Much earlier, Israel conducted a wave of attacks on Iran in June 2025, targeting several senior military officials and nuclear scientists, as well as nuclear facilities. The US then joined the 12-day war to bombard three nuclear sites in Iran. The war came on the eve of a round of planned negotiations between the US and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program. Recently, on January 27, amid mounting tensions between the US and Iran, US President   Trump had shown that the US was considering an attack against Iran in response to Tehran’s crackdown on protesters, which had left thousands of people dead. Trump had sent the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the region.[1]

Amid growing fears of a new war, a commander from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had issued a warning to his country’s neighbors for not allowing their territory to be used against Iran. Akbarzadeh, political deputy of the IRGC’s naval forces, said that they will then be considered “hostile.” Iran’s currency drops to a record low against the dollar as tensions increase. Since the conflict, Trump has reiterated demands that Iran dismantle its nuclear program and halt uranium enrichment, but talks have not resumed. But while the US military builds up its presence in the region, Iran has warned that it would retaliate if an attack were launched. Iran had warned that the consequences of a strike on Iran could affect the region.[2]

On January 28, the US said that all options, including military action, remain on the table in dealing with Iran, as Washington and Israel look to change Tehran’s ruling system. Iranian officials have warned that any US attack would draw a “swift and comprehensive” response.

The US military has also announced a major multi-day exercise in the Middle East, sharply rising tensions after weeks of unrest inside Iran, triggered by anti-government protests that began in late December.

The US Central Command said the drills would “demonstrate the ability to deploy, disperse, and sustain combat airpower across” the Middle East, underscoring operational readiness across multiple locations. US officials declined to give details about the timing or locations of the exercise.

President Trump said earlier that the US had an “armada” heading toward Iran, though he added that he hoped it would not be used. The warships began deploying from the Asia-Pacific region earlier this month as tensions rose over Iran’s crackdown on protests.

Trump has previously threatened to intervene if Iranian authorities continued to kill protesters, but said the demonstrations had since abated. He said he had been told that killings were subsiding and that there was currently no plan to execute prisoners.

In addition to the carrier and warships, the US had moved fighter jets and air-defense systems to the region. The US military said the exercise would show its ability to deploy and sustain airpower across the Middle East. Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official said that Tehran would view any attack as an “all-out war against us.”

Meanwhile, the UAE said that it would not allow its airspace, territory, or territorial waters to be used for any hostile military actions against Iran. The US military’s Air Base, south of Abu Dhabi, is a key hub for US Air Force operations in the region.[3]

By February 26, the US had assembled an armada within striking distance of Iran, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group. The USS Gerald R. Ford and its escorts are also heading to the region. The two ships together can carry more than 5,000 personnel and 150 planes.

Earlier, on February 23, Iranian students defied authorities with protests for a third day, weeks after security forces crushed mass unrest with thousands killed, and as the United States weighs possible air strikes against the Islamic Republic.[4] In a new sign of the mounting tension in the Middle East, the United States began pulling non-essential personnel and family members from the embassy in Beirut. U.S. President  Trump has repeatedly threatened Iran since major nationwide protests across the country in January, saying on Thursday that "really bad things will happen" if talks between the countries fail to produce a deal.

Washington wants Iran to give up much of its nuclear program, which it believes is aimed at building a bomb, limit the range of its missiles to short distances, and stop supporting groups it backs in the Middle East.

It has built up forces across the Middle East, putting increased pressure on Iran as it weighs its response to U.S. demands amid ongoing talks.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei then faced the gravest crisis of his 36-year tenure, with an economy struggling under the weight of international sanctions and growing unrest that broke out into major protests in January.

On February 23, Iranian President Pezeshkian said negotiations with the U.S. had "yielded encouraging signals" even as a second U.S. aircraft carrier headed towards the Middle East.

Trump has not laid out in detail his thinking on any Iran strike. There was still no "unified support" within the administration to go ahead with an attack.[5]

In an important development, the media reported Pentagon concerns about the intended war against Iran. Alexander Ward, Lara Seligman, and Shelby Holliday, in their article entitled “Pentagon Flags Risks of a Major Operation Against Iran’ published in the Wall Street Journal on February 23, said that the Pentagon had raised concerns to President Trump about an “extended military campaign against Iran, recommending that war plans being considered carry risks including U.S. and allied casualties, depleted air defenses, and an overtaxed force”. :[6]

The warnings have been voiced by Gen. Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, within the Defense Department and during meetings of the National Security Council, current and former officials said, but other Pentagon leaders also had noted similar worries.[7]

As expected, on February 24, President  Trump lashed out at media reports stating that General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned him of potential risks of attacking Iran, including becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict and the possibility of US casualties. Trump responded to the reports in a social media post earlier, saying that Caine believes a war with Iran, which the president has threatened with a military attack if it does not accept a series of demands, could be “easily won. ”..[8]

Trump had been mulling an attack on Iran for weeks, concentrating an enormous array of US forces in the Middle East in preparation for a war.[9]

Julian E. Barnes, David E. Sanger, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt, in their article, “Trump Considers Targeted Strike Against Iran, Followed by Larger Attack, NYT, February 22, 2026, said that:[10]

The top negotiators plan to meet in Geneva on Thursday for final talks, debating a new proposal that could create an off-ramp as two carrier groups massed within striking distance of Iran. President Trump has told advisers that if diplomacy or any initial targeted U.S. attack does not lead Iran to give in to his demands that it give up its nuclear program, he will consider a much bigger attack in the coming months intended to drive that country’s leaders from power, people briefed on internal administration deliberations said. Negotiators from the United States and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Thursday for the final negotiations to avoid a military conflict. But Mr. Trump has been weighing options for U.S. action if the negotiations fail. Though no final decisions have been made, advisers said, Mr. Trump has been leaning toward conducting a first strike in the coming days intended to prove to Iran’s leaders that they must be willing to agree to give up the ability to make a nuclear weapon.

Meanwhile, there were many voices for strong US action resulting in regime change in Iran. The hawks in the US wanted nothing less.

Retired General Jack Keane told Fox News that the US and Israel have a historic opportunity for regime change in Iran. The United States and Israel have a historic opportunity to bring about the collapse of Iran’s current government rather than extend its life through negotiations.

“In my judgment, we should do nothing to extend the life of this regime when we have a historic opportunity right now, given that it is so weak, to set the conditions for a regime collapse. We have never been in this position in 46 years,” said the former vice chief of staff of the US Army and senior strategic analyst.

Iran has lied to the United States for decades, and negotiating with Tehran only “throws them a lifeline,” he argued, adding that Tehran’s government is weak, making now the right moment to set conditions for its collapse.

He said that “if Tehran-Washington negotiations failed to produce a substantive deal, Iran should be added to a comprehensive list of targets in a possible military operation, which he believes is likely.”

Keane suggested that if Iran’s government fell and was replaced with one more aligned with US interests, the region could see enduring peace and stability. He acknowledged Iran keeps some capacity for retaliation and said the United States is positioning resources in the region to protect its bases and Israel.[11]

Military leaders cannot be expected to understand the true nature of the political situation and the political compulsions of the Iranian issue faced by the Trump administration. Therefore, it is best that such hawkish views are ignored. But they are not, and that is the problem with the current Trump administration. Too many extremist views get accepted in their top decision-making circles. Obviously, that makes for bad policy decisions like the current war on Iran.

Trump said on February 19 that he was giving Iran 10 days to reach an agreement over its nuclear program or face military action. The U.S. is preparing for the possibility of sustained, weeks-long operations against Iran if Trump orders an attack, Reuters reported on February 13.

Meanwhile, Iran is making desperate preparations to defend itself from an American-Israeli attack. It is seeking help from Russia and China. Iran is close to a deal with China to purchase anti-ship cruise missiles, according to six people with knowledge of the negotiations, just as the United States deploys a vast naval force near the Iranian coast ahead of possible strikes on the Islamic Republic.

The deal for the Chinese-made CM-302 missiles is near completion, though no delivery date has been agreed, the people said. The supersonic missiles have a range of about 290 kilometers and are designed to evade shipborne defenses by flying low and fast. Their deployment would significantly enhance Iran’s strike capabilities and pose a threat to U.S. naval forces in the region, two weapons experts said.

Negotiations with China to buy the missile weapons systems, which began at least two years ago, accelerated sharply after the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June, according to the six people with knowledge of the talks, including three officials who were briefed by the Iranian government as well as three security officials. As talks entered their final stages last summer, senior Iranian military and government officials travelled to China, including Massoud Oraei, Iran’s deputy defense minister.[12]

The missiles would be among the most advanced military hardware to be transferred to Iran by China and defy a United Nations weapons embargo that was first imposed in 2006. The sanctions were suspended in 2015 as part of a nuclear deal with the U.S. and allies and then reimposed last September.

The potential sale would underscore deepening military ties between China and Iran at a moment of heightened regional tension, complicating U.S. efforts to curb Iran’s missile program and curb its nuclear activities. It would also signal China’s growing willingness to assert itself in a region long dominated by U.S. military might.

China, Iran, and Russia hold annual joint naval exercises, and last year the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned several Chinese entities for supplying chemical precursors to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for use in its ballistic missile program. China rejected those allegations, saying it was unaware of the cases cited in the sanctions and that it strictly enforces export controls on dual-use products.

While hosting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for a military parade in Beijing in September, Chinese President Xi Jinping told the Iranian leader that "China supports Iran in safeguarding sovereignty, territorial integrity and national dignity.”

China joined Russia and Iran in a joint letter on October 18 to say they believed the decision to reimpose sanctions was flawed.

“Iran has become a battlefield between the U.S.,” on one side, and Russia and China on the other, said one of the officials who was briefed by Iran’s government on the missile negotiations.

“China does not want to see a pro-Western regime in Iran,” said Citrinowicz, the Israeli specialist on Iran. “That would be a threat to their interests. They are hoping that this regime will stay.”

The CM-302 purchase would be a significant improvement in an Iranian arsenal depleted by last year’s war, said Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

China’s state-owned China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) markets the CM-302 as the world’s best anti-ship missile, capable of sinking an aircraft carrier or destroyer. The weapons system can be mounted on ships, planes, or mobile ground vehicles. It can also take out targets on land.

CASIC did not respond to a request for comment.

Iran is also in discussions to buy Chinese surface-to-air missile systems, so-called MANPADS, anti-ballistic weapons, and anti-satellite weapons, the six people said.

China was a major arms supplier to Iran in the 1980s, but large-scale weapons transfers dwindled by the late 1990s under international pressure. In recent years, U.S. officials have accused Chinese companies of providing missile-related materials to Iran but have not publicly accused them of supplying complete missile systems.[13]

China will not miss the opportunity of backing Iran against its principal adversary- the US.

Meanwhile, President Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with constraints on using military force against Iran. Military planners have advised that any strike on Tehran’s assets would not deliver a decisive, one-off blow and could instead escalate into a wider, protracted conflict in the Middle East, the report said. Internal discussions have focused on the risks of retaliation and the possibility that limited strikes would fail to significantly degrade Iran’s capabilities, potentially drawing the United States into a broader regional confrontation.[14]

In March, the US intelligence community assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. In June, the Trump administration nevertheless launched airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program.

Despite President Trump having repeatedly assured that those June airstrikes had “obliterated” its program, the US was contemplating more strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. President Trump and his team have rarely taken care to provide consistent rationales for using military force. The administration has in recent days repeatedly cited Iran’s potential nuclear threat while floating the potential military force if Tehran does not cut a deal. But if Iran is that close to having material to make nuclear bombs, that would be a truly miraculous recovery — at least, to the extent one believes Trump. After all, it was just eight months ago that Trump declared Iran’s nuclear program to have been “obliterated.”[15]

Today, it is not about highlighting the success of a past mission but rather about building the case for a future one. And suddenly, it is not so helpful for that first mission to have been the resounding success that Trump has spent months asserting it was. Last month, when Trump was first threatening to strike Iran again, the stated reason was that Tehran was killing protesters. Today, the stated case is much more focused on nuclear issues.

Earlier, when White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked last week why the US might have to strike Iran again even after its nuclear program was supposedly “obliterated,” she responded: “Well, there are many reasons and arguments that one could make for a strike against Iran.” The administration is still searching for a logically consistent one.[16]

The Trump administration still does not have a good rationale for striking Iran again.

Meanwhile, Kevin Liptak, Kylie Atwood, Zachary Cohen, Jennifer Hansler, in their excellent article “Trump confronts his 3 main options on Iran — from diplomacy to trying to topple a regime’, published in CNN on February 24, have argued that:[17]

After ordering the largest American military buildup in the Middle East since the onset of the Iraq War, President Donald Trump now has a decision to make on Iran. The options before him now appear well established, confirmed in vague terms by the president himself during informal question-and-answer sessions over the last several weeks and described in more detail by people familiar with the matter. They range widely, with some carrying significant risks, and he hears sometimes conflicting advice from allies, advisers, and foreign counterparts…Top White House officials continue to say Trump’s preference is to secure a deal with Iran that avoids any type of military confrontation. His envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner have been conducting indirect talks with Iranian officials over the last several weeks and will return to Geneva, Switzerland, on Thursday for another round. Both men have encouraged the president to allow time to see whether a deal is possible, though Witkoff said Saturday that Trump is “curious” as to why Iran has not “capitulated” in negotiations. Each side has drawn red lines — and some direct conflict. Trump says Iran should not be allowed to enrich any uranium. Iran says that it is its right, and insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. The Iranians are still working on a proposal that might bridge that ….US military personnel in the region are prepared to execute a range of operations should Trump give the order. The US military has the assets in place to conduct any of the potential strike options and has been making logistical preparations in the event Trump gives a final order…. If diplomacy fails, Trump could launch a far larger operation meant to topple the Iranian regime. There is already plenty of firepower positioned around Iran to carry out even the most extreme options available to the president…Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine and other military leaders have raised concerns about the scale, complexity, and potential for US casualties that could result from a major, extended military operation against Iran, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. He and others inside the Pentagon have also warned about the potential strain such an operation would put on service members and assets deployed in the region, as well as how a protracted military campaign could further impact US weapons stockpiles, particularly as it relates to arms used in support of Israel and Ukraine,…Still, any strikes intended to seriously threaten the regime’s future hinge, in large part, on understanding what comes next. The Trump administration does not appear to have a clear picture of who will replace the leadership if the US successfully conducts regime change, and its visibility inside the country’s opposition groups appears limited. Nor has Trump received any firm guarantee that even a massive US military operation inside Iran would result in the regime’s ouster. That lack of certainty has informed intensive sessions inside the White House Situation Room in recent days, as Trump debates his options. Many on Trump’s team are hopeful — if not entirely optimistic — that diplomacy will prevail, even if the outlines of an acceptable deal are still unclear. Still others in Trump’s ear have insisted Iran is badly weakened, and the time for action is now. Now, at the brink. That is how we arrived at the brink, an inadvertent sequence of events and choices leaving little maneuvering room for Washington or Tehran. Short of a last-minute diplomatic breakthrough, which is unlikely, what happens next will be in the hands of Trump and Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, neither of whom — at this moment — seems prepared to build an offramp.

President Trump’s decision to order airstrikes against Iran hinged in part on the judgment of Trump’s special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, about whether Tehran was stalling over a deal to relinquish its capacity to produce nuclear weapons, according to people familiar with the matter.

A final round of negotiations was held on February 26, in Geneva.

Yet ahead of what could be the final negotiating session, there were indications that positions were hardening.

Witkoff said that Trump’s directive was to ensure Iran would keep zero nuclear enrichment capability – only for Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, to say on CBS’s Face the Nation that Tehran was not prepared to relinquish enrichment.[18]

Trump said that he would rather have a deal than not but, also warned Iranian regime that if it doesn’t make a deal, “it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them”.[19]

Neither Kushner nor Witkoff are professionals and should not have been put in charge of sensitive and delicate negotiations with Iran. But President Trump thinks otherwise.

Meanwhile, both countries had engaged in shows of military force, with the US bolstering its military assets in the Middle East over the weekend. On February 24, the US partially evacuated its embassy in Beirut after a security review on the risks of military escalation in the region.[20]

On February 26, 2026, negotiators from Iran and the US held the third round of indirect nuclear talks in Geneva, Switzerland. Tehran says that “important” and “practical” proposals were advanced during negotiations, according to Iran. The discussions take place amid a massive US military build-up in the Middle East, with several countries warning their citizens to leave Iran due to the threat of possible US attacks. During his State of the Union address on February 24, US President Trump struck a belligerent tone but said he would prefer to resolve the standoff diplomatically. Iran has also said it wants to find a diplomatic solution but will defend itself if the US resorts to military action. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said Iran remained “crystal clear” that it would “under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon”, while also .

Ali Harb in his article ‘Diplomacy may actually have a chance of success’ said that:[21]

Despite the threats and counter-threats, the US and Iran are interested in diplomacy and prefer to make a deal. Reading between the lines coming from both Tehran and Washington, sounds like diplomacy may have a chance of success, …Iran has sent proposals to the US, and the two sides have been engaging on the content…  Iran is willing to make nuclear concessions beyond the 2015 multilateral deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) so Trump can have a better agreement than former President Obama. Iranian proposal during the indirect talks in Geneva focused on the lifting of US sanctions and dealing with US concerns… their proposal included reducing uranium stockpiles to low-enrichment levels under IAEA supervision and included an aspect of achieving common interests, especially in the economic dimension

Ali Shamkhani, a prominent adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, has suggested that an agreement can be reached if the negotiations focus solely on Iran’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He added that the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, who is leading the talks for Tehran, has “sufficient support and authority to secure this agreement.” If potential military action aims to pressure Iran to make concessions in nuclear negotiations, it’s not clear whether limited strikes would work. He said: [22]

If the goal is to remove Iran’s leaders, that will commit the US to a larger, longer military campaign. There has been no public sign of planning for what would come next, including the potential for chaos in Iran. There is also uncertainty about what any military action could mean for the wider region. Tehran could retaliate against the American-allied nations of the Persian Gulf or Israel. Oil prices have risen in recent days in part due to those concerns, with benchmark Brent crude now around $70 a barrel. Iran, in the last round of talks, said it briefly halted traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which a fifth of all traded oil passes.

In an official statement from Iran’s foreign ministry, said that:[23]

Both in the nuclear field and on the lifting of sanctions, especially important and practical proposals were put forward, and both sides pursued the discussions with great seriousness. We are confident. We must continue and see. This is a process. Contradictory statements from foreign media and some American officials continue to fuel doubts. For us, the focus is on the outcome. We have been consistent, and our positions have been consistent with our words. Today’s talks were profoundly serious, and we hope that tonight we will see the continuation of talks on the lifting of sanctions and the nuclear issue in a practical manner.

While Trump has said he prefers to solve the crisis through diplomacy, he has also said he is considering a limited strike on Iran to pressure its leaders to accept a deal.

The president, however, has done little to explain what he is demanding in the negotiations and why there could be a need to take military action now, eight months after the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities during a war between Israel and Iran.

Iran has rejected the US demand to stop the enrichment of uranium in its territory, but there have been indications that it is prepared to offer some concessions about its nuclear program.

In recent weeks, the US has sent thousands of troops and what Trump has described as an "armada" to the region, including two aircraft carriers along with other warships, as well as fighter jets and refueling planes.

Trump first threatened to bomb Iran last month as security forces brutally repressed anti-government protests, killing thousands of people. But since then, his focus has turned to Iran's nuclear program, which has been at the center of a long-running dispute with the West.

For decades, the US and Israel have accused Iran of trying to secretly develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its program is only for peaceful purposes, though the country is the only non-nuclear-armed state to have enriched uranium at a near weapons-grade level.[24]

In his State of the Union speech to Congress on February 24, Trump briefly and vaguely talked about the tensions with Iran, without clearly laying out the case for strikes.

He said Iran was working to build missiles that would "soon" be capable of reaching the US, without giving details. He also accused the country of trying to "start all over again" with a nuclear weapons program following last year's strikes and said he could not allow the "world's number one sponsor of terror... to have a nuclear weapon".

The US struck three nuclear sites in Iran last June, as it joined Israel in its bombing campaign. At the time, Trump said the facilities had been "obliterated".

Iran says its enrichment activity stopped after the attacks, although it has not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors to access the damaged sites.

"They want to make a deal," Trump said, "but we haven't heard those secret words: 'We will never have a nuclear weapon'."

Hours before the speech, however, the Iranian foreign minister posted on social media that Iran would "under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon". Araghchi also said there was a "historic opportunity to strike an unprecedented agreement that addresses mutual concerns and achieves mutual interests".

Reacting to Trump's address, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman accused the US of repeating "big lies" about its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and the number of protesters killed in the crackdown.

Foreign Minister Araghchi says Iran "will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon."

Iran's proposals have not been made public, but the discussions in Geneva could have included the creation of a regional consortium for uranium enrichment, which had been raised in previous negotiations, as well as ideas about what to do with Iran's roughly 400kg (880lb) stockpile of highly enriched uranium and verification and monitoring mechanisms.

In return, Iran expected the lifting of sanctions that have crippled its economy. Opponents of the regime say any relief would give the clerical rulers a lifeline.

But it stayed unclear which conditions Trump could have found acceptable for a deal. Iran has already rejected discussing limits to the country's ballistic missile program and ending its support for proxies in the region - an alliance Tehran calls the "Axis of Resistance" that includes Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Reports in US media had already suggested that Trump was considering a first strike in the coming days on the IRGC or nuclear sites to pressure the country's leaders. If negotiations failed, according to the reports, the president might go as far as ordering a campaign to topple the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

General Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that strikes against Iran could be risky, potentially drawing the US into a prolonged conflict, although Trump has insisted that Caine believes it would be "easily won".

Iran, meanwhile, had threatened to respond to any attack by striking American military assets in the Middle East and Israel. US-allied countries in the region were concerned that an attack on Iran could lead to a wider conflict and have warned that air power alone will not be able to change the country's leadership. In hindsight, these Iranian threats were not taken seriously by the Trump administration.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, had warned against a deal that does not include Iran's ballistic missiles and its proxies. Netanyahu has long described Iran as a key threat to Israel and a source of instability in the region.

Analysts believed that the prime minister may be pushing for a campaign to topple the Iranian regime. Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons, although it neither confirms nor denies this.

Earlier, Trump said on February 19 that Iran must reach a deal within 10 to 15 days, warning that “really bad things” would otherwise happen.

Oil prices edged higher on Thursday as investors assessed whether the talks could avert a military conflict that risks supply disruptions, though gains were capped by higher US crude inventories.

Araghchi said that Iran aimed to achieve a fair, swift deal but reiterated that it would not forgo its right to peaceful nuclear technology. Washington views nuclear enrichment inside Iran as a potential pathway to nuclear weapons. “A deal is within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority,” Araghchi said in a statement on X.[25]

On February 22, Arachis said he believed there was still a good chance for "a diplomatic solution based on a win-win game". He said that there was no need for any military buildup, adding that the military buildup could not pressure the Iranian regime. Iran has always denied seeking the atom bomb. Arachis was the point man for the unsuccessful efforts to resurrect the 2015 deal during US President Biden's 2021-25 administration, until he was replaced with a hardliner. Arachis is a serious professional. .[26]

Meanwhile, President Trump was getting impatient with the ongoing negotiations with Iran. He had expressed frustration with negotiators' failure to reach a deal. "They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words 'We will never have a nuclear weapon'," Trump said in his State of the Union speech on February 24.

Much earlier, in June 2025, the US had joined Israel in striking Iranian nuclear sites. Iran has threatened fierce retaliation if attacked again.

Earlier, the USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers entered the Middle East. As of February 26, the US military prepared for the possibility of President Trump authorizing military action, the US has assembled its largest concentration of air power in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The USS Gerald Ford, the US Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier, was expected to arrive within days. The carrier would become the second aircraft carrier in the region. Its arrival would add to dozens of advanced F-35 and F-22 fighter jets, along with bombers and refueling planes already deployed. The buildup would give Trump the choice of sustaining an extended air campaign against Iran, rather than conducting a limited strike like last summer’s operation, when B-2 bombers flew from the US to hit a small number of enrichment sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.

Notwithstanding the largest US military deployment in the Middle East, there was still a glimmer of hope that a nuclear deal between the US and Iran could now be achieved. The Trump administration does not want to go to war with Iran. No one dies, except for Israel, which is now pressuring the US to strike Iran.

On February 26, another round of indirect talks between Iranian and US officials ended with a mediator claiming “significant progress” but still no unmistakable evidence that either side was willing to concede enough on their positions to avoid war.

After the conclusion of the talks in Geneva on February 27, 26, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said further technical talks would be held next week in Vienna, and progress had been “good”.

“These were the most serious and longest talks,” Araghchi said.[27]

The two sides had been at odds over key issues, including uranium enrichment and missiles. The Trump administration had repeatedly emphasized, in lockstep with Israel, that it will not accept any nuclear enrichment taking place on Iranian soil, even at civilian-use levels agreed during the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran agreed with world powers. Trump unilaterally abandoned that deal in 2018.

In the days leading up to the Geneva talks, US officials increasingly focused on Iran’s ballistic missile program, saying the missiles threaten US military bases across the Middle East as well as Israel. Iran has refused to entertain any talks on its conventional weapons. Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, have repeatedly said they will never develop nuclear weapons.

Iranian officials had not publicly discussed all the details of their proposals. Still, they are believed to include diluting part of the country’s 60-percent enriched uranium and keeping the uranium inside the country. Iranian authorities envisage that it could be paired with economic opportunities for the US related to Iranian oil and gas and the purchase of airplanes.

Supreme Leader Khamenei had maintained his tough rhetoric against the US as well, casting doubt on the chances of any agreement. He also said Trump would be unable to overthrow Iran’s government after the US president said regime change would be “the best thing that could happen” in Iran.

In a remarkable set of statements, Araghchi said during an interview that even if Khamenei is killed, the theocratic establishment in Iran would continue because it has legal procedures in place to appoint a successor. Pezeshkian added, “They can cut me, cut anyone. If they hit us, a hundred more like us will come up to run the country.”

Meanwhile, the economic situation of Iran was worsening by the day. Rising inflation had gripped the country for more than a decade as a result of a mix of chronic local mismanagement and US and UN sanctions. According to separate reports by the Statistical Centre of Iran and the Central Bank of Iran, inflation has now shot beyond 60 percent. Food inflation was by far the strongest driver at a whopping 105 percent. That included a 207-percent inflation rate for cooking oil, 117 percent for red meat, 108 percent for eggs and dairy products, 113 percent for fruit, and 142 percent for bread and corn. Iran’s national currency, the rial, stood at about 1.66 million rials to the US dollar on February 26, near an all-time low.[28]

President Masoud Pezeshkian said on February 26 that Khamenei has banned weapons of mass destruction, which "clearly means Tehran won't develop nuclear weapons," reiterating a religious decree issued in the early 2000s.[29]

Iran desires to develop a nuclear deterrent capability much like its enemy, Israel. However, it is now willing to compromise on the nuclear weapons issue. Given the situation, Iran has little choice in the matter. Therefore, it is willing to enter a new nuclear deal with the US. Most importantly, Iran has expressed hope that negotiations can bear fruit, but it has rejected what it says are a series of maximalist US demands on issues such as nuclear enrichment, ballistic missiles, and support for regional proxies.

Certainly, Arachis was the man to get it done. He has been Iran's top diplomat since 2024, played a key role in negotiations that led to Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers - the agreement torn up by Trump in 2018.

Political insiders said he enjoyed the full confidence of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describing him as one of the Islamic Republic's most powerful foreign ministers yet.[30] Therefore, it would have been wise for the Trump administration to avoid going to war with Iran and instead negotiate a better nuclear deal than the JCPOA nuclear deal of 2015 during the Obama administration. A war with Iran could destabilize the entire region, spike oil prices, and lead to unintended consequences. Most importantly, wars are politicized by other means, as realists believe, and the US does not have a cogent political rationale for one. Another principle of International Relations is that states do not have foes or friends, only national interests. It is not in the national interest of the US to wage a war with Iran, especially when an overwhelmingly substantial number of its citizens are against the idea of war with Iran. Therefore, it would be wise for the Trump administration to let the diplomatic approach play out further without thwarting it in any way or fashion. There is a glimmer of hope that a new nuclear deal can be achieved between the US and Iran. Emphasis on other matters like ballistic missiles and regional proxies is unrealistic and must be avoided. Wisdom requires that the US give peace a chance and not listen to Israel for once. A disastrous catastrophe can be avoided, as there is still a window of opportunity for a nuclear deal. The US should grasp the opportunity and make peace with Iran. There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is both extremely repressive, cruel, and corrupt, but that does not mean to suggest that the US should replace it. Anyways, a replacement of the Iranian regime would require a massive ground invasion, which is not even contemplated by the Trump administration. Therefore, it should be discarded at once. After all, the US does business with other even more repressive regimes like India, Egypt, North Korea, China, and even Israel itself. It is not the responsibility of the US to intervene in other nations’ internal affairs and set things right, as it sees it. This would be a violation of international law and the UN charter, also. It is time for the US to make peace with Iran by recognizing the Islamic regime, no matter how much it is disliked by the American establishment. The American people overwhelmingly want peace, not war with Iran. Therefore, the Trump administration should have taken the difficult path of diplomacy with Iran resolve the outstanding nuclear issue. Unfortunately, that did not happen as both the US and Israel had decided otherwise.

In an unexpected development, two days after US envoys had been speaking to Iran in Geneva on a nuclear accord, the U.S.-Israel ?war on Iran began on February 28. Ina spectacular fashion, the US military had joined Israel and attacked more than 1,000 targets in Iran and killed many of its top officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The war is now already more extensive, leading to damage in Iran, Israel, and throughout the Middle East.

On March 4, 2026, President Donald Trump told lawmakers it is not yet possible to know the "full scope and duration" of US strikes on Iran. In a letter letting Congress know of the military action, Trump said the threat from Iran had been "untenable" despite efforts to find a diplomatic solution. But lawmakers said they were unclear of Trump's plans after receiving a classified briefing from top officials about the strikes, on the eve of a vote on a war powers resolution that could limit the president's actions.

The US and Israel began striking Iran on Saturday. Iran responded by firing missiles and drones at Israel and Gulf states allied to the US.

In the letter, Trump told Senate President Pro Tempore Grassley that Iran "remains one of the largest, if not the largest, state-sponsors of terrorism in the world".

He said it "continues to seek the means to possess and employ nuclear weapons".

"It’s array of ballistic; cruise, anti-ship and other missiles pose a direct threat to and is attacking US forces, commercial vessels and civilians, as well as those of our allies and partners," the letter added.

The president said no US ground forces had been committed to the operation.[31]

Democratic lawmakers - and a handful of Republicans - have questioned whether Trump exceeded his powers in launching strikes without congressional approval. Many have supported efforts to limit Trump's ability to take further action in Iran. Trump has previously conducted military operations without congressional approval, such as the US strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities last year, and the operation to seize Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro in January.

President Trump’s actions were unconstitutional, and most Americans were against them.

The US-Israeli alliance intensifies strikes on Iran as markets plunge across Asia.

The United States and Israel pressed on with their round-the-clock assaults on Iran on Wednesday ?in a campaign that the top US commander said was "ahead of the game plan". Meanwhile, the death toll from US-Israeli attacks on Iran rose to 1,045, Iranian state media reported. [32]

The oil shock was felt as the benchmark Brent crude was at $83.76 a barrel on March 4, as Iran attacked ?ships and energy facilities, closing navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas are shipped close to its coast.

Scores of ships have halted in the Gulf. Qatar, one of the world's main LNG producers, has shut production. Iraq has scaled back oil output.

The Strait is under the "full control" of Iran's navy, the Revolutionary Guards said on Wednesday, warning vessels not to transit the waterway, the semi-official Fars news agency said.

Trump said the US Navy could begin escorting oil tankers through ?the Strait if ?necessary. But shipowners and analysts are uncertain whether that would be enough to stop rising prices or whether the US can spare vessels to do ?so without exposing them to potential attacks.

Trump risks political fallout if higher energy prices persist, as his Republican Party tries to keep power in the congressional midterm elections in November.

Meanwhile, Mohammad Mokhber, a senior aide to the late supreme leader Khamenei, told state TV that Iran has no intention of negotiating with the United States and can continue the Middle East war for as long as needed. He told the broadcaster that Iran had "no trust in the Americans, and we have no basis for any negotiations with them", adding that: "We can continue the war as long as we want."

Iran's security chief Ali Larijani, who was also an adviser to Khamenei, said in a post on X on March 2 that Tehran will not negotiate with the US, in response to a report that Iran is trying to revive negotiations with Washington.

Meanwhile, Iran expanded a retaliatory missile and drone barrage on the fifth day of a war that sent stocks sinking.

The war took a growing toll on Lebanon, where Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah has launched drones and rockets at Israel in retaliation for the killing of Iran's supreme leader in the US-Israeli opening strikes.

On March 4, 2026, the Israeli military called on residents to leave 16 towns and villages in southern Lebanon, in an "urgent warning" before using force against Hezbollah militants.

Lebanese state media said Israeli attacks on a building killed four in Baalbek in Lebanon's east, far from the border, as well as a Beirut hotel in an area so far spared the violence.

In a throwback to earlier wars, Israel said it was moving troops across the border to create a buffer zone inside Lebanon.

With global energy prices already on the rise over the expanding war, Iran's Revolutionary Guards said it has "complete control" of the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial chokepoint into the Gulf.

But Trump said the US had "knocked out" Iran's navy, along with its air force and radar systems, and that the US Navy was ready to escort tankers through the waterway through which one-fifth of global seaborne oil passes.

Israel's military said it launched a "broad wave of strikes" after midnight across Iran, which in the hours before had launched three separate missile barrages at Israel, causing mild injuries to a woman in Tel Aviv.[33]

On March 4, Israel says it has launched its latest round of attacks on Tehran, with the country’s defense minister vowing to “crush” the Iranian regime’s capabilities.

Iranians are preparing a three-day funeral ceremony to mark the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the opening salvos of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Iran continued its drone and missile strikes on neighboring countries for a fifth day. Gulf nations have looked to stress that their weapon stockpiles stay sufficient.

As Tehran continues its attacks in the region, Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has reportedly emerged as a leading candidate in the race to become Iran’s next supreme leader, after his father was killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes over the weekend.

Meanwhile, air travel across the Middle East remains severely disrupted, with Qatar Airways, Emirates , and Etihad. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez described the ongoing U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran as a “disaster.”[34]

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Wednesday it has fired 230 drones at several facilities hosting US troops in the Middle East, including a base in Erbil in northern Iraq and the Ali Al Salem Air Base and Camp Arijana in Kuwait.

The IRGC said the attacks were among its “first powerful steps” in the war, despite Iran having attacked Gulf Arab states for days since Israel and the United States launched their coordinated offensive on Saturday.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Health said on Wednesday that an 11-year-old girl was killed after being hit by falling shrapnel. “Resuscitation was performed in the ambulance while the girl was being transported to the hospital, and attempts continued for half an hour upon arrival at Al-Amiri Hospital. However, she passed away due to her injuries,” the ministry said on X.

In Iraq, Al Jazeera Arabic reported that a drone targeted a logistical support facility of the US embassy in Baghdad, found near the Baghdad international airport. It followed a similar foiled drone attack on Tuesday near the airport, according to Iraq’s security media cell.

Two drones also targeted a US military base and a hotel in Erbil, in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, security sources told Reuters.

This comes after a building in Sulaymaniyah, in the Iraqi Kurdish region, was hit by a drone strike on Tuesday evening. Footage shared online and verified by Al Jazeera showed flames rising from a building amid reports of an explosion.

Saudi ?Arabia’s defense ministry said it ?intercepted and destroyed a drone ?in the country’s Eastern Province. It did not at once ?provide further ?details on the drone’s ?origin or ?whether ?the incident caused any damage ?or casualties.

Later in the day, a projectile hit Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura refinery, the biggest domestic oil refinery run by Saudi Aramco, according to two sources cited by Reuters. The report comes after Saudi Arabia shut down operations at the plant several days ago after a fire broke out that officials said was caused by debris from the interception of two Iranian drones.

Strikes were also reported in the United Arab Emirates at the US consulate in Dubai and a port in the city of Fujairah.

The UAE’s Defence Ministry said its defenses downed three ballistic missiles and 121 drones, while eight drones landed inside the country.

The US embassy in Saudi Arabia and the US consulate in the UAE came under drone attacks on Tuesday, and the US State Department said on Wednesday that it had authorized nonemergency government personnel to evacuate.

Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said France’s Rafale jets have neutralized Iranian drones targeting the UAE, where hundreds of French navy, air force and army personnel are based.

Qatar’s Defence Ministry said it intercepted 10 drones and two cruise missiles launched from Iran. Qatar Airways said its flight operations remained “temporarily suspended due to the closure of Qatari airspace.”

Iran began hitting targets in Israel as well as US military assets in Gulf states after initial US-Israeli strikes on February 28, and the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Despite the barrage of drones, Al Jazeera’s Zein Basravi, reporting from Qatar’s capital Doha, said the volume and frequency of the attacks on the Gulf were decreasing.

Yet “the issue is that it does not take too many attacks to close airspace or cause disruptions,” Basravi said.

“So even if Iran is able to maintain a low level of attacks, which will continue being a problem for the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries caught up in this conflict.”[35]

Aaron Blake in his excellent article “The rationale for striking Iran was already a mess. Trump just made it worse,” published in CNN on March 4, 2026, argues that: [36]

The Trump administration’s stated justifications for going to war with Iran were already a jumbled and self-contradictory mess. But on Tuesday, Trump made it even worse — laying waste to the administration’s confusing explanation from Monday. Just a day after Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that Iran posed an imminent threat — because it would respond to imminent attacks from Israel by striking US forces — Trump went with an entirely different explanation: that Iran was going to launch preemptive strikes against the US on its own. “It was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” the president said. And with that, the botched rollout of the Trump administration’s case for war enters yet another chapter. Rubio had already turned plenty of heads with his claims on Monday. “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” Rubio said. “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we did not preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties. “This was problematic for a couple of reasons. For one, it was different from the explanations for why Iran posed an imminent threat that had been offered in the days before the war began. Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff, who was leading negotiations with Tehran, initially claimed Iran was “probably a week away” from having nuclear bomb-making material. Then, Trump, in his State of the Union address last week, claimed Iran would “soon” can strike the United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). But those claims didn’t square with either US intelligence or with the administration’s past claims about having “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program just eight months ago. Additionally, Rubio’s explanation made it sound a little like Israel was the tail wagging the dog — the idea that the US was having its decisions about going to war dictated by an ally. The Trump administration on Tuesday set about trying to dispel that notion, saying Rubio’s explanation was not about why the US went to war, period, but why the US went to war when it did. But Trump has now taken exception to that narrative, scrambling his administration’s messaging yet again. When asked on Tuesday whether Israel had forced his hand, he claimed it was Iran that was about to strike. “It was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” Trump said of Iran. “They were going to attack if we did not do it. They were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. “He added: “And based on the way the negotiation was going, they were going to attack first, and I did not want that to happen. So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand. “Trump then seemed to point to disagreements within his administration on the subject. “We thought, and I thought maybe more so than most — I could ask Marco — but I thought we were going to have a situation where we were going to be attacked,” Trump said. “They were getting ready to attack Israel. They were getting ready to attack others. You see that right now. … So, I was right about that.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth chimed in shortly after on social media, saying Trump’s explanation was “100% correct.”

And after Trump’s remarks, Rubio on Tuesday afternoon denied that he had attributed any part of the rationale to following Israel. He instead lined up behind the president’s latest explanation. “The bottom line is this: The president determined we were not going to get hit first. It is that simple, guys. We are not going to put American troops in harm’s way,” Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill. It is difficult to overstate just how much this contradicts Rubio’s version of events and opens a new complex issue. The idea that Iran was about to strike against the US would be the easiest and cleanest justification, if it were substantiated. But that is notably not the justification that Rubio — or anybody else — offered, at least not before Tuesday. Rubio instead pitched a much more complicated, bank-shot theory in which Israel’s imminent action, by extension, made Iranian attacks against the US imminent as well. It is debatable whether that was sufficient justification, but at least it was logically plausible. But it also risked solidifying a narrative that was very un-Trump – one in which he was not the top dog but was instead being led or even coerced into war by Israel. That was already a narrative that had raised concerns in certain circles. (See: Megyn Kelly’s show on Monday.) And we have already seen Trump try to claim credit for killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, even as his administration has looked to emphasize that Israel undertook part of the mission. So, while it is not exactly a surprise that Trump would overcorrect, he has created a whole new set of problems. The question now will be what intelligence backs up Trump’s assertion. If it does not exist, it raises the prospect that the US will go to war with Trump’s premonition. And the administration is now on at least its fourth different explanation for why Iran posed an imminent threat in less than 10 days, including the two most recent versions that directly contradict one another. Trump is no stranger to throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. But it’s something else entirely to be doing that with a subject as serious as the justification for war — especially when US service members have died.

The Trump administration does not have a clear rationale or even a coherent and thoughtful strategy for conducting the current war with Iran. As expected, Democratic lawmakers have slammed Trump’s justifications for attacking Iran, warning the US may be heading for a ground assault and an “open-ended engagement with no end in sight”.

On March 4, Iran has no intention of negotiating with the United States and can continue the Middle East war for as long as needed, Mohammad Mokhber, a senior aide to the late supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told state TV.

He told the broadcaster that Iran had "no trust in the Americans, and we have no basis for any negotiations with them", adding that: "We can continue the war as long as we want."

Iran's security chief Ali Larijani, who was also an adviser to the country's former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a post on X on Monday that Tehran will not negotiate with the US, in response to a report that Iran is trying to revive negotiations with Washington.[37]

The IRGC said Iranian forces had "complete control" of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil and gas supplies, and any vessels looking to pass risked damage from missiles or stray drones.

Trump said March 3 the US Navy was ready to escort oil tankers through the crucial Gulf shipping route.

The IRGC said they had also launched more than 40 missiles at US and Israeli targets in a new wave of strikes.

Israel launched fresh strikes on Iran and Lebanon, where state media reported a residential building was hit on March 5, as IRGC said they had sealed off one of the world's most vital shipping routes for energy.

Governments scrambled to evacuate citizens stranded in the Middle East, where Iran expanded a retaliatory missile and drone barrage on the fifth day of a war that sent stocks sinking.

The war took a growing toll on Lebanon, where Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah has launched drones and rockets at Israel in retaliation for the killing of Iran's supreme leader, Khamenei, in the US-Israeli opening strikes.

On March 4, the Israeli military called on residents to leave 16 towns and villages in southern Lebanon, in an "urgent warning" before using force against Hezbollah militants. Israeli strikes have killed at least 52 people in Lebanon, while the UN said that more than 30,000 people were displaced.

In a throwback to earlier wars, Israel said it was moving troops across the border to create a buffer zone inside Lebanon.[38]

Meanwhile, with global energy prices already on the rise over the expanding war, IRGC said it has "complete control" of the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial chokepoint into the Gulf.

But Trump said the US had "knocked out" Iran's navy, along with its air force and radar systems, and that the US Navy was ready to escort tankers through the waterway through which one-fifth of global seaborne oil passes.

Trump boasted that "just about everything's been knocked out" in Iran, including its navy, air force, and air defense, and said the attacks had killed even leaders who could have taken over.

"Most of the people we had in mind are dead," Trump said. "Now we have another group. They may also be dead, based on reports."

Trump and Netanyahu have urged Iranians to rise, but Trump said regime change was not the goal. The assault came weeks after Iranian authorities clamped down on mass protests, killing thousands. The Iranian drone in Riyadh hit the CIA station. The US encouraged all Americans to leave the region.

A strike on a school in the city of Minab on the first day of the war killed more than 150 people. 

The US military lost six troops while, in Israel, nine people have been killed. At least eight people have died across the Gulf.

Meanwhile, the US and Israel have received lukewarm support, with Western nations limiting involvement to helping Gulf states and repatriating citizens.

Canadian Prime Minister Carney, who had backed the strikes, said March 5, in Sydney that it was time for "rapid de-escalation".[39]

Iran’s expanding missile and drone campaign across the Gulf is causing concern. Qatar warned on March 4 that “all red lines have already been crossed” as Iran’s retaliation against US-Israeli strikes begins spilling across the region. Iranian attacks have disrupted airports, ports, and commercial activity.[40]

Iran’s strategy appears aimed at raising the cost of the war for Arab states in the hope they will pressure US to halt the conflict.

So far, Gulf governments have focused on defending their territory and have not allowed US forces to use their airspace or bases to launch attacks on Iran. However, the stance could shift if attacks intensify.

The attacks have also heightened concerns about the safety of the Gulf’s energy infrastructure, which supplies a large share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas.

Qatar is one of the world’s biggest LNG exporters, and any disruption to its production or shipping routes could quickly ripple through global energy markets. If the conflict begins to threaten energy facilities or shipping lanes near the Strait of Hormuz, it could trigger sharp spikes in oil and gas prices and further destabilize global trade.[41]

As expected, the first issue that is now being extensively debated is whether the US attack on the war is legal.

Critics say that the US attacks have exceeded the president's authority and do not follow international law. President Trump has provided varying aims and justifications. He has said he felt Iran was going to strike first and the attack was meant ?to eliminate imminent threats to the US, its military bases overseas, and allies, although he did not provide details, and some claims were not backed by US intelligence reports. Trump also said Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon within one month, but he did not provide evidence, and this contradicted his claims in June that the US military had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program.[42]

The attacks on Iran ?are pushing the boundaries of Trump's constitutional authority, according to legal experts. Under the US Constitution, the president commands the armed forces and directs foreign relations, but only ?Congress has the power to declare war.

Presidents of both parties have conducted military strikes without congressional approval when it was in the ?national interest, but less intense in duration and scope than what would be considered a war. It is a limit that President Trump may now be testing.

Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth ?have both described the action as a war, and Hegseth called it "the most lethal, most complex and most-precision aerial operation in history." Trump said it could last five weeks or more ?and cautioned that there would be more US casualties.[43]

Congress has provided authorization for large military operations, such as President George Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 acts as a check on presidential power.

Under the WPR, the president can only involve the military in an armed conflict when Congress has declared war or provided specific authority, or ?in response to an attack on US territory or its military. It requires the president to report regularly to Congress, which the administration started to do on March 2. The ?WPR also requires unauthorized military actions to be ended within 60 days unless the deadline is extended.

It provides a procedure for Congress to withdraw the military from a conflict, and members of both ?parties have ?said they plan to put such legislation to a vote this week.

It is highly unlikely such a vote would muster a two-thirds majority needed to override a Trump veto, but some lawmakers said it would put members on the record in an election year. Legal experts said popular opposition might be the main check on Trump's ability to continue the attacks.[44]

Legal experts said many countries will consider the attacks unjustified under the United Nations Charter, which states that member states must refrain from using force or ?the threat of force against other states. There ?are exceptions when force is authorized ?by the UN Security Council or used in self-defense in response to armed attack; neither applies.

There is also the concept of pre-emptive self-defense, which would allow the US to attack Iran if it had proof of an imminent, overwhelming attack.[45] The Trump administration has not met the strict conditions of legal and constitutional requirements. Therefore, the Iranian attacks can be clearly considered as illegal under the US Constitution and international law.

Lawmakers in the US Senate were set to begin voting on March 5, 20 on ?a bipartisan war powers resolution aiming to stop the military campaign against Iran and require that any hostilities against it be authorized by Congress.

The latest effort by Democrats and a few Republicans to rein in Trump's repeated troop ?deployments, sponsors describe it as a bid to take back Congress's responsibility to declare war, ?as spelled out in the US Constitution.

Trump's fellow Republicans hold slim majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives and have blocked previous ?efforts for resolutions seeking to curb his war powers.

Republicans have accused Democrats of playing politics with national security ?and said Trump had ordered only limited operations. The House vote on the measure is expected on March 5. On March 3, Republican House Speaker Johnson of Louisiana said he thought there were enough votes to ?defeat the resolution, describing ?it as an attempt ?to push something that could put US troops in harm's way and inspire Iranian forces.[46]

The Republicans have wrongfully accused the Democrats of playing politics. The attacks were unconstitutional and unwarranted.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has delivered on a career-long ambition to overthrow the Iranian regime, but his collaboration with Trump faces a test as their joint military campaign threatens to drag on, with its goals potentially shifting in the coming weeks.

At the outset of the bombing campaign on February 28, both Trump and Netanyahu said regime change was the goal. But in ?remarks at the White House on March 2, two days after Israeli air strikes killed Khamenei and much of his leadership, Trump did not mention overthrowing Iran's government as his top priority. He now said the US goal was ?to destroy Iran’s missiles and navy, and to stop it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Pentagon chief Hegseth also said at a press conference on March 2 that the operation was not a “so-called regime-change war.”

Netanyahu, by contrast, had called on Iran's citizens to take to the streets and overthrow their rulers on March 2. "We're going to create the conditions, first, for the Iranian people to get control of their destiny," he said. Regime change is one of the aims of Israel.[47]

In the build-up to war, Netanyahu had successfully convinced Trump that it was a “now-or-never moment” to prevent Iran from buying nuclear weapons and destroy its ballistic missile capabilities. Later, Trump said the operation could take “four or five weeks” or “whatever it takes.” President Trump faces domestic pressures that could affect his thinking as the war drags on and expands.

The operation is unpopular in the US, with only one in four Americans saying they back American strikes on Iran, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling. With the crisis disrupting shipping and energy production, rising gas prices could become a daily reminder of the affordability crisis facing many Americans. Gas is up 11 cents per gallon in the US this week, with much higher spikes in global markets suggesting more increases for American consumers.[48]

Notwithstanding the claims of the Trump administration, it desired regime change. Though arguably exceedingly difficult to execute, the US-Israel regime change operation was on its way. Benoit Faucon, Margherita Stancati, and Dov Lieber, in their article “Israel Is Blowing Up Iran’s Police State to Clear the Way for a Revolt”, published in The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2026, argued that:[49]

Israel’s military is targeting the Iranian police state that brutally suppressed protests and killed thousands of people, with the hope of clearing the way for a popular revolt to overthrow the Islamic government. Israeli airstrikes have targeted people responsible for internal security, from members of the Basij paramilitary force to senior intelligence officials, the Israeli military said. The U.S. has also hit some domestic-security agencies, including the Tehran headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the powerful group responsible for defending and perpetuating the regime. Airstrikes have targeted organizations responsible for suppressing protests and cracking down on separatists; analysts are skeptical that the strategy will work.

Meanwhile, the US is planning a regime change strategy by using Kurdish forces in Iraq as part of a ground operation.

Officials in the Trump administration and the Kurdish leadership have held talks about cooperation against Iranian security forces. President Trump, on March 3, spoke with the president of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), Mustafa Hijri. The KDPI was one of the groups targeted by the IRGC.

Some Kurdish militias based along the Iran-Iraq border have expressed interest in using the current instability following international strikes against Iran’s leadership, with discussions touching on the provision of weapons and intelligence support from US agencies, including the CIA.

Top White House officials have been in active discussions with Kurdish leaders in Iraq about providing them with military support to strike the regime. Iranian Kurdish militants have thousands of soldiers along the Iraq-Iran border with major support in Northern Iraq's Kurdistan region.[50]

The Kurdish people, an ethnic minority group numbering 25-30 million across Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Armenia, have long worked with the CIA and the United States as a whole, particularly in the fight against ISIS. However, there is a history of frustration among Kurdish forces, who feel abandoned by the US, especially after the Trump administration decided to withdraw forces from Syria in 2018. This has led to concerns that the US might once again pull support, adding to the narrative of the Kurds being left to face repercussions alone.

The CIA has kept a presence in Iraqi Kurdistan for decades, with an outpost near the Iran border and ongoing cooperation with Kurdish factions. Despite this long-standing alliance, hopes of Kurdish independence have not been realized, and the US has shifted its support over time. The recent US withdrawal from northern Syria, leaving Kurdish forces to face Syrian government forces, has only “deepened Kurdish disillusionment, with many questioning the reliability of the US as an ally.”[51]

Meanwhile, Europe has reacted cautiously to the escalating conflict with Iran, as several leaders express concern over the widening war and the continent struggles to present a united response.

When the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran on February 28, very few European leaders had advance notice. The limited consultation highlights how Europe has found itself on the sidelines of the rapidly escalating Middle East crisis. European Commission President Leyen and EU Council President Costa initially issued a joint statement saying the EU was closely watching developments and market “steadfast commitment to safeguarding regional security and stability.”

But divisions soon appeared among European governments over how to respond.

At the same time, EU leaders acknowledged the dramatic implications of the killing of Khamenei during the US-Israeli strikes.[52]

Meanwhile, European governments have struggled to coordinate a unified stance. France, Germany, and the UK issued a joint warning over the weekend that they were prepared to take “defensive action” if Iran continued missile and drone attacks, but stopped short of endorsing the strikes themselves.

The UK initially refused the US permission to use British bases for the strikes before reversing course and allowing them to be used for “defensive” operations targeting Iranian missile sites.

Even then, tensions appeared between the UK and the US. Trump criticized British Prime Minister Starmer, saying that he was “very disappointed” and that it “took far too long” for the US to receive permission to use the bases. He also said that the relationship between the two countries was “not what it was.”

Across the continent, European governments are also grappling with the potential domestic consequences of the conflict. Energy prices have already surged, with European gas prices rising sharply amid fears of disruption to Middle Eastern supplies.[53]

Meanwhile, the US-Iran conflict intensified after a series of US and Israeli military operations that targeted Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure, prompting widespread Iranian missile and drone retaliation across the region. Tehran has also attacked US and allied bases in the region. As expected, the war has expanded and has now engulfed the entire region.

The Islamic regime has been weakened, but still wholly intact. Only a ground invasion of sorts can remove it. Nothing else will do. The Trump administration is considering arming Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in neighboring Iraq, according to reports, in a move that could open a new front in the war on Iran and risks igniting a civil war in the Middle Eastern country.

Several Iranian opposition Kurdish groups are based in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region and have been waging a low-level insurgency against Tehran for years. Some have demanded autonomy within Iran, while others are fighting for secession from the Islamic Republic.

The possibility of the US supplying weapons to Iranian Kurdish groups and supporting potential cross-border ground attacks in the western part of the country comes as the US and Israel wage a massive aerial bombardment of Iran.

The US aim would be to stretch Tehran's military resources, weaken the state's grip on power, and foment an uprising inside Iran, a multiethnic country of some 92 million people.

Iran's clerical rulers, despite the killing of Khamenei and senior military leaders, have not capitulated or fragmented and have kept control of the country since the joint US-Israeli air campaign began on February 28. The main goal is to make sure Iran starts losing control of some areas. Thereby, other minorities as well as the broader opposition may be inspired. Iran has long been accused of suppressing and discriminating against the country's ethnic minorities, including Kurds. The IRGC has been striking Kurdish groups and said on March 3 that it targeted Kurdish forces with dozens of drones.

The Kurds in Iran face severe oppression, with Kurdish prisoners in Iranian jails, Kurdish leaders assassinated by the regime, leading to a willingness within the Kurdish community to take the risk of involving themselves with the US in a new battle.

Iranian Kurdish armed groups have thousands of forces running along the Iraq-Iran border, primarily in Iraq’s Kurdistan region. Several of the groups have released public statements since the beginning of the war, hinting at imminent action and urging Iranian military forces to defect.

The Kurdish people are an ethnic minority group without an official state. Today, there are an estimated 25-30 million Kurds, the majority living in a region that stretches across parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Armenia. Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, but the Kurdish population has diverse cultural, social, religious, and political traditions as well as a variety of dialects. Kurds make up around 10 percent of Iran's population and primarily live in the country's west along the border with Iraq.

Any ground incursions by Iranian Kurdish groups into western Iran could stretch Tehran's military resources. It would stretch the IRGC forces thin when they are needed elsewhere. However, the risks of the US arming the Iranian opposition Kurdish groups are considerable. The US could trigger a civil war and the fragmentation of the country, which could have lasting consequences.

There are also risks for over half a dozen Iranian Kurdish groups that are based in northern Iraq. Many of these groups were previously armed but have since laid down their weapons.

If the Kurds do engage in a long-term war against Iran, and the US support disappears, this will prove extremely dangerous for them.

The US recently cut support to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led militia that was a key US partner for years in the war against the Islamic State extremist group.

In anticipation of a US attack on Iran, five Iranian opposition Kurdish groups based in Iraqi Kurdistan announced a new political coalition last month aimed at overthrowing the Iranian regime and achieving Kurdish autonomy.[54]

The new coalition includes the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), the Organization of Iranian Kurdistan Struggle (Kabat), and the Komala of the Toilers of Kurdistan. The coalition does not include several Kurdish political heavyweights, such as the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan.

Iran has sporadically conducted military strikes against the exiled Kurdish groups, which Tehran has accused of serving American and Israeli interests. Those attacks could intensify if the US arms the groups.

The CIA support for Iranian Kurdish groups began several months before the war, one of the sources and a senior Kurdistan Regional Government official said.

Also, on March 3, Trump spoke with the president of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), Mustafa Hijri. The KDPI was one of the groups targeted by the IRGC.

Iranian Kurdish opposition forces are expected to take part in a ground operation in Western Iran in the coming days.

In recent days, the Israeli military has been striking Iranian military and police outposts along its border with Iraq, in part to lay the groundwork for the possible flow of armed Kurdish forces into northwest Iran.

The CIA has a long, complex history of collaborating with Iraqi Kurdish factions dating back decades as part of the US war in Iraq. The agency currently has an outpost in Iraqi Kurdistan, found near the border with Iran, according to two people familiar with the matter. The US also has a consulate in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and US and coalition troops are based there as part of the anti-ISIS campaign.

Some Kurds had hoped that in exchange for working with US forces, the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq would win its independence, though that never came to fruition.[55] The US must support the independence movement of the proud Kurds, and today, there is a slight chance that the Kurdish intervention may be happening with Kurds entering Iran from neighboring Iraq.

Notwithstanding US and Israeli claims, the war will continue for some time, and it could further spread chaos and conflict across the region. The war against Iran is a war of choice. Undoubtedly, Iran did not pose an existential threat to the US, as it might have done for Israel. But Israel’s leadership and US supporters had, in the end, persuaded the Trump administration to wage an unprovoked attack that was a violation of international law. Only a full-fledged ground invasion can change the regime, and that is possible now. Meanwhile, the war will continue unabated and thereby wreck the region further.

Dr. Sohail Mahmood is a political analyst in Chapel Hill, NC.

[1] Iran’s President Pezeshkian warns of regional instability amid US threats, Al Jazeera Staffand News Agencies.  27 Jan 202627 Jan 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/27/iran-president-tells-saudi-crown-prince-that-us-threats-cause-instability

[2] Ibid

[3]Iran issues air warning over Hormuz drills as US steps up military presence,

Reuters/Anadolu Agency/AFP, January 28, 2026, https://tribune.com.pk/story/2589482/iran-issues-air-warning-over-hormuz-drills-as-us-steps-up-military-presence

[4]  Elwely Elwelly, “Iranian students protest for third day as US pressure mounts”, Reuters, February 23, 2026, - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-students-protest-third-day-us-pressure-mounts-2026-02-23/

[5]  Ibid

[6] https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-flags-risks-of-a-major-operation-against-iran-1c7e9939?mod=hp_lead_pos5

[7] Ibid

[8] Trump hits out at reports that top general flagged risks of attacking Iran, Al Jazeera Staff

February 24, 2026 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/24/trump-hits-out-at-reports-that-top-general-flagged-risks-of-attacking-iran

[9] Trump hits out at reports that top general flagged risks of attacking Iran, Al Jazeera Staff

February 24, 2026 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/24/trump-hits-out-at-reports-that-top-general-flagged-risks-of-attacking-iran

[10] Julian E. BarnesDavid E. SangerTyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt in their article, “Trump Considers Targeted Strike Against Iran, Followed by Larger Attack, NYT, February 22, 2026 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/22/us/politics/trump-iran-strike-attack.html

[11] https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202602154712#202602247116

[12] Exclusive: Iran nears deal to buy supersonic anti-ship missiles from China

By Gavin Finch, Parisa Hafezi and John Irish Reuters, February 24, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iran-nears-deal-buy-supersonic-anti-ship-missiles-china-2026-02-24/

[13] Ibid

[14] https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202602154712#202602241744

[15] Trump said Iran’s nuclear program was ‘obliterated.’ So why is he looking to strike again? Analysis by Aaron Blake Donald Trump The Middle East, CNN, February 24, 2026 https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/24/politics/nuclear-program-iran-trump-strike

[16] Ibid

[17] Kevin Liptak, Kylie Atwood, Zachary Cohen, Jennifer Hansler, in their excellent article “Trump confronts his 3 main options on Iran — from diplomacy to trying to topple a regime’, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/24/politics/iran-trump-military-options-nuclear

[18] Trump Iran airstrikes decision to be guided by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff’s advice

Exclusive: Trump’s decision will be driven by envoys’ judgment on whether Iran is stalling on a nuclear deal.

Hugo Lowell in Washington Guardian, February 24, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/23/trump-iran-airstrikes-nuclear-deal

[19] Trump news briefly: president’s decision on Iran attack hinges on last-ditch talks this week

Negotiations led by special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will shape Trump’s calculus – key US politics stories from Monday 23 February briefly Guardian staff Tue 24 Feb 2026 02.26 GMT https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/23/trump-steve-witkoff-jared-kushner-iran-attack

[20] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/24/oil-prices-rise-us-iran-talks

[21] i Ibid

[22] The Guardian, February 26, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/feb/26/us-iran-nuclear-talks-middle-east-latest-news-updates

[23] The Guardian, February 26, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/feb/26/us-iran-nuclear-talks-middle-east-latest-news-updates

[24] US and Iran hold talks seen as crucial to prevent conflict, BBC, February 26, 2026,

Hugo Bachega, Middle East correspondent, Jerusalem, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg1vd95nl9o

[25] Rubio says Iran not negotiating on missiles is a 'big problem. ‘February 26, 20264

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2594701/rubio-says-iran-not-negotiating-on-missiles-a-big-problem

[26] Ibid

[27] Maziar Motamedi, “US-Iran talks conclude with claims of progress but few details”,

Al Jazeera, February 26, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/us-iran-talks-conclude-claims-progress-few-details

[28] Ibid

[29] Ibid

[30] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-araqchi-aims-reprise-role-nuclear-dealmaker-2026-02-26/

[31] Bernd Debusmann Jr, Ana Fagus, too early to tell scope of Iran strikes, Trump tells Congress, BBC, March 4, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gprk53pno

[32] missiles launched from Iran towards Türkiye destroyed: Ankara, AFP/REUTERS, March 04, 2026, and Iran live news: Iran death toll at 1,145; Türkiye says missile destroyed, Tim Hume and Stephen Quillen, Al Jazeera, March 4, 2026,

[33] Aaron Blake, “The rationale for striking Iran was already a mess. Trump just made it worse”, CNN, March 4, 2026, argues that: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/03/politics/explanation-trump-preemptive-iran-strikes

[34]  Tim Hume and Stephen Quillen,” Iran live news: Iran death toll at 1,145; Turkiye says missile destroyed”, Al Jazeera, March 4, 2026,

[35] Hundreds of drones target Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE amid Iran war,  AFP, AP, Reuters,  and Al Jazeera, March 4, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/4/hundreds-of-drones-target-kuwait-iraq-saudi-arabia-uae-amid-iran-war

[36] The rationale for striking Iran was already a mess. Trump just made it worse”, published in CNN on March 4, 2026, argues that: [36]https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/03/politics/explanation-trump-preemptive-iran-strikes

[37] U.S. casualties. Iran won't negotiate with US, can 'continue the war': senior adviser to Khamenei, AFP, March 04, 20268 min read,

[38] Ibid

[39] Ibid

[40] Stephen N R, “Qatar says Iran strikes across Gulf have crossed ‘all red lines. Gulf News, March 4, 2026, https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/qatar/qatar-warns-iran-strikes-across-gulf-have-crossed-all-red-lines-1.500463070

[41] Ibid

[42] Are the US attacks on Iran legal?By Tom Hale March 4, 20264:07 PM GMT+5Updated 10 mins agohttps://tribune.com.pk/story/2595730/us-strikes-2000-targets-in-iran-as-retaliation-spreads-across-gulf-region

Item 1 of 2 People stand in rubble at the site of an Israel and U.S. strike on a police station in Tehran, Iran, March 3, 2026. Majid Khahi/ISNA/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

[1/2] People stand in rubble at the site of an Israel and U.S. strike on a police station in Tehran, Iran, March 3, 2026. Majid Khahi/ISNA/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

March 4 (Reuters) -, March 4, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/are-us-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-04/

[43] Ibid

[44] Ibid

[45] Ibid

[46] Patricia Zengerle, “US lawmakers set to vote on war powers as Iran conflict widens”, Reuters, March 4, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-set-vote-war-powers-iran-conflict-widens-2026-03-04/

[47] Maayan Lubell and Rami Ayyub, “Netanyahu's war alliance with Trump faces test as Iran crisis widens”, Reuters, March 4, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahus-war-alliance-with-trump-faces-test-iran-crisis-widens-2026-03-04/

[48] Maayan Lubell and Rami Ayyub, “Netanyahu's war alliance with Trump faces test as Iran crisis widens”, Reuters, March 4, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahus-war-alliance-with-trump-faces-test-iran-crisis-widens-2026-03-04/

[48]Maayan Lubell and Rami Ayyub, “Netanyahu's war alliance with Trump faces test as Iran crisis widens”, Reuters, March 4, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahus-war-alliance-with-trump-faces-test-iran-crisis-widens-2026-03-04/

[49] Benoit Faulcon, Margherita Stancati,  and Dov Lieber, “Israel Is Blowing Up Iran’s Police State to Clear the Way for a Revolt”, Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2026, https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-is-blowing-up-irans-police-state-to-clear-the-way-for-a-revolt-1015b37e?mod=WTRN_pos1

[50] Iran hits CIA site in Riyadh as US looks to arm Kurdish forces against Tehran, Reuters, March 04, 2026, https://tribune.com.pk/story/2595734/iran-hits-cia-site-in-riyadh-as-us-seeks-to-arm-kurdish-forces-against-tehran

[51] Ibid

[52], Alex Abraham, “Europe wary as Iran war deepens, divisions emerge over US-Israel strikes “, Gulf News, March 4, 2026, https://gulfnews.com/world/europe/europe-wary-as-iran-war-deepens-divisions-emerge-over-us-israel-strikes-1.500463129

[53] Ibid

[54] Fraud Bezhan, “A New Front in Iran War? US Considers Arming Iranian Kurdish Opposition Groups”, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, March 4, 2026, https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-us-israel-kurds-iraq/33695118.html and

Alayna Treene, Zachary Cohen, Clarissa Ward, and Vasco Octavio, “CIA working to arm Kurdish forces to spark uprising in Iran, sources say,, CNN, March 4, 2026, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/03/politics/cia-arming-kurds-iran

[55] Ibid