On Feb. 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a series of attacks against Iran. According to University of Massachusetts professors, the attacks hold little justification legally and the roadmap to the end of the war lacks a clear path.
Since the initial attacks, Iran has subsequently struck back, striking Israel directly along with several U.S. and Israeli military installments. Iran has also asserted control over the Strait of Hormuz, the naval passage about 20% of global oil and gas supplies go through. The conflict has led to civilian and military casualties and massively disrupted the global economy.
Jamie Rowen, UMass professor of legal studies and political science, said that the political goal of the war from the U.S. perspective has been regime change. She pointed out how resilient the Iranian regime has been, as well as the damage they have been able to do.
“Iran, with its little bit of military power, is just upping the cost so much, so they’re not going to back down … the regime has survived for 40 years of intense pressure … it basically just knows how to survive,” Rowen said.
For President Donald Trump, the resilience of the Iranian regime makes justification of the war difficult.
A recent UMass Poll found that “nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans say the president is handling Iran poorly.” Compared to past military conflicts Iran has the lowest level of support at the start of any conflict.
“The war has not been helpful for President Trump’s popularity, or for the American economy,” David Mednicoff, professor of Middle Eastern studies and public policy, said. “As a result, it appears that the President would like to end it”
The low amount of support comes from several key differences between the current war in Iran and past American military actions. Rowen explained that people “were definitely trusting of the establishment [when invading Iraq] and thought that the United States knew what it was doing. I think that the difference now is we saw that was a complete fiasco, failure and disaster.”
The war is not impossible to justify, as Mednicoff explained, “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been hostile to both the United States and Israel and supported substantially [by] military groups across the Middle East, including the Palestinian organization Hamas and the Lebanese group [Hezbollah].”
Iranian nuclear production stopped under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 under President Barack Obama, commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. When Trump withdrew from the joint plan in 2018, this pushed Iran towards “nuclear weapons capacity” once again.
Even with evidence of Iran building towards nuclear weapons capacity, Mednicoff still believes that the US and Israel would lack justification to attack Iran.
“Under international law, a country may only attack another if it has already been attacked or it faces a direct and imminent attack, which certainly could not be said to be the case with respect to the United States and is also unlikely to be a reasonable argument for Israel,” Mednicoff said.
At a webinar on March 10th, hosted by UMass, Charli Carpenter, professor of political science and chair of the Five Colleges International Relations Consortium, said, “almost all American international law experts and most international jurists have unequivocally condemned the attack on Iran as a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter.”
Carpenter added that “the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine … can only be legitimately involved with a multilateral coalition. The U.S. and Israel did not even attempt any of this consensus-building.”
But the reality of international law being enforced is much trickier. Rowen stated, “What entity can hold the United States criminally responsible for its actions in Iran? And the answer is, no one.”
Rowen explained that the United Nations Security Council could refer a country to be tried by the court, however, “The United States is on the Security Council, so it would never allow itself to be referred.”
Even with reports of Trump wanting to end the war quickly he is still taking escalatory steps. On April 7, Trump turned to Truth Social, where he said that a “civilization will die tonight,” if Iran did not meet his demands. Hours before the deadline he had set, he drew back, announcing a two-week ceasefire.
With dropping approval ratings going into the 2026 midterms, there is strong pressure on Trump to maintain his powerful grip in Washington, D.C. where Republicans hold majorities in both legislatures as well as the Supreme Court.
“This does seem consistent with the Trump Doctrine … I’m going to terrorize my enemies, and then they’re going to pay attention to me,” Carpenter said at the March 10 webinar.
Rowen said there was an argument that “if [the US and Israel] weakened the [Iranian] regime through aerial bombardment, that there will be some type of internal revolution that would bring down the regime, and that was very naive. I think Trump bought it and now is trying to figure out how to get himself out of this situation.”
Ethan Walz can be reached at [email protected], and Tiara Leo can be reached at [email protected].
