The US-Israeli military operation against Iran, reported simultaneously by American and international media, is not merely another escalation in the Middle East. Taken together, its features make it look like a deliberately chosen “war by choice,” lacking a clearly defined end goal but carrying colossal risks: from a regional conflagration to a global energy shock and the erosion of international law. Through the prism of multiple sources — from the Associated Press piece for WSB-TV (wsbtv.com) to an analytical report by MS NOW (ms.now) and a brief CGTN update (cgtn.com) — a coherent but alarming picture emerges: military logic is beginning to replace diplomacy, and a bet on force is pushing regimes and societies toward radicalization.
At the center of the story is President Donald Trump’s decision to launch, as he put it, the “largest combat operations” of his second term against Iran. In a video address published on Truth Social and cited by MS NOW, he announces the start of “Operation Epic Fury.” Formally the goal is framed as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and protecting American citizens and interests. In practice, the boundaries of that goal are blurred: a “large-scale” campaign is planned against Iranian military and nuclear facilities, and the president openly acknowledges that American troops may suffer casualties, calling it a “noble mission” for the future.
At the same time, the Associated Press piece for WSB-TV records key elements of the operation: joint US and Israeli strikes across Iranian territory, including areas around the offices of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as strikes on Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz, western cities and oil ports like Asaluyeh. According to AP sources, members of the Iranian leadership were among the targets. This is no longer a pinpoint “signal” strike on isolated sites but an attempt to inflict systemic damage on Iran’s military and political infrastructure — what Trump calls a “massive” campaign, and what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to MS NOW, describes as an operation to eliminate the “existential threat” posed by the “ayatollah regime.”
Official Tehran, speaking through the Foreign Ministry and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, characterizes the events as a “criminal aggression” by the US and the “Zionist regime,” stressing that the attacks hit “defensive and civilian targets” at a time when “active diplomatic talks” between Iran and the US, mediated by Oman, were underway. Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, whom both WSB-TV and MS NOW cite as a key mediator, states bluntly: “I am stunned… Serious negotiations have been undermined again. This serves neither US interests nor the cause of peace,” and he almost implores Washington: “Do not let yourselves become further entangled. This is not your war.”
Notably, alongside military targets there are also civilian casualties. The Iranian news agency IRNA, cited by both WSB-TV and MS NOW, reports the deaths of five schoolgirls at a girls’ school in Minab in southern Iran, where an IRGC base is located. This is the first officially confirmed incident with civilian victims. In effect, already in the initial phase of the “preventive” operation there is what international law calls “disproportionate impact on the civilian population” — a moment that inevitably fuels anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments in the region.
Iran’s response comes almost immediately. First, there is a massive launch of rockets and drones at Israel and US bases in the region, reported by both AP for WSB-TV and MS NOW. Then the IRGC officially announces the first phase of “True Promise 4,” declaring strikes on the US Fifth Fleet command in Bahrain, on bases in Qatar and the UAE, and on military facilities in Israel. Confirmed damage is limited so far: one fatality in the UAE from shrapnel and one minor injury in Israel, but the key point is geographic reach. Iran, which had often acted through proxies (Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi Shiite formations), is for the first time demonstrating direct attacks on American military infrastructure in the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf on this scale. For those countries — already balancing cooperation with the US and pragmatic rapprochement with Iran — this is a turning point: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia almost in unison declare a “flagrant violation of sovereignty” and reserve the “right to respond” (as WSB-TV reports).
The reaction of global players shows how dangerous this escalation is perceived to be. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, quoted by WSB-TV, says that the use of force by the US and Israel against Iran and Iran’s subsequent retaliatory attack “undermine international peace and security” and calls for an immediate ceasefire and a return to negotiations. The UN Security Council is urgently convening at the request of Bahrain and France. China expresses “extreme concern” and urges an immediate halt to military actions, emphasizing the need to respect Iran’s “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.” Russia, in even stronger terms according to WSB-TV, calls the US and Israeli strikes “a premeditated and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign UN member state,” accuses Washington and Tel Aviv of seeking regime change, and warns of the risk of a “humanitarian, economic and possibly radiological catastrophe” in the region.
The European Union’s stance is more ambiguous. On one hand, EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, in a joint statement (reported by WSB-TV), stress the critical importance of “ensuring nuclear safety” and maintaining the global nonproliferation regime, call for “maximum restraint” and protection of civilians. On the other hand, they remind of “broad sanctions” against the “murderous regime” in Tehran and the Revolutionary Guard, effectively affirming that in Brussels’ view Iran is a primary source of threat rather than a victim of aggression. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, quoted by AP in the WSB-TV piece, explicitly names Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, and its support for “terrorist groups,” as a serious threat to global security. Thus, the European line is: “Diplomacy is preferable, but the responsibility lies first and foremost with Iran,” which indirectly legitimizes the US and Israeli military course in the eyes of parts of the Western audience.
Political conflict over the operation is particularly visible inside the United States. Democratic Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and Representative Jim Himes, cited by WSB-TV and MS NOW, speak almost in unison: this is a “colossal mistake” and a “war by choice without a strategic plan.” The central thread of their criticism is the violation of the constitutional principle that Congress decides on war. Kaine reminds that Americans want “low prices, not a new war,” and the large-scale campaign against Iran was neither authorized by Congress nor justified with a clear objective. Warner emphasizes that if the president himself admits that “American heroes may die,” that should have required “the highest level of oversight, deliberation and accountability.” In legal terms this comes down to the concept of a “war without mandate” — military actions launched without formal approval from the legislative branch — which creates serious legal and political risks for the administration.
Interestingly, the administration is trying in part to cover itself with notification procedures — according to WSB-TV and MS NOW, Congress was notified in advance of possible ballistic missile use, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio held briefings for the “Group of Eight” (leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, and heads of intelligence committees). But notification and consultation are not the same as formal authorization for war. Here lies the essence of a “war by choice”: the president deliberately exploits vague norms about “self-defense” and “imminent threat” to initiate a major military operation, sidestepping a full parliamentary mandate.
At the same time, Trump’s rhetoric in the MS NOW report indicates that the military objective is tightly interwoven with an attempt to influence Iran’s internal situation. He directly urges Iranians to “take control of your government,” calls the moment “your chance, perhaps the only one in a generation,” and essentially says: “When we’re done, take power into your own hands — it will be yours.” In effect, the US president is openly calling for regime change while promising large-scale bombings: “bombs will fall everywhere.” From the point of view of international law and diplomatic practice, this is no longer merely coercion to change policy (for example, limiting the nuclear program) but an attempt to forcefully alter the internal character of a regime. It is therefore unsurprising that Iran’s Foreign Ministry responds, in the quote cited by MS NOW: “Trump has turned ‘America First’ into ‘Israel First’ — which always means ‘America Last’.”
As the operation unfolds, the economic and energy dimensions of the crisis also come into focus. Iran is already demonstratively using its geostrategic trump card — its position by the Strait of Hormuz. This strait, experts explain, is the narrow maritime passage between Iran and Oman through which about one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes. At its narrowest point it is about 21 miles wide, and any military escalation around it immediately affects oil prices and therefore global inflation. Crisis Group analyst Ali Vaez, cited by WSB-TV, emphasizes that even a limited disruption to tanker traffic could “push energy prices up, fuel inflation and shake global markets.” Trump, who in domestic politics pins political advantage on lower gasoline prices, risks undercutting that very narrative.
European and regional countries also see the economic side of the conflict. Airspace closures over Israel, the UAE, Qatar and southern Syria, mass flight cancellations and diversions, and the closure of Dubai airports, documented in detail by WSB-TV, are already a tangible disruption to global logistics. Renewed Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea, reported by MS NOW, hit maritime freight on the Asia–Europe route and can again push up freight rates, as happened before. The longer the escalation lasts, the more likely it is that transport and energy effects will be global rather than regional.
At the same time, humanitarian and social pressure inside Iran is mounting. IRNA, as relayed by AP for WSB-TV, reports that a key highway north from Tehran has been converted to one-way — outbound only — to reduce congestion from people leaving the capital. Senior national security bodies recommend that residents, if possible, leave the city. Shops see surges of buyers, queues form for bread and water, shortages of eggs, milk and other staples are reported. Gas stations have long lines. This is typical of a society bracing for a prolonged conflict that could lead to widespread infrastructure strikes and possibly ground operations.
Against this background, allies’ and rivals’ positions toward the US look inconsistent. Canada, represented by Prime Minister Mark Carney, quoted by WSB-TV, supports Washington’s actions, stressing that Iran is the “main source of instability and terror in the region,” while at the same time urging Canadian citizens in Iran to “shelter in place.” Ukraine — whose stance is shaped by years of strikes from Russian “Shaheds” and other Iranian drones — supports US strikes on Iran, and President Volodymyr Zelensky calls Iran “an accomplice of Putin,” saying it is “right to give the Iranian people a chance to rid themselves of a terrorist regime” (WSB-TV). These remarks reflect both a genuine desire to weaken one of the main external sources of Russian firepower and a dangerous tendency: legitimizing the idea of regime change by force as a “just” scenario.
Effectively, a parallel reality is forming: on one side, a significant portion of the world — the UN, China, Russia, Pakistan, Oman, and the EU (in rhetoric) — calls for de-escalation, reminds of international law, the risks to civilians and the global economy. On the other side, the US, Israel and some allies, albeit cautiously, treat the Iranian problem primarily as an issue of “regime threat” rather than citizen security. Meanwhile, the military operation is unfolding against the backdrop of ongoing talks on Iran’s nuclear program and regional security, and past experience (the “Midnight Hammer” operation in 2025, per MS NOW) showed that destroying individual nuclear sites sets the program back months, not years. This raises the fundamental question of the chosen course’s effectiveness: can a series of air and missile strikes solve a problem that long-standing sanctions and diplomatic efforts have not?
In this context, domestic criticism in the United States is sharp: the country is again entering an “endless war” without a clear exit plan. Democrats note that Trump promised during two campaigns to “end costly foreign wars,” yet is now launching the eighth military operation of his second term, including the forcible removal of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and large-scale strikes on alleged drug caravans that resulted in over a hundred deaths (MS NOW). In that light, the campaign against Iran looks less like compelled self-defense and more like a continuation of a broader trend toward militarization of foreign policy and expansive interpretations of presidential war powers.
At the same time, the question of the future of the international nonproliferation regime intensifies. The EU and the UN emphasize its importance, but the very fact that a group of states unilaterally determines who may have a “legitimate” nuclear program and who may not, and uses force without Security Council consent, undermines trust in those norms. For many “second- and third-tier” countries this sends a signal: there are no security guarantees except through one’s own force and alliances; thus, incentives to develop deterrent capabilities (not necessarily nuclear, but missile and cyber capabilities among them) will only increase.
Taken together, all that is happening forms a logical but deeply troubling line. Acting on the logic of preventing an “existential threat” and denying Iran a nuclear status, the US and Israel have opened a military front whose scale and duration they themselves apparently have not fully calculated. Iran, seeing a threat to its regime and the personal security of its leadership, responds maximalistically, expanding the conflict to US bases and neighboring territories. Regional and global players are split between support, condemnation and cautious calls for peace, but no one has a mechanism for rapid de-escalatory guarantees. Inside the US a dispute is raging about who has the right to lead the country into war and under what rules. On the horizon lies the risk of a protracted war, rising terror, energy and transport shocks, and further degradation of international law as a practical — rather than merely declaratory — regulator.
In that sense, the campaign described in pieces by WSB-TV, MS NOW and CGTN is a textbook example of a “war by choice.” Not an unavoidable reaction to an immediate attack, not a last step when all other means are exhausted, but a deliberate elite decision to play a large military game with predictably unpredictable consequences. That is precisely what makes it especially dangerous — for the Middle East and for the world.
