On February 28, 2026, President Trump and his administration, in collaboration with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran. The operation’s main goal was to, once again, target Iranian military facilities as well as alleged nuclear facilities. As a result of these attacks, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed, making his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, the new Supreme Leader of Iran. This follows months of threats made against Iran by the US during press conferences, as well as the prior launch of Operation Midnight Hammer in June of 2025. As this conflict continues to expand and more nations become involved, it is crucial to understand the many nuances of the relationship between the US and Iran to ensure that your speeches are factually accurate with reasonable arguments.
Historical Context
In 1953, the US CIA collaborated with the United Kingdom to orchestrate Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax overthrew Iran’s then-democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, restoring power to the autocratic US-backed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, with efforts to protect Western oil interests. The Shah, with the support of Western powers, remained in power until the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which led to the return of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after over a decade to lead the movement. During the revolution, 52 Americans from the US Embassy in Tehran were taken hostage for over a year, which effectively severed any remaining diplomatic ties between the US and Iran. After this, the US proceeded to back Iraq in the 1980 Iran-Iraq War. Most notably, the US Navy shot down Iran Air Flight 655, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 300 civilians. Iran-backed militants responded to this by targeting Americans in Beirut. Tensions remained high after this conflict into the 2000s, with former President George W. Bush labeling Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” despite their former negotiations against the Taliban in 2001. Iraq continued to serve as a catalyst for US/Iran conflicts throughout the 2003 Iraq War.
Recent Developments
In March of 2025, US President Donald Trump announced to the public that he had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader seeking a new nuclear deal following the US’ withdrawal from the prior agreement in 2018. Months later, the US and Israel launched their “12-day Confrontation” in June of 2025. This was intended to destroy any potential of Iranian nuclear warfare. US “bunker buster” bombs effectively enacted severe damage to the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant, the Natanz Nuclear Facility, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, with other missile and drone assembly facilities in Tehran and near the Strait of Hormuz being completely destroyed. Unfortunately, this was only the beginning of the Trump Administration’s threats against Iran coming to fruition. In early 2026, reports were released of the USS Abraham Lincoln arriving in the middle east – weeks after this, more indirect nuclear talks were held in Oman alongside US military build-ups. The conflict reached its climax with the aforementioned Operation Epic Fury in late February of 2026. Not only did the operation lead do vastly heightened military tensions, but it also posed major economic risks due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The strait, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, is a major chokepoint for world oil exports, with upwards of 30% of global Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and roughly 20 million barrels of oil passing through it daily. Since its closure, oil prices have exceeded $100/barrel while major shipping lines avoiding the area have led to a 360% increase in diversions. These factors and more have led to, and will continue to lead to, major operational delays in global energy exports.
What’s Next
The US signaled in early March that the conflict would escalate into a “4-week Conflict”, declaring that if a signed deal isn’t in effect by April 6, 2026, intensified bombings are plausible. Though the “deadline” for Iran to agree to a 15-point ceasefire deal, peace plan, or nuclear agreeement has already been extended, it is unclear whether or not the two nations are on active communication to achieve this. Whereas the US has publicly stated that inderect negotiations are ongoing, Iran has publicly denied direct talks. Iran has allegedly submitted a counterproposal to the US-led peace plan, which could serve as a means to ensure peace in the region, even if temporary. However, if this isn’t approved, continued military actions by the US are highly likely. As the US continues to send troops to the region, Iran will continue to attack US bases in the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, and many other effected areas using drones and missiles. There are also major risks of a “forever war” scenario if the international community doesn’t repair the military and economic tensions of the conflict. Specifically, the Strait of Hormuz has the potential to sned the world into a global energy shock despite US attempts to limit the scope of the problem. Complex dynamics in the region combined with the strait’s importance make negotiations difficult, but greatly important.
Extemp Takeaways
- Nuclear Non-Proliferation: After the US retreated from the JCPOA, Iran retaliated by increasing uranium enrichment to 60%, approaching the 90% weapon-grade threshold. A key argument supporting US strikes against Iran is disarmament, alongside the promotion of peaceful energy use. Others argue that the conflict may only escalate international tensions, bolstering the possibility of the use of nuclear warfare and weakening the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
- Regional Stability: Supporters of US actions argue that the US is promoting regional stability by targeting militant groups deemed as terrorist organizations by the US (i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and Iraqi Shia militias). However, the conflict is largely disrupting regional security, as the involvement of the Strait of Hormuz may lead to broader, uncontrollable conflict.
- Protecting Interests: The Trump Administration was largely supported due to its “America First” campaign. Instead of fulfilling these promises, however, the administration has followed a continued pattern of prioritizing military intervention over US interests. Some argue, however, that US interventions in iran protect US interests through “anticipatory self-defense”, as well as aforementioned nuclear policies.
- Domestic Economic Consequences: As of late March 2026, the US government has spent upwards of over $25 billion on attacks against Iran. In fact, the first week of the conflict alone exceeded $11 billion. Instead of prioritizing the poor economic standing of its constituents and nation at-large, the US continually increases its wartime budget.
- International Economic Consequences: The Strait of Hormuz is a cornerstone of understanding the international impacts of US/Iran conflicts. With international trade tensions already projecting major economic repercussions worldwide due to the 2025 US-led tariff war, furthet hits to the world economy (especially pertaining to energy, a key sector in trade) are not sustainable.
- Constitutionality: The US Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. The executive branch does not have this same authority. Furthermore, military actions were not taken in “self-defense”, making the conflict a “war of choice”. This follows numerous other claims of the Trump Administration taking military actions through constitutional violations.