Beyond the Headlines: The U.S.–Israeli War on Iran and Regional Spillover
On March 5, 2026, the Pardee School of Global Studies hosted an urgent discussion of the recent United States-Israel attack on Iran as part of its Beyond the Headlines series. The panel consisted of Pardee faculty Lt Gen Jack Weinstein, Professor of the Practice of International Security; Shamiran Mako, Assistant Professor of International Relations; Alexander de la Paz, Assistant Professor of International Security; Sanne Verschuren, Assistant Professor of International Security; and Houchang Chehabi, Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History. The conversation was moderated by Noora Lori, Associate Professor of International Relations and Director of Middle East–North Africa Initiative; with opening remarks by Scott Taylor, Dean of the Pardee School. This discussion was met by an overwhelming attendance and engagement from faculty, staff, and students from Pardee and across Boston University.
Focusing on the rapidly escalating conflict involving Iran, the United States, Israel, and the wider Gulf, the discussion aimed to unpack the origins, strategic dynamics, legal questions, and regional consequences of the unfolding crisis while also addressing the emotional and personal impact on community members with direct ties to the region.
One speaker described the unprecedented nature of this moment for Gulf states. They noted that attacks on civilian infrastructure, fears about water security, and the regionalization of the conflict have created a sense of acute vulnerability. The speaker highlighted that many in the region, once insulated from direct warfare, are now experiencing profound instability.
Speakers emphasized how unusual the current U.S. posture is compared to earlier interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. Historically, even flawed U.S. regime‑change operations involved strategic planning, local engagement, and multilateral coordination. By contrast, the current conflict shows no clear strategy, no articulation of objectives, and no pathway for post‑conflict governance. They stressed that Iran’s geography, population, and internal diversity make a rapid campaign or clean outcome extremely unlikely.
From a defense standpoint, panelists underscored that military leaders require clarity about both goals and exit strategy, neither of which has been articulated. They explained the strain on U.S. munitions stockpiles, the consequences of operating without coalition partners, and the dangers of exposing advanced capabilities in a conflict that lacks clear political leadership. They also reflected on the human stakes, noting that civilians and service members in the region, including former students, are now directly under fire.
Panelists explained that Iranian drones and ballistic missiles are relatively inexpensive, while U.S. interceptors cost millions per shot and require complex infrastructure. This imbalance, panelists noted, is unsustainable in a prolonged conflict. They also warned that the crisis could accelerate global nuclear proliferation, as states reassess the reliability of U.S. security guarantees.
They went on to analyze whether the use of force by the U.S., Israel, Iran, and other actors meets the requirements of the UN Charter. Under international law, they explained, force is lawful only in self‑defense or with UN Security Council authorization, neither of which applies here. The speaker stressed that arguments invoking anticipatory self‑defense lack evidence of an imminent threat, rendering current legal justifications unprecedented and highly contested.
Finally, speakers described the Islamic Republic’s decades‑long pattern of challenging international norms and undermining regional sovereignty. While noting widespread frustration with the Iranian government among the diaspora, they cautioned that internal regime collapse is unlikely; instead, Iran may experience extended periods of unrest, particularly in peripheral regions. They also reflected on the personal toll for Iranians, both in Iran and abroad, who have lived with the consequences of state actions for nearly five decades.
Audience members raised questions, concerns emerged about regional stability, U.S. domestic political incentives, and the long‑term implications for international alliances. They also shared personal stories, underscoring the deep emotional and human dimensions of the conflict.
In closing, speakers encouraged civic engagement, sustained dialogue, and continued critical examination of U.S. foreign policy decisions. While acknowledging the gravity of the crisis, the panel emphasized the importance of community, informed discussion, and the ongoing role of academic institutions in navigating global uncertainty.