3 hours ago
1
The US launched a major military campaign against Iran on Saturday, striking targets across the country as part of what the administration of President Donald Trump has named Operation Epic Fury.
The escalation has already resulted in casualties, growing regional tensions and instability in the region.
As the strikes continue, we ask: Is the United States now effectively at war with Iran? Why did Washington decide to attack? And could the conflict expand to include US ground troops?
Here is what we know so far:
How many people have died during the attacks?
In Iran, at least 787 people have been killed, according to the Iranian Red Crescent.
Six Americans have been killed in action and 18 service members have been injured, as the US continues its strikes on Iran and Iran counterattacks, sending missiles and drones at Israel and US assets in the region.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a projectile breached air defences and struck a fortified US military position. He did not disclose the location of the facility, but reports indicated that the casualties occurred in Kuwait.
“You have air defences and a lot coming in, and you hit most of it, and we absolutely do. We have incredible air defenders,” Hegseth said.
“Every once in a while, you might have one, unfortunately – we call it a ‘squirter’ – that makes its way through, and in that particular case, it hit a tactical operations centre,” he added.
In Iran, the deadliest single reported incident occurred in the southeastern city of Minab, where a strike hit an elementary school for girls. At least 165 students were killed.
Is the US at war with Iran?
The US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war, but the president serves as commander-in-chief with the authority to respond to immediate threats.
“Our Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, that Congress has the authority to declare war,” David Schultz, a professor in the political science and legal departments at Hamline University, explained to Al Jazeera.
“Article II says that the president is commander in chief,” he added.
Because of this framework, modern presidents can bypass formal declarations by labelling military actions as defensive or emergency measures.
In fact, “the last time the US formally declared war was World War II”, Schultz explained, while conflicts such as in Vietnam and Iraq were fought without a formal declaration.
“So I would argue that if we look at the history of the US, the vast majority of conflicts have not been formally declared wars, but presidents have dragged us into them,” he said.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which attempts to limit unilateral presidential military action to 60 days.
Under the law, the president must also notify Congress within 48 hours of hostilities beginning.
Trump notified Congress of the strikes, telling lawmakers the threat from Iran had become “untenable” despite efforts to reach a diplomatic solution, even though Oman – which was mediating between the US and Iran – had said that the parties were close to a deal.
Democratic lawmakers have challenged the justification for the strikes and raised concerns about potential violations of the War Powers Resolution.
Ultimately, the difference between an “attack” and a “war” often comes down to duration and intensity, Paul Quirk, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, said.
“Americans will call it an attack if it’s brief,” Quirk added. “But if, as appears likely, it continues for weeks or months, then it becomes a war in practice.”
Why did the US attack Iran?
The Trump administration has provided several key reasons for the attack:
Stopping Tehran’s nuclear programme
Trump and Vice President JD Vance have explicitly stated that a primary goal is ensuring Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon.
“The goal of the strikes is to eliminate the Iranian nuclear programme once and for all,” Trump said.
However, the administration has not provided evidence for the claim that Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon before the US launched its attacks. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said — as recently as yesterday — that it had no evidence that Iran even had a nuclear weapons programme.
Preemptive defence:
The US argues that the strikes were a proactive, defensive measure to prevent Iran from attacking US troops, bases, and allies. In fact, the attacks have triggered a fusillade of missiles and drones fired by Iran against Gulf nations that host US troops.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the US acted because Israel had been preparing its own military strike on Iran.
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action… and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio said.
However, experts say the administration’s messaging has not been consistent.
Trump himself has contradicted Rubio. At a media interaction on Tuesday, he said that the US attacked Iran because he thought Tehran was going to strike first.
“We don’t know what the administration’s goals are. They’ve been all over the map,” Christopher Preble, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, told Al Jazeera.
Regime change:
Trump has also openly called for the Iranian people to “take over” their government and “seize control of your destiny”.
Targeting Iran-backed groups:
An objective of the campaign has also been to dismantle Iranian support for groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza.
Will there be US boots on the ground in Iran?
So far, the US has relied on air and naval strikes, and there has been no formal announcement of a ground invasion. But Trump has not ruled out the possibility.
When asked directly whether US troops could be deployed in Iran, Trump said he would “never say never”, adding that the administration would do “whatever is necessary”.
Experts say air strikes alone are unlikely to permanently end Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran insists has always been of a peaceful nature.
“You cannot destroy, demolish, eradicate any country’s nuclear capabilities. They always have the ability to reconstitute,” Preble said.
If the US were to deploy ground troops, however, the scale of the challenge — whether Trump’s goal is targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missiles, or imposing regime change — would be significant.
“The difference, if you compare Iran to Iraq in 2003, is that it’s a country three to four times larger than Iraq was at the time,” Preble said.
“The US never had sufficient troops in Iraq to fully pacify the country… and the US doesn’t have that many troops today to prevent a nation the size of Iran from descending into chaos.”
The US 2003 invasion of Iraq toppled leader Saddam Hussein within weeks, but the subsequent occupation turned into a years-long insurgency that required more than 150,000 American troops at its peak.
Any ground operation, experts say, would be extremely difficult.
“It would make the US mission in Iraq look simple by comparison,” Preble added. “And of course, the Iraq mission was not simple. It would be extraordinarily costly and potentially very protracted – mostly for the people of Iran, but also for American service members.”
How long can the US sustain high-tempo air operations in Iran?
This depends on three main factors: military resources, funding and political will.
Lawmakers could compel the Trump administration to scale back or end operations by passing a resolution to block the continuation of the campaign.
“Whether Democrats can persuade enough Republicans to break ranks remains uncertain, especially given the narrow Republican majority in both chambers,” Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan reported from Washington, DC.
Military capacity is another limiting factor. Stockpiles of missiles, precision-guided munitions, interceptor systems and other equipment are finite.
“Unless defence contractors are actively producing and replenishing supplies under Pentagon contracts, those stockpiles will eventually be drawn down,” Jordan added.
