28 February 2026
For today, I planned to write a short reflection on a panel discussion on Iran that I attended at Leiden University earlier this week. However, in light of this morning’s developments, it feels necessary to broaden the scope and reflect on the rapidly unfolding events. When strikes like these occur, two types of discussions usually emerge: The first is analytical: What exactly happened? Why now? What are the strategic objectives? What responses can be expected? The second is political and normative: Are these strikes justified? Do they comply with international law? What are the broader implications for the regional and international order?
The Analytical Dimension
We must begin with caution. The first strikes occurred only this morning, and it is far too early to draw firm conclusions. Overinterpretation in the first hours of escalation often leads to flawed assessments. What we know so far are the basic facts: the United States and Israel launched missile strikes on Iranian territory. Iran responded with missile launches targeting Israel and US bases in the region. In a public address, Donald Trump stated that the objective of the operation is to end Iran’s nuclear program, while also hinting at the possibility of regime change. Various sources suggest that the operation may continue for several days. Israeli reporting indicates that the initial strikes may have targeted senior Iranian leadership figures, including the President and the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. At the very least, it appears that Iranian leadership structures are central targets of this campaign. How this unfolds will depend on several variables: the operational effectiveness of the strikes, the resilience of Iranian command structures, and the scale and scope of Iran’s response. The coming days will be decisive.
The Question of Justification
The second discussion concerns justification. Here, it is important to acknowledge that assessments of legality and legitimacy are rarely neutral. They are shaped by political preferences, normative frameworks, and strategic outlooks. Some political actors will argue that such strikes violate international law. From this perspective, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program should be pursued through diplomacy, and pre-emptive military action against a sovereign state cannot be justified in the absence of a clearly imminent threat. Yet there is another line of argument. Normative justifications for action against Iran are often grounded in the regime’s record: violent repression of domestic protests, ballistic missile development, support for regional proxies, and increasingly aggressive posturing toward Europe and the United States. This brings me back to the panel discussion I attended earlier this week, where on of the topics was Europe’s response to the Iranian regime. Much of the debate will revolve around international law. It always does. But framing the discussion primarily in legalistic terms risks obscuring the strategic reality. International politics is not governed by courts, but shaped by power, deterrence, and credibility. The real question is not whether escalation is uncomfortable. It is whether the status quo has become more dangerous than the alternative. If the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon is not sufficient to justify decisive action, what is? If a fully developed ballistic missile program capable of reaching European capitals does not cross the threshold, what does? If repression, hostage diplomacy, and operations against European citizens on European soil are still met with rhetorical concern rather than strategic resolve, what signal does that send? Europe frequently invokes the defence of a “rules-based order.” Yet rules without enforcement are aspirations, not structure. Deterrence requires credibility. Credibility requires willingness. Iran is not just a regional actor. It is a strategic partner of Russia and a pillar in a broader anti-Western alignment. Any major weakening of the regime would have consequences that extend directly to the European security architecture, including the war in Ukraine. This is not an argument for reckless escalation, but for strategic clarity. If Europe ultimately believes that the Iranian regime constitutes a structural threat, then it must confront the implications of that belief. If it does not, then it should stop pretending that the defence of order is unconditional. Moments like this expose whether foreign policy is driven by principle, power, or paralysis. The coming days will provide more clarity. For now, analytical restraint and political honesty are equally necessary.