ConflictClarifier

2026伊朗-海湾危机追踪
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 14, 2026

Israeli envoy: War losses ‘horrific,’ but US alliance necessary

Summary

Israeli envoy: War losses ‘horrific,’ but US alliance necessary MANILA, Philippines — As the war against Iran entered its second week, Israel’s Ambassador to the Philippines, Dana Kursh, lamented the harsh reality of lives lost in the conflict but maintained that her country’s alliance with a “superpower” was necessary to defeat an imminent nuclear threat. “Unfortunately, in war, you cannot control [the loss of innocent lives] directly. And that’s the most horrific thing of war,” Kursh said in a freewheeling discussion with Inquirer editors and reporters on Wednesday last week. The suspected cruise missiles that hit Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran, on Feb. 28 killed over 170 people, mostly children. The attack drew international condemnation for causing the highest number of civilian deaths in a single location on the first day of hostilities. READ: Iran strikes back after US bombs oil-critical Iranian island “I think it makes it more complicated, even if it was a US strike,” she said. “But the US and Israel are basically working together at this time, so it makes it more complicated for this war to be accepted by the Iranians as something that would be helpful to them.” A casualty tally by the regional news outlet Al Jazeera on March 12, a day after she spoke with the Inquirer, showed that 2,100 had been killed in Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Oman. Preliminary findings reported by US media suggest that the strike may have resulted from outdated targeting intelligence. The incident is currently under investigation by the Pentagon. Mistaken targeting “An ongoing military investigation has determined that the United States is responsible for a deadly Tomahawk missile strike on an Iranian elementary school, according to US officials and others familiar with the preliminary findings,” The New York Times reported on Wednesday. The report said that investigators were looking into whether artificial intelligence systems, data analysis programs, or other technical intelligence tools may have contributed to the mistaken targeting of the school. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other administration officials have declined to comment on the strike, other than saying that it was under investigation. “Despite that, the President has tried at times to put the blame on Iran,” the Times said. Kursh said that Israeli forces were using cutting-edge military technology in an effort to be “very precise in their hits” on enemy targets. She said that not harming Iranians was high on their agenda, which includes assisting them in changing their rulers. “We are hoping that this operation will set them free from the Iranian fanatical regime,” she said. Vital ties to US Kursh said it was essential that her country was “joined by a superpower” and that this support reflected confidence, as the combined strength of the United States and Israel would succeed and bring about “a different Iran.” Every leader has both critics and supporters, and both perspectives are valid, she said. From her point of view, she sees a “positive” partnership between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. While the two countries have a long-standing relationship, Kursh said Israel is independent of the United States. “We are not another star in their flag,” she said. Kursh said there were times that Netanyahu and Trump did not see eye to eye, but the two “brave leaders” identified a concrete and imminent threat and tackled it together. “And for me, that’s the end of the game.” Kursh cited three threats that Israel aimed to eliminate. First is the “fanatical Iranian regime’s” development of nuclear capabilities for “war purposes.” Second is Iran’s accelerated ballistic missile production, noting that the country is making them deeper underground than where they had been previously produced. Kursh identified the third threat as stemming from the Iranian regime itself, which has been in power for 47 years. According to her, the Iranian regime is continually “inflicting a lot of harm on (its) people” and “diverting oil revenues” to fund terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis who act as its “proxies” against Israel. Asked how much has been achieved to eliminate the threats, Kursh couldn’t give a close estimate. As regards the end of Israel’s “Operation Roaring Lion” against Iran, she said: “I will not be able to give you more concrete timing, but up till now, it has been very, very successful, and God willing, it will enable [us] to bring stability to the region and to the world.” ‘Irrelevant’ Kursh admitted that she has been asked multiple times the question: “Does Israel have nuclear weapons?” And her answer has been evasive, in keeping with her government’s policy of neither confirming nor denying. Whether Israel has nuclear weapons doesn’t really matter, according to her. “It’s irrelevant, because what we have is a lot of technologies, but the aim of those technologies is not to create wars, [but] it’s to create peace,” she said, quickly pointing to the existential threat to Israel from Iran. “I think that what we need to remember is that what Iran is saying, ‘Let’s wipe Israel off the map,’” she said, adding that when a country makes such statements openly and develops the nuclear capability to carry them out, that poses a major threat to Israel. The New York Times, quoting the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CACNP) and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), reported last year that Israel was widely believed to have at least 90 nuclear warheads and sufficient fissile material to produce hundreds more. Around 1967, Israel secretly developed the ability to build nuclear explosives, according to the Arms Control Association. By 1973, the United States “was convinced Israel had nuclear weapons,” the Federation of American Scientists later wrote, the Times said. The Washington Post, citing estimates by the Federation of American Scientists researchers last year, reported that as of 2021, “Israel was believed to possess 90 nuclear warheads for delivery by aircraft, land-based ballistic missiles and possibly sea-based cruise missiles.” Nonsignatory According to the CACNP and the NTI, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has not placed some of its key nuclear activities under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The NPT is a major international agreement signed in 1968 that took effect in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995, aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, encouraging cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and promoting disarmament. The IAEA serves as the global hub for cooperation in the nuclear sector, promoting the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear technology. —WITH A REPORT FROM INQUIRER RESEARCH /cb

Actors involved

USIranIsraelProxy

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran