A Brief Assessment of the U.S. and Israeli War on Iran

By Michael T. McPhearson

On February 28, we all woke up to a U.S.-Israel attack on Iran, a day that many consider the start of the current war. I argue that the war actually began on April 1, 2024, when Israel bombed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria, killing two senior Iranian generals and several Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers. On April 13–14, Iran struck back, launching a large-scale attack using drones and ballistic missiles aimed at Israel. It marked the first time Iran directly attacked Israel from Iranian territory. Israel and Iran have been in a low-intensity conflict for decades, which has escalated into full-scale war despite many twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid calling it that.

Is it a war?

By any objective standard, the ongoing military exchanges between Iran on one side and the U.S. and Israel on the other qualify as a war. Large military forces are involved, all parties are using highly deadly weapons, and combatants and noncombatants have died on both sides. Attempts to call it something other than a war are motivated by politics and selfishness, not reality. Certainly, to the men and women fighting and the people caught in the crossfire, it is a war.

Why did Israel and the U.S. attack Iran now?

From the perspective of great power competition, this war is part of the struggle between China and the U.S. While most of China’s oil comes from sources other than Iran and Venezuela, two nations the U.S. attacked in the two months, taken together, the Middle East provided China with a major portion of its oil supply in 2024. The more the U.S. controls oil resources, the harder it is to challenge American power. Economies and militaries run on oil.

From a military perspective, the timing was ideal for an attack. Iran’s influence and military strength are at their lowest in decades. Their weakness stems from the aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2024, attack on Israel. The Israeli government used this tragic event and global sympathy as an opportunity to launch a highly disproportionate and genocidal response against the overwhelmingly innocent Palestinian people in Gaza, while also settling scores with those who oppose their self-centered version of the region. Their response brought long-standing conflicts to a head and weakened armed opposition. The Axis of Resistance — Syria, Hezbollah, Ansar Allah commonly known as the Houthis, factions of the Iraqi militia, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — had already been diminished by the collapse of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime and was largely subdued during Israel’s main effort to pummel Gaza and dismantle Hamas. Israel’s military weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon and degraded the military capacity and will of the Houthis in Yemen. I have already mentioned the changes in Syria. Naturally, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Gaza suffered the worst. The Iraqi militia was least affected, partly due to their and the U.S. constraints to avoid destabilizing Iraq.

Was the attack justifiable and legal?

No, on both counts. Not only was it indefensible, but it was also illegal under international law and arguably under U.S. law. According to the United Nations Charter, the use of force under international law is permitted only in self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council. There was no immediate or imminent threat to the U.S. Administration officials briefed Congress, saying that Iran’s weapons posed a potential threat because they could strike U.S. forces in the region. But there was no intelligence indicating Iran was preparing to attack. Similarly, there is no intelligence suggesting that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon. Experts and intelligence officials believe the Iranian leadership halted their weapons program in 2003, and the U.S. intelligence community reported that Iran had not restarted it.

The attack might violate U.S. law because the Constitution, in Article I, gives Congress the power to declare war, and an unprovoked attack is typically considered an act of war. Also, since the U.S. planned the attack and moved forces into position over several weeks rather than a quick defensive move — which would have required a fast response — the president had time to talk with Congress, as the War Powers Resolution states. Trump ignored Congress. Unfortunately, for many years, Congress has allowed presidents to send troops without consulting or declaring war.

Listening to mainstream news, one might believe that the tension between Iran and the U.S. started in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution. Few people mention that the U.S. and Britain played a role in fomenting the Islamic Revolution by supporting a coup in 1953, overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, and backing Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, a repressive dictator. Additionally, Israel and the U.S., both nuclear powers, claim they want to prevent Iran from developing a weapon, when the most fair, peaceful, and effective way to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be to declare the Middle East a weapon of mass destruction-free zone and pressure Israel to dismantle its weapons and end its program.

What do Israel and the U.S. want? What will end the war?

The message from U.S. officials has changed many times, but four consistent points combine military goals and political outcomes. Destroying the Iranian navy so it cannot interfere with shipping in the Persian Gulf, which Arab nations call the Arabian Gulf, is a clear military goal. Calling for a pledge to end support for proxy groups or the Axis of Resistance is political. Military actions can help achieve the last two goals: stopping Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear program, peaceful or not, and destroying Iran’s missile and drone capabilities, especially the ballistic missile program, by degrading their capabilities, but ending these programs is not possible through military means. Either the current regime or a new one must agree to end them.

Military means could achieve President Trump’s call for unconditional surrender, but it would require ground troops and a protracted war to make surrender possible.

What’s happening now?

The details of the war change rapidly. Here is a snapshot.

Israel and the U.S. continue to escalate their rhetoric and the pace of the war. Iran is retaliating against Israel and U.S. forces, targeting bases in Gulf countries, sometimes hitting civilian sites with missiles and drones. Iran’s president apologized for the attacks and promised no more unless the countries allow the U.S. to launch attacks from their territory. But shortly after his statement, Iranian forces attacked several Gulf nations, showing that some Iranian leaders want to punish Gulf states that have cooperated with the U.S. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a political and economic alliance of six Arab states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — doesn’t want to openly support the U.S. and Israel, trying to stay neutral out of fear that the fighting will spread. Still, they are upset that Iran has attacked them.

The Iranian leadership ignored President Trump’s claim that he should have a hand in picking the nation’s new Supreme Leader to replace the assassinated Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. The Assembly of Experts, the 88-member body responsible for appointing, supervising, and discharging the Supreme Leader, chose Mojtaba Khamenei, Ayatollah Ali’s son. Picking the previous Ayatollah’s son is believed by observers to signal defiance to U.S. demands and a continuation of the regime despite U.S. and Israeli efforts. The U.S. and Israel have pledged to kill him.

The U.S. is targeting internal security forces, including regional police, in an effort to set conditions for a popular uprising. There are reports that the U.S. is backing Kurdish opposition in Iran, but involving them could draw in Iraqi Kurds and destabilize that country. There are also reports that the U.S. is contemplating sending ground troops to secure Iranian nuclear sites and enriched uranium. This plan poses major challenges. It is unknown whether the uranium has been moved or buried in the sites bombed in June of last year and in the recent attacks.

The war is causing dangerous environmental disasters. A strike on an oil facility in Tehran caused black oil-filled rain.

Al Jazeera reports 1,332 people killed in Iran, at least 13 in Israel, 8 U.S. service members, and 14 in Gulf states. While evidence points to U.S. responsibility for a deadly strike on a girls’ school in Iran, killing dozens of people, including schoolgirls ages 7 to 12, President Trump claims Iran is responsible.

What next?

It’s impossible to predict what will happen next. A U.S. National Intelligence Council assessment completed last month states that a large-scale assault is unlikely to bring regime change. It’s unclear whether the president has seen the document.

If Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah intensifies and destabilizes Lebanon, it could escalate into a Lebanese civil war. Iraqi militia in the Axis of Resistance, whose involvement has been cautious and limited so far, might jump in more forcefully.

President Trump is all over the place, issuing statements that contradict each other, making it hard for anyone to know how to negotiate and de-escalate the war. The longer the war goes on, the more likely it is to spread. If oil disruptions continue, prices will rise, driving inflation and slowing down global economies.

We must also stay on guard for military actions elsewhere. Trump is now rhetorically targeting Cuba, saying it is about to fall.

More to come.

By Michael T. McPhearson

Veterans For Peace Ex-Director, Speaker, Social & Political Commentator, Human Rights, Peace, & Movement for Black Lives Activist, U.S. Army CPT Combat Veteran. This post originally appeared on Medium.