On 28 February, 2026 US launched an operation publicly known as ‘Epic Fury’ against Iran, along with Israel, which initiated the ‘Operation Roaring Lion’ against Iran. Operation ‘Truthful promise 4’ was the response prepared by Iran, targeting the nearest bases of the US, specifically the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, a radar system in Qatar, and later the US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the Gulf.
The Israeli attacks resulted in the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader and several senior officials, signaling a dramatic escalation in the long-standing confrontation between the three actors.
While the military dimension of the war reflects deeper geopolitical rivalries, competing security doctrines, and unresolved tensions.
From the perspective of international relations theory, the US-Israel war on Iran can be interpreted through several analytical frameworks. Firstly, realist theory provides one of the most straightforward explanations for the conflict. As Carl Von Clausewitz said,
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Within this framework, the military campaign can be interpreted as an attempt by the US and Israel to preserve a favorable balance of power and prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon.
Secondly, the conflict can be explained through the concept of the security dilemma. Over the years, Iran has expanded its missile capabilities and strengthened alliances with non-state actors in the Middle East. However, Israel and the US have interpreted these developments as aggressive moves that could undermine regional security. Thirdly, ideological and identity-based factors have also played a significant role. The rivalry between Iran and Israel has deep ideological roots dating back to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when Tehran adopted a strongly anti-Israeli foreign policy and positioned itself as a leading opponent of Israeli influence in the region.
The military campaign launched by the US and Israel against Iran has raised serious legal concerns under international law. According to the legal framework, the use of force in such attacks is difficult to justify. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter clearly prohibits member states from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another country. Under this system, the authority to approve collective military action against a state rests with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which can authorize a peace force only when it determines that international peace has been seriously threatened.
The only exception to this rule is contained in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows states to use force in self-defense if they face an armed attack. However, the US and Israel have not demonstrated that Iran carried out or imminently planned such an attack.
In particular, the claim of self-defense appears weak because Iran has neither attacked the US nor issued credible threats of doing so without provocation. Without evidence of an imminent armed assault, the legal basis for invoking self-defense becomes highly questionable. Although powerful states have intervened in other countries in the past, such as the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, these actions were never legally sanctioned by the UN.
Another argument sometimes advanced is the protection of civilians from mass atrocities. In 2005, UN member states endorsed the doctrine known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which recognizes that the international community may need to intervene when populations face severe human rights violations. However, this principle still requires collective action through the UN system. It does not permit individual states to unilaterally launch military operations without authorization from the Security Council.
Claims regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program have also been contested. Negotiators involved in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, along with assessments from international monitoring bodies, have repeatedly stated that there is no credible evidence proving that Iran was actively developing nuclear weapons. These findings further weaken the argument that military action was necessary to prevent an immediate nuclear threat.
Beyond the legality of initiating the war, the conduct of military operations has also drawn scrutiny. The assassination of Iran’s national leader has raised serious legal questions because civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities are generally protected under International Humanitarian Law. Actions such as deliberate attacks on civilians or extrajudicial killings could therefore fall under the category of war crimes. If the conflict continues, the risk of further violations of humanitarian law remains high.
Predicting the outcome of the US-Israel war on Iran remains extremely difficult, but several scenarios can be considered. The first possibility is a limited military success for the US and Israel, in which Iran’s military infrastructure is severely devastated. In this scenario, the conflict might end through diplomatic negotiations after achieving specific military objectives.
The second possibility involves unintended escalation. Military operations targeting critical infrastructure or leadership could provoke wider retaliation, potentially drawing additional states into the conflict. This scenario would significantly increase the risk of regional instability and humanitarian consequences.
Another plausible outcome of the war is a ‘prolonged stalemate’ rather than a decisive victory for either side. Many past interventions in the Middle East initially appeared successful but later produced unforeseen and destabilizing consequences. For instance, the 1982 Lebanon War succeeded in expelling the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Lebanon, yet it also led to the emergence of Hezbollah, which eventually became one of Israel’s most formidable regional adversaries.
Similarly, the Gulf War initially reinforced the overwhelming American dominance, but its longer-term consequences included the rise of extremist networks such as Al-Qaeda, which later carried out the 9\11 attacks. In the same way, the Iraq War of 2003 ended Saddam Hussein’s regime but created conditions that enabled the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIS), destabilizing large parts of the Middle East. These historical precedents illustrate that wars initiated with clear strategic objectives often trigger complex political and security consequences.
Applying this pattern to the current conflict, even if the US and Israel achieve short-term military gains against Iran, the broader political effects may prolong instability across the region. Military pressure on Iran could encourage asymmetric retaliation and strengthen anti-Western alliances. Rather than ending the confrontation, such developments could transform the war into an extended geopolitical struggle marked by intermittent clashes, proxy conflicts, and cycles of retaliation. In this sense, the conflict may not conclude with a clear victory but instead evolve into a long-term stalemate whose consequences continue to reverberate across the Middle East.
