On 28 February, Israel and the United States launched an airstrike on the Islamic Republic of Iran without legal or moral justification, resulting in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior officials. What began as a targeted operation quickly escalated into a regional war with far reaching consequences, extending beyond Iran to impact European allies, Gulf states, global energy security, and the international economy.
This conflict has been described as one of the most reckless wars of the twenty first century. While some argue that Washington orchestrated the campaign, citing statements from Amr Moussa that the assault was a strategic American move using Israel as a regional partner, the reality suggests otherwise. Israeli pressure appears to have driven the United States into the confrontation, shaping its trajectory in pursuit of regional military dominance.
A War Without Coherent Justification
Donald Trump has offered shifting justifications for the war. Initially, he framed it as an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow their government, a claim that lacks credibility given the absence of any consistent concern for their rights. He later argued that the objective was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, despite previously claiming that Iranian nuclear facilities had already been destroyed in earlier joint strikes.
Another stated objective was dismantling Iran’s ballistic missile programme. However, under international law, the mere possession of such capabilities does not justify war. Only the presence of an imminent threat legitimises self defence, and no such threat from Iran was established.
Two days into the conflict, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio inadvertently revealed that the United States acted because it anticipated Israeli action and feared retaliation if it remained uninvolved. This admission suggested that the perceived threat originated from Israel rather than Iran.
Strategic Manipulation and Political Pressure
Trump rejected claims of being influenced by Benjamin Netanyahu, asserting instead that he may have compelled Israel to act. However, Netanyahu had long portrayed Iran as an existential threat and consistently advocated for joint military action.
The dynamic was further exposed by Joseph Kent, who argued that Trump had been misled into abandoning his “America First” doctrine. In his resignation statement, Kent claimed that Iran posed no imminent threat and that the war was driven by Israeli pressure and lobbying within the United States.
He further stated that a coordinated media and political campaign had created a pro war environment, convincing decision makers that immediate action was necessary and achievable.
Diplomatic Opportunities Abandoned
Reports indicate that a critical meeting between Netanyahu and Trump took place in late December 2025 at Mar a Lago, where the focus shifted from Iran’s nuclear programme to its ballistic missile capabilities. Netanyahu reportedly warned against pursuing a new nuclear agreement, suggesting that Israel would act independently if not granted approval.
Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi later stated that negotiations between Iran and the United States were close to producing a genuine agreement before the war began. Similarly, British National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell confirmed that substantial progress had been made towards a lasting deal.
Iran had reportedly offered significant concessions, including reducing and freezing uranium enrichment and allowing US participation in a future civilian nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Final stage negotiations were scheduled in Vienna, but within forty eight hours, airstrikes began.
Escalation and Human Cost
The war quickly expanded beyond military targets, with strikes hitting civilian infrastructure, including power stations, hospitals, and schools. A US Tomahawk missile struck a girls’ primary school in Minab, killing approximately 165 people and injuring nearly 100 others.
Within three weeks, more than 2,000 people were killed in Iran. In Lebanon, Israel resumed widespread attacks in violation of the ceasefire, killing over 1,000 people, injuring thousands more, and displacing nearly one million residents.
Iran responded with coordinated strikes targeting Israeli and US military assets across the region, as well as critical infrastructure in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted global energy flows, threatening a severe economic crisis marked by rising living costs and instability in global markets.
Domestic Fallout in the United States
The war has faced growing opposition within the United States, including among Trump’s political base. Critics argue that the conflict serves Israeli interests rather than American priorities.
The financial burden has exceeded one billion dollars per day, with the administration requesting an additional 20 billion dollars to sustain operations. The decision to proceed without congressional approval has further intensified criticism.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth framed the cost bluntly, stating that funding is necessary to confront perceived adversaries.
Diverging Objectives Between Washington and Tel Aviv
Trump’s apparent objective of reshaping Iran’s political leadership contrasts with Netanyahu’s broader aim of systemic collapse. While Trump may have envisioned a controlled transition similar to other geopolitical interventions, Iran’s political structure remains resilient and deeply entrenched.
Netanyahu’s strategy appears to extend towards fragmentation, encouraging internal divisions and weakening central authority. Reports suggest that intelligence efforts have focused on amplifying separatist movements within Iran.
This aligns with a broader strategy targeting the so called resistance axis, including Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, all of which are positioned against Israeli regional dominance.
A Strategic Contradiction
Trump’s stated preference for stability to facilitate economic engagement with Gulf states conflicts with Israel’s reliance on sustained conflict. Israel’s approach has contributed to prolonged instability, diverting global attention from ongoing actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
As the war continues, international sentiment is increasingly shifting, not only against Israel but also against the United States as its primary backer.
A Political and Strategic Deadlock
Weeks into the conflict, Trump faces a complex dilemma. Ending the war risks political embarrassment, while prolonging it deepens financial and strategic costs.
The only viable path forward lies in returning to negotiations. However, the earlier strategy of eliminating Iran’s leadership has created a diplomatic vacuum, leaving few viable interlocutors.
Trump himself acknowledged the difficulty, stating that there is no one left to negotiate with, highlighting the consequences of a strategy that prioritised escalation over diplomacy.
