The US launched a major military operation against Iran on Saturday, striking targets across the country as part of what President Donald Trump’s administration has dubbed Operation Epic Fury.
The escalation has already led to 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 forces?
Here’s what we know so far:
How many people died during the attack?
At least 787 people have died in Iran, according to the Iranian Red Crescent.
Six Americans have been killed in action and 18 service members wounded as the US continues its strikes on Iran and Iranian counterattacks, sending missiles and drones into Israel and US assets in the region.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the missile breached air defenses and hit 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 an air defense and a lot is coming, and you hit a lot, and we absolutely do. We have an incredible air defense,” Hegseth said.
“Once in a while, unfortunately, you might have one — we call it a ‘squirter’ — that goes through it, and in that particular case, it hit a tactical operations center,” he added.
In Iran, the only reported incident of death occurred in the southeastern city of Minab, where a strike occurred at a girls’ primary school. At least 165 students died.
Is the US at war with Iran?
The US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war, while the president acts as commander-in-chief with the authority to respond to immediate threats.
“Our Constitution says in Article I, Section 8 that Congress has the power to declare war,” David Schultz, a professor of political science and law at Hamline University, explained to Al Jazeera.
“Article II says that the president is the commander in chief,” he said.
Because of this framework, modern presidents can bypass formal declarations by labeling military actions as defensive or emergency actions.
In fact, Schultz explained, “the last time the US formally declared war was World War II,” but conflicts like Vietnam and Iraq were fought without a formal declaration.
“So if we look at US history, I would argue that the vast majority of conflicts have not been formally declared wars, but the president has dragged us into them,” he said.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which sought to limit unilateral presidential military action to 60 days.
Under the law, the president must also notify Congress within 48 hours of the start of hostilities.
Trump notified Congress of the strikes, telling lawmakers the threat from Iran was “unsustainable” despite efforts to reach a diplomatic solution, although Oman – which is mediating between the US and Iran – said the parties were close to a deal.
Democratic lawmakers questioned the justification for the strikes and raised concerns about potential violations of the war powers resolution.
Ultimately, the difference between “attack” and “war” often comes down to duration and intensity, said Paul Quirk, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.
“The Americans would call it an attack if it was brief,” Quirk added. “But, as it turns out, if it goes on for weeks or months, it becomes a war in practice.”
Why did America attack Iran?
The Trump administration has provided several key reasons for the attack:
Halting Tehran’s nuclear program
Trump and Vice President JD Vance have made it clear that the primary goal is to ensure that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon.
“The goal of the strike is to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program once and for all,” Trump said.
However, the administration has not provided evidence for its claim that Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon before the US launched its attack. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency said – just yesterday – that there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Preemptive Protection:
The US argues that the strikes are a pre-emptive, defensive measure to prevent Iran from attacking US forces, bases and allies. Indeed, these attacks have triggered a fusillade of missiles and drones launched by Iran against Gulf nations hosting US forces.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the US took the action as Israel prepared its own military attack on Iran.
“We knew there was an Israeli move … and we knew if we didn’t proactively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer more casualties,” Rubio said.
However, experts say the administration’s message is not consistent.
Trump himself has opposed Rubio. In a media briefing on Tuesday, he said the US attacked Iran because it thought Tehran would attack first.
“We don’t know what the administration’s goals are. They’re all over the map,” Christopher Preble, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, told Al Jazeera.
Administrative Change:
Trump has openly called on the Iranian people to “take over” their government and “seize control of your destiny.”
Targeting Iran-backed groups:
The campaign aims 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 declaration of a ground attack. But Trump has not ruled out the possibility.
Asked directly whether US troops might be deployed in Iran, Trump said he would “never say never,” adding that the administration would do “whatever is necessary.”
Experts say airstrikes alone are unlikely to permanently end Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran insists has always been of a peaceful nature.
“You cannot destroy, dismantle, eliminate any country’s nuclear capabilities. They always have the ability to rebuild,” Preble said.
However, if the U.S. deploys ground forces, the scale of the challenge — whether Trump’s goal is Iran’s nuclear facilities, missiles or imposing regime change — is significant.
“If you compare Iran to Iraq in 2003, the difference is that it’s three to four times bigger than Iraq was at that time,” Preble said.
“The US has never had enough troops in Iraq to fully pacify the country … and the US does not have enough troops today to prevent a nation the size of Iran from descending into chaos.”
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq toppled leader Saddam Hussein within weeks, but the subsequent invasion turned into a years-long insurgency that involved more than 150,000 American troops at its peak.
Experts say any ground operation would be very difficult.
“It makes the US mission in Iraq look simple by comparison,” added Preble. “And of course, the Iraq mission was not simple. It was extraordinarily expensive and potentially very long — mostly for the people of Iran, but also for American service members.”
How long can the US sustain high-tempo air operations in Iran?
It depends on three key factors: military resources, finance and political will.
Lawmakers could force the Trump administration to back off or end the campaign by passing a resolution to block the continuation of the campaign.
“It remains uncertain whether Democrats will be able to convince enough Republicans to break ranks, especially given the narrow Republican majorities in both chambers,” Al Jazeera’s Rosieland Jordan reports from Washington, DC.
Military capability is another limiting factor. Stockpiles of missiles, precision-guided munitions, interceptor systems and other equipment are limited.
“If defense contractors are not actively producing and replenishing supplies under Pentagon contracts, those inventories will eventually be drawn down,” Jordan added.
(tags to translate)news
