Times
Many foreign relations experts and their takes. Well organized and very helpful for understanding implications and analysis!
Opinion | A Tyrant Falls. Dangerous Uncertainty Begins. - The New York Times
OPINION from the Editorial Board of the New York times
The Iran Strikes, Explained: How We Got Here and What It Means | AJC
US and Domestic Implications
- Fact-Checking Trump’s Justifications for Attacking Iran - The New York Times
- Only 21% of Americans Support the United States Initiating an Attack on Iran - The New York Times
- Members of U.S. Congress Are Divided on U.S. Strikes in Iran - The New York Times
- After Iran Strikes, Congress Confronts Its Limited Power Over War | TIME
Historic Context:
40 Years Later: Iran after the Islamic Revolution | American University, Washington, D.C.
See discussion questions: who shapes the narrative?
US, Israel bomb Iran: A timeline of talks and threats leading up to attacks
United States and Iran
United States Position on Iran: The Islamic Republic of Iran: A Dangerous Regime - United States Department of State
This contains the official United States position on Iran as well as discusses culture, history, and human rights.
This is a factual timeline of US relations with Iran from 1953-present. Very helpful in understanding motivations and context.
Anonymous people express grievances about life under the Shah and criticize the US’s role.
What to know about Iran and its regime
Who is the supreme leader? Obituary. Discusses life and controversy, helpful in understanding historical context.
Who is the possible successor? Mojtaba Khamenei
Discusses what’s next for Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Inside Iran - The Structure Of Power In Iran | Terror And Tehran | FRONTLINE | PBS
Opposing Viewpoints – we recommend these for greater understanding!
AGAINST: Regime change in Iran? Here’s why the US should avoid the temptation. - Atlantic Council
FOR: Six reasons why Trump should choose the military option in Iran - Atlantic Council
NOTES: These were written shortly before the attacks on Iran
Discussion questions
Discussion Questions
Governments often use words like imminent threat, self-defense, or national security.
- What kind of evidence would you personally need to feel that military action was justified?
- Does it matter whether Congress voted on it? Whether the UN approved it? Whether most Americans support it?
- If you imagine yourself as a civilian in Iran, Israel, or the U.S., would your answer change? Why?
Who should get to decide when a government needs to change?
- Some reporting suggests parts of Iran’s population were frustrated with their government, while other countries are calling this illegal aggression.
- Do outside nations ever have the right to intervene to remove another country’s leaders?
- If people inside a country are oppressed, what is the most ethical way for outsiders to respond?
- How would you feel if another country decided the U.S. government needed to be replaced and acted on it militarily?
While the conflict is overseas, its effects show up domestically: congressional battles over war powers, rising oil prices, possible inflation, and political polarization.
- Should a president prioritize foreign security threats even if voters are more concerned about cost of living?
- How might rising gas prices or inflation change public support for the conflict?
- Do wars tend to unite Americans or deepen divisions?
- How should Congress respond if it believes the president overstepped constitutional authority?
People outside a country often have more freedom to advocate for political change there.
- Do you think people living abroad should have the same influence on debates about regime change or sanctions as people who would experience those policies directly?
- How might the narrative of these events be difficult to understand in its entirety, due to information deficiencies and surpluses from different groups?
Meetings
Iran and the U.S.
March 6, 2026 · H209