Link to article: https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-03-23-2026
This article describes the ongoing war between Iran, Israel, and the United States, which began after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February 2026. As of March 23, the conflict continues to escalate with ongoing airstrikes, missile attacks, and troop deployments across the Middle East. Iran has launched missiles and drones targeting Israel and U.S. interests in the region, while Israel continues to strike Iranian military infrastructure. The United States has also increased its military presence, sending additional troops to the region as tensions remain high. Efforts to negotiate a ceasefire have been complicated, with the U.S. proposing plans to end the conflict while Iran has denied engaging in negotiations and insists on continuing the fight. Mediators such as Pakistan and other regional actors are attempting to facilitate talks, but progress remains uncertain. The conflict has already resulted in significant casualties, infrastructure damage, and disruption to global stability, particularly due to concerns over oil supply routes and regional security.
This conflict demonstrates multiple forms of power in IB Global Politics. The United States and Israel are exercising hard power through military strikes and troop deployments, attempting to weaken Iran’s capabilities and influence. Iran, in response, is also using hard power through missile and drone attacks, showing how military force dominates this conflict. At the same time, smart power is evident in the global impact of the war, particularly through Iran’s influence over the Strait of Hormuz, which affects global oil supply and economic stability.The conflict also raises major issues of sovereignty and legitimacy. Military strikes across borders challenge Iran’s sovereignty, while each side attempts to justify its actions as legitimate self-defense. However, the scale of violence raises concerns about human rights, particularly the protection of civilians during armed conflict. Reports of casualties and infrastructure destruction highlight potential violations of international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction and proportionality. From a justice perspective, the lack of successful negotiations reflects weak conflict resolution mechanisms and limited accountability. Without effective diplomatic solutions, the continued use of force risks normalizing violence over negotiation, undermining long-term global stability.
From a global perspective, organizations like the United Nations could play a stronger role in promoting conflict resolution and enforcing international humanitarian law. Independent investigations into civilian harm could strengthen accountability, ensuring that all actors are held responsible for potential violations of human rights. Diplomatic pressure and multilateral negotiations could help shift the focus from hard power to soft power, emphasizing dialogue and cooperation. At the regional level, neighboring countries and mediators such as Pakistan and Gulf states can continue facilitating negotiations to reduce escalation. Regional cooperation is essential to prevent the conflict from expanding and destabilizing surrounding states. Encouraging ceasefire agreements would support collective security and reduce human suffering. At the state level, all parties involved could commit to limiting attacks on civilian infrastructure and adhering to the principles of proportionality and distinction. Governments can also increase transparency in military operations to maintain legitimacy both domestically and internationally. Prioritizing diplomacy over military escalation would help restore stability while respecting sovereignty and human rights.
This case directly connects to IB Global Politics concepts such as power, sovereignty, legitimacy, human rights, and conflict. The war illustrates how hard power dominates international relations during conflict, while smart power influences global systems like energy markets. The situation also highlights tensions between state sovereignty and external military intervention. Civilian casualties raise concerns about human rights and the application of international humanitarian law, including proportionality and accountability. Overall, the conflict demonstrates the challenges of balancing security, justice, and cooperation in an increasingly interconnected global system.