Iran War: A Defining Moment for the Middle East—Global Analysis from AJC Experts

• Within the Middle East, the combined U.S.-Israel campaign has achieved many of its initial military objectives, and U.S. Arab partners in the region remain largely aligned with the United States, albeit privately; however, sustained U.S. engagement and support will remain essential. 
• France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have coordinated defensive support for countries targeted by the Iranian regime, including Israel and Gulf states, while Spain has emerged as a notable European outlier.
• In Latin America, ideological divides persist: Brazil, Chile, and Colombia condemned the U.S.-Israeli strikes, while Argentina and Paraguay—long targets of Iranian proxy activity—have backed them.
• Congressional reactions reflect partisan divisions, but concern about the Iranian regime itself remains bipartisan.
• Across the Indo-Pacific region, most governments have urged restraint and diplomacy rather than condemning the strikes—while China stands out as the most vocal critic.

Lt. Col. (res.) Avital Leibovich, AJC Jerusalem Director 

The Opening Strike

On February 28, 2026, Israel initiated a major military campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran named Operation Lion’s Roar. This combined offensive with the United States followed failed diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear development. The offensive marked a dramatic move in a long-running conflict rooted in disputes on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, ballistic missile programs, and support for terror proxies throughout the Middle East. The opening blows, which surprised the Iranian regime, involved extensive air strikes against Iranian military and strategic infrastructure in Tehran and other cities, aimed at degrading Iran’s offensive capabilities and deterring imminent threats. In the first hours of the operation, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported successive waves of aerial strikes on ballistic missile arrays, air-defense sites, and senior command centers belonging to the Iranian regime, saying the campaign was intended to “degrade the Iranian missile array and minimize launches” toward Israeli territory. Among the strike objectives were high-level regime infrastructure and military leadership sites in central Tehran, an unprecedented move in the history of Israeli operations against Iran. 

Israel on Emergency Footing

A special emergency status was declared in the country: hospitals moved patients to underground facilities, schools and universities closed, and only essential workplaces remain open. Moreover, Israelis were requested to stay near shelters, and the Israeli airspace was closed till further notice. More than 100,000 reservists have been called up to reserve duty, mainly to ensure stability along Israel’s borders. As of March 6, twelve civilians have lost their lives following the Iranian ballistic missile attacks, usually aimed at populated areas. A few hundred civilian buildings have been destroyed by the missiles that hit.

Israeli officials emphasized the gravity of the moment. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel could not allow Tehran’s military and nuclear programs to continue unchecked, stating that “Tehran’s murderous terrorist regime can’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons,” in a reference to the existential threat Israel perceives from a nuclear-armed Iran. 

As Iranian forces responded with missile barrages toward Israeli territory, an additional front of escalation opened. Hezbollah, heeding to Iranian pressure, began firing rockets and explosive drones primarily at Northern Israel. Israel responded by launching an operation in Lebanon against Hezbollah terror sites, evacuating parts of South Lebanon of civilians to ensure their safety. 

Why Israel Acted

Officials in Jerusalem have long argued that Iran’s accumulating ballistic missile arsenal, advanced nuclear development, expanding regional influence, and stalled negotiations posed a clear and growing, and immediate threat to Israel’s security.

Netanyahu framed the campaign as both defensive and decisive, asserting that a failure to act would have allowed Iran “to arm itself with nuclear weapons” and bolster its strategic position. This calculus reflects a longstanding Israeli policy that prioritizes military options when existential threats are perceived to outpace diplomatic remedies. In official briefings, the IDF underscored that this campaign was not simply punitive but designed to inflict structural degradation on Iran’s missile systems, command infrastructure, and air defenses. Moreover, the strategic messaging from Israeli leadership aimed to reassure the Israeli public and international audiences that the operation was calibrated to defend the nation without becoming open-ended.

Looking Ahead: Future Scenarios and Possibilities

Israeli officials have implied that the conflict will revolve not only around military confrontation with Iran itself but also managing regional spillovers and emerging fronts. The fighting has already involved exchanges with Hezbollah in Lebanon and heightened alertness along Israel’s borders, underscoring the possibility of a multi-theater involvement, keeping in mind Houthis, pro-Iranian Iraqi militias, and possible unrest among the Palestinians.

On the diplomatic front, Jerusalem has signaled that it remains open to an outcome in which Iran’s future leadership and policies are determined internally by the Iranian people. While explicitly rejecting any fixed timetable for conflict resolution, Prime Minister Netanyahu suggested that the operation’s goals extend beyond battlefield achievements to include long-term regional stability and deterrence. 

Strategically, Israeli authorities are also preparing for an uncertain post-conflict environment in which threats could re-emerge or evolve. The IDF continues to emphasize the importance of sustained readiness and the readiness of civil defense systems to mitigate attacks on Israeli civilians, echoing an overarching theme that national resilience is as crucial as battlefield success. 

There is a clear understanding that this momentum is unique. The elimination of top Iranian leaders such as Khamenei, and the attacks on regime symbols are meant to create the best possible conditions for the Iranian people to confront the regime and lead towards change. In Israel, this is viewed as a critical moment that may shape the future of the region and, more importantly, Israel’s positioning and security in the Middle East. Will we really see a new Middle East? The possibility seems more realistic than ever.

Reva Gorelick, Interim Director, AJC Abu Dhabi: The Sidney Lerner Center for Arab-Jewish Understanding

When the Interceptions Began

On Saturday morning in Abu Dhabi, reports emerged of initial strikes inside Iran. Within hours—around 1:00 PM local time—residents began hearing repeated aerial interceptions overhead. The sounds continued periodically throughout the afternoon and early evening, occurring at least six times that day, and have persisted in the days since.

Many residents anticipated that if the United States or Israel struck Iran, the regime would retaliate against U.S. military sites across the region, including Al Dhafra Air Base, located less than 20 miles from the center of Abu Dhabi, as well as bases in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.

Since Saturday, the Gulf’s “brotherly countries” have operated in close coordination and consultation. This includes the relationship between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, despite tensions that have shaped regional dynamics in recent months.

Dozens of injuries and three fatalities have been reported in the UAE, including damage caused by a drone interception near Abu Dhabi International Airport. Of the hundreds of missiles and drones that have entered local airspace in recent days, nearly all have been intercepted by the UAE’s air defense systems, which utilize American and Israeli technologies, among others.

Evidence of these interceptions can often be seen in the sky overhead. Meanwhile, airports in Dubai and Abu Dhabi remain closed.

Images and videos are circulating widely on WhatsApp and social media, but authorities have warned residents not to rely on unofficial reports. In the UAE, spreading false information during a crisis is punishable by law.

In at least one case, footage from a 2021 fire at Jebel Ali Port in Dubai was falsely circulated online as current footage of missile strikes.

Life Under Emergency Alerts

The National Emergency Crisis and Disaster Management Authority continues to manage the situation and advises residents to remain calm and avoid panic buying. Emergency alerts appear sporadically on residents’ phones, often instructing people to seek immediate cover.

This can be challenging because homes and apartment buildings in the UAE generally do not include purpose-built shelters.

Guidance from the U.S. Embassy—as well as advisories from the United Kingdom, France, and other countries—has instructed citizens to shelter in place. In a country where nearly 90 percent of the population is expatriate, many residents rely heavily on guidance from their embassies.

Community, Confidence, and Uncertainty

Within Abu Dhabi’s Jewish community—many of whose members are Israeli and have lived through previous wars—there is a strong sense of togetherness and mutual support, along with an understanding of the significance of this moment.

Among the broader population, however, there is no clear consensus about the U.S.-Israeli strikes or their broader impact. Residents appear largely confident in the UAE’s security measures, but the current situation is unprecedented for a country that prides itself on its reputation as one of the safest places in the world for residents, citizens, and tourists.

In an effort to uphold that reputation, the UAE government has also announced that it will cover additional accommodation expenses for tourists stranded in the country due to airport closures.

Benjy Rogers, Director of Middle East / North Africa Initiatives, AJC Center for a New Middle East

The ongoing military actions in Iran continue to dominate headlines and policy conversations in Washington, D.C., and the debate is becoming increasingly contentious. Tragically, as of March 3, six U.S. service members have been killed, and the risk of further casualties remains ever-present.

Discussion of the operation’s objectives, congressional authorization, and its strategic benefits and risks is intensifying as military operations continue and costs mount. One argument gaining traction in some circles is that Israel dragged the United States into a war that was not aligned with U.S. national interests. Yet that claim sets a new and disingenuous standard for American military engagement, ignores broader strategic considerations, and dismisses the threats Iran posed to the U.S. and global security, and the potential opportunity that may arise from decisive action.

U.S. Objectives

On March 2, President Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined the primary objectives of the U.S. campaign: destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, degrading its naval forces, dismantling support for regional proxies, and ensuring the regime can never obtain a nuclear weapon.

Threat Assessment

President Trump justified the military action as necessary to “defend the American people,” framing it as an act of national self-defense. He pointed to the regime’s long history of targeting Americans, including the 1979 hostage crisis and the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing, as well as repeated attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East. He also cited Iran’s support for terrorist organizations, including Hamas, which killed nearly 2,000 people in Israel — including 46 Americans — and took 251 hostages, among them 12 Americans. Meanwhile, Iran continued advancing toward a nuclear weapons capability.

Immediate Threat

While most policymakers agree that Iran is a malign actor, debate persists over whether it posed an imminent threat to the United States.

Historically, U.S. military engagements have rarely been triggered solely by imminent attacks on the homeland. From the World Wars to Desert Storm and Bosnia, American action has often been guided by broader strategic considerations: long-term security, alliance commitments, preservation of international order, and the judgment that military intervention was strategically and morally necessary. Additionally, in cases such as North Korea and Syria, Americans have learned that inaction can also carry significant long-term risks.

What Comes Next

The more complex question is what follows — for Iran, its people, and the broader Middle East.

While the Administration’s decision to limit its objectives to defined military targets may reflect lessons learned from previous American mistakes, a moral and strategic dilemma remains: how can the Iranian people be protected from further internal violence? The regime has demonstrated its willingness to use extreme force against its own population. If the current regime survives, unrest in a country of 90 million people could pose significant geopolitical risks. While regime change may not be an official objective, to ensure the long-term stability of the country, the safety of Iran’s civilian population must be part of any eventual settlement.

Beyond Iran, the conflict carries broader regional implications. Since the early 2000s — from the Iraq War to the Arab Spring and the aftermath of October 7 — the Middle East has endured sustained instability. Yet these upheavals have also reshaped regional dynamics. Political alignments once considered impossible have shifted. We are currently in a rare period in which Israel and several Arab states are more strategically aligned than at any point in recent history. This evolving reality creates an opportunity to recognize that the region’s most destabilizing forces are not necessarily neighbors, but extremist actors who thrive on chaos and division. Regional integration efforts may now carry renewed possibilities.

The coming months will determine whether this conflict deepens fragmentation or catalyzes a new strategic alignment. While Americans are understandably wary of prolonged military engagement in the Middle East, policymakers must ensure that any action taken ultimately advances American security interests and contributes to a more stable regional order.

Jessica Bernton, AJC Director of Congressional Affairs

Support, Skepticism, and a Debate Over War Powers

Reactions to the U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran have largely followed partisan lines, but with notable nuance. Many Republicans have expressed support for the operation, framing it as a long-overdue response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional aggression, while emphasizing solidarity with Israel and confidence in executive authority over national security. At the same time, a small but vocal group of Republicans has joined Democrats in raising constitutional concerns about the absence of explicit congressional authorization for the use of military force—underscoring that concerns about war powers and executive authority cut across party lines.

Democratic responses have been more critical overall, particularly regarding the operation’s process and potential consequences. However, even members who oppose or question the strikes have been careful to underscore their deep concern about the Iranian regime itself—pointing to its long history as a state sponsor of terrorism, its threats to U.S. security, its support for proxies across the region, and its repression of its own people. Their objections are not in defense of the Iranian regime, but rather whether the operation was legally justified, strategically sound, and accompanied by a clear plan to prevent escalation.

Bipartisan Concern Over Escalation and Domestic Impact

Across both parties, lawmakers are focused on similar underlying concerns: risks to U.S. service members, the potential for a broader regional conflict, and the domestic repercussions of prolonged instability—particularly higher energy prices and economic strain at a time when voters remain focused on affordability and security at home.

As primary elections unfold across the country and the general election approaches in November, these dynamics may intensify. We will continue to monitor how the situation evolves, as its trajectory—particularly any escalation or prolonged engagement—could carry growing political and electoral implications for races nationwide.

Hana Rudolph, Associate Director, AJC Asia Pacific Institute

Much of the Indo-Pacific region has avoided explicit condemnation of the U.S., urged restraint, encouraged diplomacy, and prioritized the safety of civilians. Some particularly notable reactions include Australia, China, India, Japan, and Indonesia.

Australia

Australia’s government supported the initial strikes, highlighting the threats posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Prime Minister Albanese particularly highlighted Khamenei’s role in orchestrating attacks on Australian soil against the Jewish community in 2024. 

India

Indian Prime Minister Modi returned from a productive and historic visit to Israel just two days before the U.S. and Israel launched strikes. Once a key partner of Iran, India has avoided explicit condemnation of U.S. or Israeli strikes; at the same time, it has condemned Iranian retaliation on countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, where the Indian community numbers nearly six million. 

Japan

Japan, both a staunch U.S. ally and supporter of international norms, has avoided questions on the U.S. and Israeli strikes. Prime Minister Takaichi has highlighted the need to ensure the Iranian regime does not develop nuclear weapons, as well as the importance of diplomacy. Takaichi is regarded as the protege of the late Prime Minister Abe, who attempted to mediate U.S.-Iran tensions in 2019, during the first Trump administration. 

Indonesia

Indonesia has offered to mediate the conflict — an offer widely viewed as unrealistic. President Prabowo’s interest in deeper engagement in the Middle East has been well received in the context of stabilizing Gaza, but is unlikely to be taken seriously regarding Iran, given Indonesia’s lack of key relationships and direct stakes in the conflict. 

China

China, joined by North Korea, has been the most vocal in condemning U.S. and Israeli strikes as a violation of Iranian sovereignty and international law. China is the primary buyer of Iranian oil (purchasing 80% of Iran’s exported oil in 2025), and exports dual-use components to Iran, which can support its missile and drone capabilities. Despite this, more tangible support during this conflict is not expected. A highly-anticipated Trump-Xi summit scheduled for early April remains on track. 

Dina Siegel Vann, Director, AJC Arthur and Rochelle Belfer Institute for Latino and Latin American Affairs 

Latin American governments have largely called for restraint, criticizing both the attacks on the Iranian regime and the regime’s response. Reactions generally reflect each country’s relationship with the United States and Israel following Hamas’ October 7 terror attacks, the ensuing war in Gaza, and broader ideological leanings.

Governments that often take more critical positions toward the U.S. and Israel—such as Brazil, Chile, and Colombia—predictably condemned the strikes as unwarranted aggression and a departure from diplomacy, urging all sides to halt hostilities. Mexico and other countries with longstanding traditions of neutrality similarly emphasized de-escalation.

A Growing Focus on the Iranian Regime’s Threat

At the same time, several governments have placed the events in the broader context of the Iranian regime’s belligerent global behavior and its repression at home.

During a meeting this week with AJC CEO Ted Deutch and other AJC leaders, Paraguayan President Santiago Peña—a regional champion of closer ties with the U.S. and Israel—emphasized the need to confront the Iranian regime, including its illicit financial networks and support for terror proxies, particularly in the Tri-Border Area shared by Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. AJC awarded Pena with its Gesher Award at last year’s AJC Global Forum in recognition of his courageous leadership, moral clarity, and steadfast support for the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

Argentina and Paraguay Point to New Regional Momentum

Argentina, which supported the U.S.–Israeli operations, also expressed solidarity with the Iranian people while reminding the international community that Ahmad Vahidi—recently appointed to a senior role within the IRGC—is a fugitive from Argentine justice for his alleged role in the 1994 AMIA Jewish center bombing in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.

The leadership of Paraguay and Argentina—along with a growing list of regional partners, including Costa Rica, which recently announced the opening of an innovation, trade, and investment office in Jerusalem—signals a potential new framework for strengthening trilateral cooperation among the United States, Israel, and Latin America.

Benedetta Buttiglione, Director, AJC Transatlantic Institute

The European Union responded cautiously to the military strikes against the Iranian regime, emphasizing the need to avoid further escalation in an already volatile region. While European leaders acknowledged the security challenge posed by the regime, their early reactions focused primarily on restraint, diplomacy, and protecting civilians.

In a February 28 joint statement, Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa warned of the risks of escalation but stopped short of condemning the military action. Roberta Metsola struck a more forceful tone. While cautioning against a “spiral of escalation,” she strongly condemned Iranian attacks on Israel and Gulf states and voiced support for democratic change in Iran—one of the strongest regime-critical positions among senior European officials.

Broad Caution Across Europe — With Spain as the Outlier

Across the EU, most governments responded cautiously, avoiding explicit condemnation of the strikes. Leaders warned that the confrontation could expand into a wider regional conflict while reiterating a long-standing European position: Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons.

Spain stood out as the clearest exception. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez openly criticized the operation, warning it could dangerously escalate tensions and undermine international stability.

European Governments Split Between Support and Criticism

Several European governments expressed clear political backing for the U.S.–Israeli operation. Albania was among the most outspoken supporters, with Prime Minister Edi Rama praising U.S. military support for Israel. The Czech Republic also voiced strong support, citing Iran’s nuclear program and its backing of militant groups as threats to European security. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania similarly aligned with efforts to limit the Iranian regime’s military capabilities.

Other key European powers took a more measured approach. France condemned Iranian retaliation while reinforcing its military presence in the region, but emphasized a defensive posture and diplomacy. The United Kingdom allowed U.S. forces to use British bases and coordinated on defense, but has emphasized that it is not involved in offensive strikes. Germany worked alongside France and the United Kingdom to condemn Iranian retaliation while pushing for negotiations. During a recent White House visit, Friedrich Merz also underscored the importance of transatlantic coordination to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons while avoiding wider regional escalation.

Spain remained the only major EU government to clearly oppose the strikes. Some non-EU European countries, including Norway, also criticized the operation.

Far-Left Protests Meet Vocal Iranian Diaspora Across Europe

Public reactions across Europe have been limited but varied. Left-wing protests have taken place in several cities, though turnout has generally been modest. Some demonstrations were met by counterprotests from members of the Iranian diaspora, who criticized protesters for failing to support Iranians during past waves of repression by the regime.

Large Iranian diaspora communities—particularly in Germany and France—have also been highly visible. Following the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, some diaspora groups gathered in European cities to celebrate and express gratitude toward Israel, while many simultaneously voiced concern for relatives and civilians still living inside Iran.

Europe and the Iranian Regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Earlier this year, following advocacy by AJC, the European Union designated the Iranian regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. This landmark move carried profound implications for international security, the safety of Europe and its Jewish communities, and the pursuit of justice.