Why Is the US Attacking Iran? A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

The United States and Israel have launched joint military strikes against Iran in what President Donald Trump described as “major combat operations.” The coordinated assault has targeted multiple Iranian cities, including the capital Tehran, and has reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran has responded with retaliatory missile strikes against US military bases across the Middle East, marking the most significant escalation in US-Iran relations in decades. But what triggered this conflict, and what are the stated objectives?

The Official Justifications

Nuclear Concerns

The US and Israel have long claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme poses an existential threat. Trump stated that the operation aims to “ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

However, neither US intelligence agencies nor the UN nuclear watchdog (IAEA) have found evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly stated its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only. Israel remains the only Middle Eastern nation with nuclear weapons.

Ballistic Missile Threat

After US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, the focus shifted to Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was developing intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the US East Coast.

Trump echoed these claims in his State of the Union address, stating Iranians were “working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.” Tehran has vehemently denied these assertions, which have not been backed by public evidence or testing.

”Eliminating Imminent Threats”

Trump framed the operation as defensive: “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating threats from the Iranian regime.” He announced plans to:

• Destroy Iran’s missile capabilities
• Annihilate Iran’s navy
• Disrupt Iran-backed armed groups in the region
• Prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons

The Diplomatic Context

Failed Negotiations

The military operation came amid ongoing diplomatic efforts. US and Iranian negotiators held three rounds of talks mediated by Oman, with Tehran reportedly agreeing to zero uranium stockpiling and full IAEA verification.

Omani mediators described the final round on Thursday as positive, yielding “significant progress.” Yet attacks began days later, leading analysts to question whether diplomacy was ever the priority.

The Netanyahu Factor

Analysts point to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a key driver of the conflict. Netanyahu has warned for two decades that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons—a claim that has never materialised.

“This is, once again, a war of choice launched by the US with a push from Israel,” said Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. “Israel has pushed the US to attack Iran for two decades, and they finally got it.”

Jamal Abdi of the National Iranian American Council noted: “Netanyahu’s agenda has always been to prevent a diplomatic solution, and he feared Trump was actually serious about getting a deal.”

The Regime Change Agenda

Beyond Military Objectives

Trump’s rhetoric extended beyond military targets to political objectives. He urged Iranians to “take over your government,” adding: “This will be, probably, your only chance for generations.”

Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher reported that US involvement appears aimed at “decapitating the Iranian regime,” with attacks concentrated on areas where Khamenei might be sheltering.

This echoes the CIA-orchestrated 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh—but executed this time through overt military force rather than covert operations.

Contradictions with “America First”

The regime change agenda contradicts Trump’s own stated foreign policy principles. In May 2025, he declared: “In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built.”

Trump’s National Security Strategy called for de-prioritising the Middle East in favour of the Western Hemisphere. Yet the US has now committed to what analysts describe as “a long and unpredictable military boondoggle.”

Domestic Opposition

Congressional Backlash

Democratic lawmakers have condemned the strikes as “dangerous” and “unnecessary,” emphasising the lack of congressional approval.

Senator Tim Kaine called the attack “a colossal mistake” and demanded an immediate vote on war powers legislation. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticised Trump for failing to seek congressional authorisation and “abandoning diplomacy.”

Senator Mark Warner warned of “pulling the United States into another broad conflict in the Middle East,” referencing “claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence” reminiscent of the Iraq War.

Bipartisan Concerns

Opposition extends beyond Democrats. Republican Representative Thomas Massie described the strikes as “acts of war unauthorised by Congress,” adding: “This is not America First.”

Republican Senator Rand Paul stated: “My oath of office is to the Constitution, so with studied care, I must oppose another Presidential war.”

Public Opinion

A University of Maryland survey found only 21 percent of Americans favoured war with Iran. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib accused Trump of “ignoring the vast majority of Americans who say loud and clear: No More Wars.”

Who Benefits?

Analysts argue the war primarily serves Israeli interests rather than American ones.

“This is another Israeli war that the US is launching,” said Mortazavi. The operation came despite ongoing negotiations that appeared to be progressing, suggesting diplomatic solutions were available but deliberately avoided.

Critics note that Iran—over 10,000 kilometres from the US mainland—does not pose a direct threat to American territory, raising questions about the strategic rationale for involvement.

The Cost of Escalation

Iran has already retaliated with missile strikes against US bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Casualties have been reported in Qatar and the UAE. Trump has acknowledged US troops may suffer casualties.

The conflict risks drawing in regional actors including Hezbollah, destabilising global energy markets, and committing the US to another prolonged Middle Eastern engagement—precisely the outcome Trump promised to avoid.

Conclusion

The US attack on Iran reflects a convergence of Israeli lobbying, exaggerated threat assessments, and regime change ambitions that contradict stated American foreign policy goals. While framed as defensive, the operation occurred alongside promising diplomatic negotiations, suggesting military action was always the preferred option.

The coming weeks will reveal whether this escalates into a broader regional war or creates conditions for genuine political change in Iran. What’s clear is that the stated justifications—nuclear threats, missile capabilities, imminent danger—do not withstand scrutiny, leaving analysts and lawmakers alike questioning who this war truly serves.

---

Sources

1. Al Jazeera — “Why are the US and Israel attacking Iran? What we know so far” — Source

2. Al Jazeera — “Netanyahu’s war? Analysts say Trump’s Iran strikes benefit Israel, not US” — Source

3. Al Jazeera — “US strikes on Iran lead to renewed demands for war powers legislation” — Source

4. Al Jazeera — “Trump talks of ‘annihilation’, ‘elimination’ as US, Israel attack Iran” — Source

5. Al Jazeera — “Iran’s supreme leader killed in major attack by US and Israel” — Source