In a dramatic turn of events that has sent shockwaves through international politics, President Donald Trump has launched a sweeping military assault against the Islamic Republic of Iran in partnership with Israel. The attack, which began in the early hours of February 28, 2026, marks a stark departure from Trump’s 2024 campaign promise to end foreign wars, not start them. Over the past year, Trump has already ordered military strikes in seven nations, but this latest offensive against Iran is described by both US officials and international observers as the most extensive yet—far surpassing the targeted bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities conducted in June 2025, according to reporting by The New York Times and The Guardian.
Trump’s decision to initiate this conflict was announced via a pre-recorded video posted at 2:30 a.m. Eastern time, just after the bombing began. In the eight-minute address, he declared that Iran presented “imminent threats” and called for the overthrow of its government, framing the operation as a mission to liberate the Iranian people from decades of tyranny. "It’s time for all the people of Iran – Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Balochis and Akhvakhs – to shed from themselves the burden of tyranny and bring forth a free and peace-seeking Iran," Trump said, as reported by The Guardian.
Yet, critics and allies alike have questioned the legal and strategic foundation of this war. Trump has not involved Congress, which the US Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Instead, only eight congressional leaders from both parties were briefed on classified information a few hours before the State of the Union address on February 24, 2026. Democratic senators emerged from those briefings saying they had not been given a compelling reason for immediate military action. The lack of Congressional consultation and the timing—just days after the inaugural meeting of Trump’s so-called Board of Peace—has fueled accusations of recklessness and political opportunism. According to The Guardian, the Board of Peace, which brought together leaders from 27 states to Washington just ten days prior, was meant to resolve conflicts but is now seen as a vehicle for Trump’s own political interests.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, confirmed his country’s participation, framing the joint operation as necessary to remove the “existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran.” The maximalist aims of the US-Israeli attack have cast doubt on whether the preceding diplomatic efforts—namely, talks on February 27, 2026, about limiting uranium enrichment—were ever intended to succeed. These negotiations, overshadowed by what Trump called his “beautiful armada” assembling in the Middle East (the largest US force in the region since the 2003 Iraq invasion), now seem like a prelude rather than an alternative to war.
Trump’s rationale for the attack, particularly his claim that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated” by the June 2025 strike, has been contradicted by US intelligence and the need for this new, more extensive assault. Since the June attack, Iran has shown signs of restarting its pursuit of nuclear weapons technology, defying international inspectors and raising alarms among US and Israeli officials. Nevertheless, both The New York Times and The Guardian have noted that there was no credible, imminent threat from Iran to the United States that would justify such a sweeping military response under international law. The attack is widely viewed as a violation of the UN charter.
Iran’s regime, in power for 47 years as of 2026, has a long record of repression, including massacring thousands of protesters in 2026, imprisoning and executing political dissidents, and oppressing women, LGBTQ people, and religious minorities. Its leaders have enriched themselves while impoverishing their citizens, and the regime has killed hundreds of US service members in the region and bankrolled terrorism far beyond the Middle East. Yet, as The Guardian points out, Iran has arguably never posed less of a threat than now, weakened by last year’s joint US-Israel assault and by decades of sanctions and internal unrest.
Despite these realities, Trump’s approach has been described as reckless and ill-defined. He has failed to secure the international and domestic support necessary to maximize the chances of a successful outcome. Most of Washington’s traditional allies in Europe and beyond have become deeply skeptical of Trump’s motives and have stayed away from the Board of Peace and the unfolding military campaign.
At home, Trump faces political headwinds: declining popularity ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, a recent Supreme Court rebuke of his tariff powers, and lingering controversies including his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Some, like former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, have suggested that these domestic setbacks made an attack on Iran more likely. "I don’t think he can take this loss and then be seen as backing down on Iran," Ross said to The Wall Street Journal. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer expressed concern on MS Now television, saying, "I’m really worried, because he gets so unhinged almost when he’s in trouble like this. I’m worried what he might do in Iran – who knows?"
Public support for a new war in the Middle East is low, with polls indicating only about a quarter of Americans back the conflict. Trump has warned of possible US casualties but has not specified numbers, emphasizing instead that there will be no ground invasion. The strategy relies on aerial bombing and the hope that internal dissent and ethnic minorities will rise up to overthrow the regime once its military is weakened. However, history offers little comfort: entrenched regimes rarely fall to air power alone, and Iran’s military capabilities—especially its missile, naval, and drone assets—remain formidable. According to Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s Iran project director, "The Iranians have come to the conclusion that restraint has been interpreted as weakness and invites more aggression." Vaez warned that Iran’s capacity to inflict damage has not yet been fully tested and that its allies, such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, may join the conflict.
As the world watches, the risk of a wider war looms. In all previous war games, US military analysts have predicted the loss of at least one or two American warships if conflict with Iran escalates. Should this occur, the pressure on Trump to retaliate could plunge the region into even deeper chaos. "There’s no way that Trump can frame that as a victory. His presidency will be completely eclipsed by that," Vaez concluded.
With Congress sidelined, allies wary, and the American public unconvinced, Trump’s gamble in Iran may define not only the fate of his presidency but the future of US foreign policy in the Middle East. The coming days will reveal whether this bold move brings the change he promises—or the chaos many fear.