US-Israel Strikes on Iran: Expert Analyzes War’s Justification & Risks

The United States and Israel launched a military campaign Saturday aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, a move already resulting in casualties on both sides and retaliatory strikes against American allies. The escalation, spurred by concerns over Iran’s reconstituted missile capacity and nuclear program, has drawn sharp criticism for its lack of a coherent justification and echoes of the lead-up to the Iraq War.

Hours after the strikes began, Matt Duss, an executive vice-president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign-policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, spoke to The Novel Yorker about the rationale behind the decision, the broken promises of the 2024 election, and the challenges facing the Democratic Party in responding to the Trump Administration’s actions. Duss’s assessment paints a picture of a policy driven by factors beyond stated security concerns, and a troubling lack of transparency.

A Buffet of Justifications

The Trump Administration has offered multiple, often conflicting, reasons for the attacks. Initially, concerns centered around Iran’s nuclear program, despite previous claims in June that it had been “totally destroyed.” As Duss points out, leaked U.S. Intelligence reports contradicted those earlier assertions, acknowledging setbacks but not complete annihilation of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The New Yorker details this discrepancy, highlighting the administration’s shifting narrative. Now, the justification has broadened to include Iran’s missile capacity, which, according to Israeli analysts cited by Duss, has been rebuilding faster than anticipated. These missiles, while used in retaliatory strikes against Israel, are described as largely defensive in nature.

Yet, Duss argues that the core issue appears to be Israel’s desire for unfettered regional security. “It seems like Israel’s regional security doctrine…is not just that Israel has the right to defend itself but that only Israel has the right to defend itself in the region,” he stated. This doctrine, backed by the Trump Administration, seems to prioritize Israel’s ability to strike without constraint, even at the expense of regional stability.

Echoes of Iraq

The lack of a consistent and convincing case for regime change is drawing comparisons to the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Duss notes that the Trump Administration hasn’t even attempted to build a coherent argument for the American public, Congress, or the United Nations, a stark contrast to the Bush Administration’s efforts, however flawed, to garner support for the Iraq War. Critically, there’s been no discussion of seeking congressional authorization for military action, raising serious questions about the legality and legitimacy of the operation.

This absence of a clear rationale is particularly striking given the history of justifications used for past interventions. As Duss points out, the Iraq War was framed around human rights violations, weapons of mass destruction, and alleged ties to Al Qaeda – arguments that were later widely discredited. The current situation lacks even that level of pretense, with the administration seemingly unconcerned with either the stated justifications or the potential consequences.

Repression and the Iranian People

The situation is further complicated by the ongoing repression of Iranian protesters. The New Yorker has reported extensively on the “incredible repression” faced by Iranians, with thousands reportedly killed in recent months. While the Trump Administration has occasionally issued statements condemning the violence and expressing concern for the Iranian people, Duss argues that these gestures have been largely performative, failing to translate into meaningful action to protect protesters.

This disconnect raises questions about the administration’s true motivations. Duss suggests that a more sensible approach would be to follow the model established by President Barack Obama, which involved pursuing diplomacy to address the threat of Iran’s nuclear program while simultaneously seeking opportunities to engage on other challenges. Obama’s approach, which culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), involved close international cooperation and rigorous inspections, creating a framework for addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions without resorting to military force.

What’s Confirmed, What’s Unclear

As of Sunday, March 1, 2026, several key facts are confirmed: the U.S. And Israel have initiated military strikes against Iran; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, has been killed in the strikes, according to multiple news sources including CNN, CBS News, and NBC News; and Iran has retaliated by striking American allies and a U.S. Naval base in Bahrain. The extent of the damage and casualties remains largely unknown.

What remains unclear is the long-term strategic objective of the Trump Administration. Is the goal truly regime change, or is it a more limited attempt to degrade Iran’s military capabilities? The administration has offered no clear answer, and its shifting justifications suggest a lack of a coherent plan. The level of congressional and international support for the operation remains uncertain. The absence of any attempt to secure such support raises serious questions about the sustainability of the campaign.

The Political Fallout

The timing of this escalation, coming after Trump’s campaign promises of avoiding foreign entanglements, is particularly damaging to his credibility. Duss highlights the dissonance between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions, suggesting that he “fooled voters” when he presented himself as a peace candidate. The situation also presents a significant challenge to the Democratic Party, which must now decide how to respond to Trump’s aggressive foreign policy. Duss questions whether the party’s leadership is equipped to effectively challenge Trump on Iran, given the complex geopolitical dynamics at play.

What Comes Next?

The immediate future is fraught with uncertainty. Iran is likely to continue retaliating against U.S. Interests in the region, potentially escalating the conflict further. The administration will face increasing pressure to articulate a clear strategy and justify its actions to the American public and the international community. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether this latest escalation spirals into a wider regional war or can be contained through diplomacy. The situation demands careful monitoring and a renewed commitment to de-escalation, but the current trajectory suggests a dangerous path forward.