Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
related 7.46 — strongly supporting 153 facts
The United States and Israel are closely linked through their coordinated military operations against Iran, such as the joint strikes on February 28, 2026, described in [1], [2], and [3]. They are frequently cited together as a strategic coalition in regional conflicts [4], [5], and [6], and are often viewed by adversaries like Iran as primary antagonists in the Middle East [7], [8], and [9].
Facts (153)
Sources
Policy Steps to Prevent a Nuclear Iran | The Washington Institute washingtoninstitute.org 17 facts
claimIsrael would require specific military articles and U.S. assistance to defend against an Iranian response to conduct a successful strike on Iran.
claimDeepening military cooperation between Iran and Russia or China could increase the stakes and risks associated with any potential Israeli or U.S. military action against Iran.
claimThere is no consensus among the United States, Israel, and other nations regarding what specific actions to take against Iran or what the objectives of such actions should be.
claimU.S. policy toward Iran since October 7, 2023, has been reactive, focusing on limiting Iranian confrontation with Israel.
claimNeither the United States nor Israel is certain how to accomplish regime change in Iran, which is a more difficult objective than less ambitious goals like disabling Iranian nuclear facilities.
claimAs Donald Trump begins his second term as president, he faces a situation where Iran is vulnerable but closer to nuclear weapons, and Israel is closer to striking Iran, which would require U.S. military support.
claimIran uses deterrence to prevent direct strikes against its territory, threatening that such attacks would trigger Hezbollah missile barrages against Israel or strikes against U.S. interests in the Gulf.
claimThere is a belief in the United States, Israel, and other nations that Iran's vulnerability and advanced nuclear efforts create a need and opportunity to curtail threats posed by the Iranian regime.
claimIn the event of an Israeli strike on Iran, the United States will need to assess the damage to Iran's nuclear program, likely without the presence of UN inspectors who may have been expelled or withdrawn.
perspectiveThe author argues that an Israeli military strike on Iran would likely require U.S. support, including military supplies and defense against potential Iranian retaliation.
claimThe April 13, 2024, Iranian attack on Israel demonstrated a significant gap between the conventional military capabilities of Iran and those of the United States, Israel, and their regional partners.
claimThe Trump administration must plan for the possibility of preemptive Israeli military strikes against Iran, including potential U.S. support for Israel and the protection of American and partner interests.
claimThe United States government must prepare for the potential necessity of United States or Israeli military action against Iran.
claimMilitary strikes by Israel against Iran's nuclear program are expected to draw in United States forces, with the primary uncertainty being the extent of that involvement.
claimIt is unclear if U.S. and Israeli policymakers know how to effectuate regime change in Iran without resorting to an Iraq- or Afghanistan-style military occupation, an option that few in the United States are prepared to contemplate.
claimIf Israeli strikes fail to reliably eliminate Iran's nuclear breakout capability, the United States will need to develop a new strategy focused on either diplomacy or follow-up strikes to address residual nuclear capabilities.
perspectiveThe author argues that because Israel has lower military capabilities than the United States and because United States interests are likely to be targeted by Iran regardless of who conducts strikes, the United States should conduct the strikes to ensure effectiveness.
Iran War: A Defining Moment for the Middle East—Global Analysis ... ajc.org 15 facts
claimBrazil, Chile, and Colombia condemned the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran, while Argentina and Paraguay have backed the strikes.
perspectiveSpanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez criticized the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran, warning that it could escalate regional tensions and undermine international stability.
claimThe United Arab Emirates' air defense systems, which utilize American and Israeli technologies, intercepted nearly all of the hundreds of missiles and drones that entered local airspace in recent days.
claimNorway, a non-EU European country, criticized the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran.
claimThe combined U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran has achieved many of its initial military objectives.
claimSpain was the only major European Union government to clearly oppose the U.S.–Israeli military strikes against Iran.
accountIndian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel two days before the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran.
claimResidents in the Gulf region anticipated that if the United States or Israel struck Iran, the Iranian regime would retaliate against U.S. military sites, including Al Dhafra Air Base (located less than 20 miles from the center of Abu Dhabi) and bases in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
claimAlbanian Prime Minister Edi Rama expressed support for the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran, specifically praising U.S. military support for Israel.
claimAcross the Indo-Pacific region, most governments have urged restraint and diplomacy regarding the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran, with China standing out as the most vocal critic.
perspectiveSome political circles argue that Israel dragged the United States into a war that was not aligned with U.S. national interests.
accountOperation Lion’s Roar was a combined offensive by Israel and the United States that followed failed diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear development.
claimThe Czech Republic supported the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran, citing Iran’s nuclear program and its support for militant groups as threats to European security.
claimIndonesia offered to mediate the conflict between Iran and the U.S./Israel, though the offer is viewed as unrealistic due to Indonesia's lack of key relationships and direct stakes in the conflict.
claimThe government of Argentina supported the U.S.–Israeli military operations against the Iranian regime and expressed solidarity with the Iranian people.
Opportunities for Collective Regional Security in the Middle East carnegieendowment.org 13 facts
accountThe peace treaty signed between Lebanon and Israel on May 17, 1983, collapsed shortly after its signing despite American and European diplomatic efforts.
claimThe author claims that the United States and numerous Western governments have continued to supply weapons, ammunition, and financial support to Israel despite the deaths of nearly 50,000 Palestinians and thousands of Lebanese.
accountThe Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) mobilized Shiite militias in Iraq to counter United States influence, while Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria actively targeted Israeli assets and interests.
claimIran utilized its network of armed militias as a protective shield against American and Israeli adversaries and as strategic assets in regional negotiations and power dynamics.
claimIran's regional strategy is designed to deter the United States and Israel from threatening Iranian security, targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure, or undermining the military capabilities of Iranian allies.
accountIsrael refused to withdraw from the Syrian Golan Heights, engaged in military conflicts with Hezbollah, including the 2006 war, and conducted repeated strikes against Iranian allies, often in coordination with the United States.
perspectiveThe author asserts that Western bias, particularly U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israel, has shielded Israeli actions from consequences and emboldened Israel to perpetuate its occupation and dismantle Palestinian aspirations.
accountThe War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel (1969–1970) concluded with a U.S.-initiated mutual ceasefire that facilitated international mediation but exempted the United States from pressuring Israel to implement UN Resolution 242.
accountPrior to October 7, 2023, Saudi Arabia focused on internal reforms under its Vision 2030 framework, pursued new security agreements with the United States, and explored the possibility of normalizing relations with Israel.
claimThe United States' insistence on conditioning normalization agreements between Saudi Arabia and Israel on the exclusion of Palestinian rights or the two-state solution undermines Saudi Arabia's strategic ambitions.
accountIranian-supported groups conducted attacks on United States bases in Iraq and Syria, which contributed to regional escalations including the 2020 United States assassination of IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani and prolonged hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel.
accountThe second disengagement agreement between Egypt and Israel, brokered by U.S. diplomatic efforts in September 1975, paved the way for peace treaties that eventually restored Sinai to Egyptian sovereignty.
accountSaudi Arabia pursued a dual-track foreign policy strategy: strengthening its strategic alliance with the United States to secure security guarantees and potential nuclear program support, while simultaneously exploring normalization with Israel contingent on the acceptance of a Palestinian state.
An Integrated U.S. Strategy to Address Iran's Nuclear and Regional ... carnegieendowment.org 13 facts
perspectiveThe United States should prioritize keeping Iran out of the Golan Heights and Israel's border areas over limiting Iranian control of lines of communication in Syria and Iraq.
claimIran views cyber warfare as a credible retaliatory threat against the political and economic institutions of the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
claimIran is more likely to be amenable to regional or global nuclear initiatives than to approaches that single it out, though Iran frequently cites double standards regarding the United States and Israel.
perspectiveRussia condemns U.S. military actions against Iranian interests but maintains a higher tolerance for Israeli military actions.
claimThe United States supports the Southern Front, a coalition of moderate fighters controlling parts of southwest Syria, primarily to protect Israel and Jordan.
perspectiveRussia would not support Iran if Iran initiated unprovoked military action against the United States or Israel.
claimIsrael is shifting its mix of responses to the Iranian threat due to anxieties about the U.S. regional role, opportunities for collaboration with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, and the reemergence of Russia as a major Middle East player.
perspectiveIsrael's preferred policy for confronting the Iranian threat is a combination of indigenous capabilities and operations, supported by intimate collaboration with the United States.
perspectiveRussia views the United States as a hegemonic power seeking to perpetuate global dominance, while viewing Israel as a state protecting its vital security interests.
claimIran's regional strategy centers on countering the United States and Israel, but it has increasingly focused on competition with Saudi Arabia, which Iran blames for the rise of Sunni radical groups like the Islamic State.
claimMost major countries, excluding the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, view Iran as a stable regional power and a tactical ally against radical Sunni jihadists like the Islamic State.
claimIranian foreign policy actions, ranging from activities in Syria to Venezuela, are framed by the Iranian government as efforts to resist the United States and Israel, while domestic unrest is frequently attributed to American and Zionist plots.
perspectiveThe United States should oppose Iranian conventional military buildups in Syria by interdicting weapons shipments, exposing Iranian behavior, assisting Israel in countering Iranian actions, and pressing Russia to diplomatically prevent such a buildup.
United States and Iran on the Brink: What's at Stake? - CSIS csis.org 12 facts
claimPresident Donald Trump faces pressure from political figures and Israeli officials who argue that military action against Iran is necessary to demonstrate that the United States is in charge.
claimThe Houthi movement has consistently attacked in response to U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout June 2025.
claimVali Nasr claims that Iran perceives threatening Gulf economies as a more effective deterrent against US military action than threatening Israel, because Gulf allies have direct access to President Donald Trump and can urge him to avoid war.
perspectiveDr. Nasr believes Israel's strategic calculus regarding Iran differs from that of the United States, making the Israeli role in the conflict uncertain and worthy of observation.
claimThe Iranian leadership perceives that the United States and Israel currently believe they can escalate military pressure on Iran, strike at will, and subsequently force Iran to negotiate a surrender deal involving the abandonment of proxies, missiles, and the nuclear program in exchange for potential sanctions relief.
claimIran is currently facing two primary pressures: the threat of direct military attack from the United States or Israel, and domestic protests caused by American economic sanctions.
claimThe United States and Israel are pressuring Iran toward negotiations by 'rattling the saber' and utilizing threats.
claimIranian strategists calculated that a massive retaliation against the United States and Israel may be more advantageous than limited responses, due to concerns about the sustainability of a prolonged conflict involving missile and interceptor depletion.
claimAmbassador Ratney posits that Iran may perceive a 'use or lose' scenario where they feel compelled to launch military assets quickly against the United States or Israel, fearing that their military capabilities would otherwise be destroyed in a preemptive strike.
perspectiveMr. Farsakh expresses skepticism that U.S. or Israeli military strikes against Iran have concluded, citing recent military buildups and events in Venezuela.
claimThe Iranian leadership believes that symbolic reactions to United States or Israeli attacks are counterproductive because such responses perpetuate the cycle of conflict and lead to further strikes against Iran.
claimNegotiations between the involved parties are currently stalled, and both Israel and the United States are poised to attack.
The Limits of Iran's Proxy Empire | The New Yorker newyorker.com 9 facts
accountIn May, the Houthis agreed to a ceasefire deal that stopped them from targeting American ships, though they continued to target Israeli ships, following nearly two months of U.S. aerial assaults.
accountDuring the 'Twelve-Day War' in June, Israel attacked Iran, and the United States subsequently joined the conflict by striking Iranian nuclear facilities.
claimAll of Iran's proxy groups share a deep ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.
claimThe Houthis are constructing defensive infrastructure, including tunnels, bunkers, and barriers, in anticipation of potential attacks by the United States and Israel.
claimThe Houthis' recent buildup of defenses is likely intended to prevent the U.S. and Israel from targeting their supreme leader, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, rather than to prepare for supporting Iran.
claimThe Houthis are concerned that even if they do not join the war, they could become targets of the U.S. and Israel, or face harsher sanctions if Iran is significantly weakened or the Iranian regime collapses.
perspectiveMansour stated that because Iran is now engaged in a direct fight against the United States and Israel, its allied proxy groups are becoming less necessary.
accountThe Houthis fired a limited number of missiles at Israel early in the conflict before ceasing, as they were simultaneously engaged in a conflict with the U.S. and facing Israeli bombing campaigns targeting senior Houthi commanders.
claimDuring the 'Twelve-Day War' in June, Iran's proxies remained largely on the sidelines because they were concerned about surviving U.S. and Israeli retaliation, their own missile and drone stockpiles, domestic stability, and potential political or economic gains from avoiding conflict.
How to Handle Iran's Nuclear Ambitions - New Lines Institute newlinesinstitute.org 9 facts
claimThe United States and Israel play key roles in shaping the trajectory of the Iranian nuclear program and creating the current geopolitical situation.
claimThe United States joined Israel in targeting Iran's underground nuclear facilities with bombing raids, though there is little evidence these raids destroyed the facilities.
claimIran accused Israel of deliberately sabotaging diplomacy and declared that further negotiations with the United States would remain frozen until Israeli operations ceased.
perspectiveThe New Lines Institute suggests the U.S. must decouple its policy from Israeli maximalism by leveraging influence to halt unilateral Israeli escalations that sabotage diplomacy.
claimIsrael launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, which the New Lines Institute article characterizes as contrary to U.S. strategic interests and a move that played spoiler to U.S.-Iran negotiations.
perspectiveThe United States policy toward Iran should not be subcontracted to an ally with a maximalist and expansionist endgame, and the U.S. should use its military, diplomatic, and financial leverage to press Israel into restraint.
accountNegotiations between the United States and Iran suffered a sharp rupture when Israel launched a series of direct strikes against Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure two days before talks were scheduled to resume in Rome.
claimU.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran empower the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), despite the stated goal of weakening Iran's capabilities.
claimThe United States and Israel operate from a position of sustained dominance tempered by a long history of adversarial and existential threats, while Iran's posture is shaped by historical trauma, regime survival, and deterrence logic.
Twenty questions (and expert answers) about the Iran war atlanticcouncil.org 9 facts
claimIsrael and the United States have expressed opposition to the ascension of Mojtaba Khamenei, creating the possibility that he may be targeted in future US or Israeli military actions.
accountDuring the twelve-day war in June 2025, Israeli and US strikes significantly set back the Iranian nuclear program, though some Iranian ballistic missile attacks successfully penetrated Israeli and US missile defenses.
claimArab Gulf countries are on the front lines of the conflict involving Iran, while the United States and Israel lead operations against Iran.
claimThe current conflict between Iran and the US/Israel is distinct from the twelve-day war in 2025 or other previous conflicts where Iran rapidly de-escalated.
claimIran may only accept an off-ramp to a conflict if it ensures there is not another near-term war, which would likely entail compelling the United States to enforce a cease-fire that Israel adheres to.
claimDaniel B. Shapiro, a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, asserts that if a gap opens between Israeli and United States goals regarding the war with Iran, Donald Trump will likely determine when the war ends and impose that endpoint on Israel, even if it falls short of regime change.
claimThe Lebanese government views the Israeli military campaign as a threat to its efforts to navigate an economic and political crisis, and is actively pursuing negotiations with Israel and the United States while attempting to crack down on Hezbollah.
perspectiveFrom the perspective of the Iranian regime, a cessation of hostilities would be a temporary respite before the United States or Israel restarts the conflict after replenishing military supplies.
claimIf the United States indicates a desire to stop the war, Israel could conceivably continue the war alone but would likely scale down its operations.
Power Transition in the Middle East: The Intersection of US Global ... populismstudies.org 6 facts
perspectiveProfessor Ibrahim Ozturk argues that the 2026 US-Israeli strikes on Iran reflect a strategic intersection of energy security, regional military dynamics, and intensifying great-power rivalry between the United States and China.
claimThe Syrian leadership has engaged in revived US-mediated security talks with Israel, demonstrating a pragmatic convergence of interests.
claimThe 2026 US-Israeli military stand-off with Iran aims to weaken Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities to bolster Israel’s regional dominance.
claimThe Trump administration's foreign policies are being guided by eschatological beliefs, evidenced by the appointment of Christian-Zionist ideologues to key bureaucratic positions in the United States and diplomatic roles abroad, particularly in Israel and the surrounding region.
measurementBrent crude oil prices reached a peak of $119.50 per barrel on March 9, 2026, following the February 28, 2026, US-Israel strikes on Iran.
claimSyria and Israel have resumed security talks that are mediated by the United States.
The Expanding Iran War - ISPI ispionline.it 5 facts
claimThere are reports of United States support for Iranian-Kurdish separatists and an explicit US-Israeli aim to dismantle Iran’s security apparatus.
accountA massive US-Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran killed more than 1,000 Iranians and resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other senior figures in his inner circle on February 28.
claimHistorically neutral actors, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, are being drawn into the conflict between Iran and the US-Israeli coalition and may be forced to respond.
perspectiveTurkey condemns the US-Israeli strikes on Iran while simultaneously criticizing Iran for widening the war by targeting Gulf states.
claimRory Miller suggests that Iranian attacks may contribute to rising energy prices and economic impacts that could force the United States to shorten its military campaign and restrain Israeli ambitions.
Iranian proxy network in Middle East is in disarray, experts ... jpost.com 4 facts
claimMenashri stated that Israel will follow Donald Trump's lead regarding Iran, noting that both the United States and Israel oppose a nuclear-armed Iran but are each hoping the other will take military action.
claimBaheli observed that Donald Trump appears to favor diplomacy over military action regarding Iran, but Israel's strategic moves remain closely tied to United States policy.
claimBaheli stated that Israel cannot act alone against Iranian nuclear sites and requires United States support.
perspectiveNima Baheli, an Iranian political analyst, stated that Iran's recent military maneuvers and propaganda are primarily intended as external messaging to opponents like the United States and Israel to demonstrate that Iran is not an easy target.
What Does the Iran War Mean for Global Energy Markets? - CSIS csis.org 4 facts
claimOPEC+ faces increased difficulty in market management due to growing fiscal pressure on key producers like Saudi Arabia and the complex supply-demand situation resulting from U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliation.
claimThe United States and Israel claim to have achieved air superiority over Iran, which allows for a shift to aircraft-delivered munitions for more effective targeting.
claimUnited States and Israeli forces are actively diminishing Iran’s missile and drone capabilities.
perspectiveBen Cahill suggests that if the conflict leads to a more pro-American government in Tehran, Qatar’s structural geographic and shipping vulnerabilities could diminish, though this would likely require Qatar to reposition itself alongside the U.S. and Israel.
We Bombed the Wrong Target Iran's Proxy Network Strategy irregularwarfare.org 4 facts
accountA U.S.-Israeli strike on Kataib Hezbollah’s headquarters in the Jurf al-Nasr area of Babil province on February 28 killed two fighters and wounded three others, prompting the group to pledge to attack U.S. bases.
claimThe Houthis retained power over the majority of Yemen and resumed Red Sea attacks within hours of Operation Epic Fury, despite U.S., U.K., and Israeli military strikes conducted between 2023 and 2025.
accountThe Houthi movement resumed missile and drone attacks on U.S. and Israeli-flagged ships within hours of the commencement of Operation Epic Fury, a pre-positioned response that did not require command authorization from Tehran.
perspectiveA Foreign Policy analysis posits that Iran views its proxy groups as a deterrent against U.S. and Israeli pressure, though these groups face internal pressures from war-exhausted populations and fears of being targeted.
The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question, April 2026 ... securitycouncilreport.org 4 facts
accountIran retaliated against the joint Israeli-US strikes by attacking Israel, US bases, and allied assets in the Middle East, and by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz.
perspectiveChina and Russia abstained from voting on resolution 2817, criticizing the resolution as unbalanced because it failed to address the initial Israeli–US strikes on Iran.
accountDuring the conflict starting 28 February 2026, Israel and the US targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile facilities, and naval assets, and killed several top military and political officials, including Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani.
claimJoint Israeli–US strikes on Iran began on 28 February 2026, triggering a sharp escalation in hostilities in the Middle East.
Five fundamental questions for US foreign policy as the Iran war ... mei.edu 3 facts
claimThe United States and Israel have encouraged the Iranian people to stand up against the Iranian regime and take control of their own future.
perspectiveApproaching the fourth week of the war, the United States and Israel are observing the limitations of using only air and naval power to remove the Iranian regime.
accountThe United States launched attacks on Iran in concert with Israel.
The impact of the Iran conflict on global energy markets atlanticcouncil.org 3 facts
measurementFollowing the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran, US fuel prices, European natural gas costs, and Asian tanker freight rates have risen sharply.
measurementFollowing the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran, US fuel prices, European natural gas costs, and Asian tanker freight rates have risen sharply.
claimUS and Israeli strikes on Iran and the subsequent response from Tehran have heightened regional tensions and disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Escalation in the Middle East | MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES msf-me.org 2 facts
claimThe recent escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran has not directly impacted Médecins Sans Frontières activities or staff in Yemen, and operations continue as planned.
accountIn late February, United States and Israeli forces carried out airstrikes against Iran, which were followed by retaliatory actions impacting multiple countries across the Middle East.
Iran's Geopolitical Footprint: Regional Power or Global Contender? moderndiplomacy.eu 2 facts
perspectiveIran positions itself as a defender of oppressed peoples in the Muslim world and as an adversary to the hegemony of the United States, Israel, and Western influence in the Middle East.
claimIran views the United States as a major antagonist primarily because the United States supports Iran's regional adversaries, specifically Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Winners and Losers: Russia, China, and Europe Respond to the ... carnegieendowment.org 2 facts
claimThe global economy, the Gulf states, and civilians in the conflict zone are experiencing negative impacts from the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
claimThe United States and Israel are engaged in a war against Iran, which has been ongoing for nearly one month as of March 30, 2026.
How China and Russia View the Iran War Differently isdp.eu 1 fact
claimRussia uses the Iran-related conflict to reinforce its narrative of Western destabilization, framing the war as a consequence of United States and Israeli policies.
After Khamenei: Regional Reckoning and the Future of Iran's Proxy ... stimson.org 1 fact
claimEfforts to establish a sustainable detente between Iran and Gulf countries have been hindered by mutual mistrust regarding Iranian expansionist objectives and Gulf countries' relations with Israel and the United States, as well as Iran's continued support for Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis.
“Grave Peril” as Crisis Expands Across the Middle East betterworldcampaign.org 1 fact
accountThe United States and Israel began military operations against Iran on February 27, 2025, which have since spread across the region.
Iran's Strategies in Response To Changes in US-China Relations mepc.org 1 fact
claimIranian officials perceive the war in Ukraine and the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel as significant setbacks for the United States.
What Comes Next? Iran Through a Middle Powers Lens belfercenter.org 1 fact
claimThe recent U.S.–Israeli assault on Iran represents a rupture in the regional order that impacts middle powers like Vietnam.
The Iran War Is Upending Global Energy Markets by Carolyn Kissane project-syndicate.org 1 fact
measurementNearly 50 senior Iranian officials have been killed in the conflict with the US-Israeli coalition.
Iran's Regional Proxies: Reshaping the Middle East and ... isdp.eu 1 fact
claimPro-Iran militia groups in Iraq have increased their popularity by projecting themselves as the only credible force capable of challenging the United States and Israel, similar to the popularity Hezbollah gained after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.
Geopolitical analysis of the imposed war against Iran - Al Jazeera aljazeera.com 1 fact
claimThe United States and Israel are described as the aggressors who have imposed a war against Iran, which has escalated beyond a local conflict to have global ramifications.
Middle East conflict economic impacts chips | Sourceability sourceability.com 1 fact
accountU.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, which began in February 2026, have resulted in severe disruption to commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, including more than a dozen confirmed attacks on merchant vessels.
Climate Shocks Are Redefining Energy Security energypolicy.columbia.edu 1 fact
claimUS and Israeli forces have significantly degraded Iran’s military and nuclear capability.
Iran Conflict Brief: The High Cost of Attacking Energy Infrastructure energypolicy.columbia.edu 1 fact
perspectiveAnne-Sophie Corbeau posits that Iran may be attempting to use economic pressure on Asian and European countries—via energy market disruption—to discourage them from supporting the United States and Israel in the current conflict.
A “Good Deal” with Iran? Requirements for Preventing a Future ... washingtoninstitute.org 1 fact
claimDespite U.S. and Israeli military strikes against its nuclear infrastructure, Iran has preserved nuclear know-how, developed advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and maintained future nuclear breakout options.
Quick View: The Iran conflict's impact on global energy markets janushenderson.com 1 fact
claimThe joint U.S.-Israeli offensive has targeted Iranian leadership and defense capabilities, while Iran's response has targeted U.S. military assets and civilian targets.
A Region at Capacity: War, Displacement, and the Limits of ... mecouncil.org 1 fact
claimThe war involving Israel, the United States, and Iran highlights the fragility of the humanitarian landscape in the Middle East.
The Middle East Conflict and the Future of the Region's Political Order internationalaffairs.org.au 1 fact
measurementAt least 1,255 people have been killed in Iran, with many reported as civilians, following coordinated strikes by the United States and Israel on 28 February 2026.
Experts React | Effects of the Iran War on Energy Markets fpri.org 1 fact
perspectiveIran may require guarantees from both the United States and Israel that attacks will not resume before ending the conflict, regardless of any declaration of victory by President Donald Trump.
Escalation in the Middle East and Beyond unocha.org 1 fact
claimStrikes by the United States and Israel in Iran have affected 190 districts across 20 provinces, causing damage to homes, health care facilities, schools, and a water desalination plant.