Why did the United States and Israel attack Iran now—and what happens next?
Three Dartmouth scholars on the Middle East offered insights at a March 3 panel, though definitive answers were elusive, given the evolving situation and varied explanations from President Donald Trump and his administration.
“There seem to be no forcing events here and, and that’s remarkable in this context, considering the size and scale of the U.S. military effort that’s unfolding before us,” Steven Simon, a distinguished visiting fellow at the Davidson Institute for Global Security, said during the 75-minute discussion at Haldeman Hall.
The event was hosted by the Middle East Initiative, a collaborative effort of the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding and the faculty of the Middle Eastern Studies and Jewish Studies programs and part of Dartmouth Dialogues.
Victoria Holt, director of the Dickey Center, moderated.
The panel also included Jonathan Smolin, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies and director of the Dartmouth Initiative for Middle East Exchange, and Ezzedine Fishere, a distinguished fellow of Middle Eastern Studies and Jewish Studies and former ambassador in Egypt’s Foreign Service.
The panelists noted that reasons for the war provided by the Trump administration have ranged widely, from countering missile and nuclear threats to regime change and broader ideological claims.
Simon, who served as a staff member on the National Security Council in the Clinton and Obama administrations, said diplomacy appeared to be progressing toward an agreement that could have exceeded the benefits of the 2015 nuclear deal.
The war had spread to 11 other nations as of March 4, as Iran or its proxies retaliated by striking Israel and Gulf nations that are friendly with the United States and Israel.
Fishere said anyone who had been watching the region over the last 30 years would see that Iran and Israel had been on a collision course, with the United States and its Arab allies in the mix.
“I think I can make a case that the U.S. is not really interested in regime change or in regime collapse … but a change in the course of the regime,” Fishere said. “So if there is a new ayatollah or a new somebody who is capable of keeping it together, but then take Iran off that confrontational path, I think the U.S. administration will support that.”
But, he cautioned, if the U.S. declares victory and it doesn’t satisfy both the Israeli security establishment and the Arab allies in the Gulf, “The collision course will continue to be there, unless somebody comes up with a serious off ramp that deals with the missile program, with the hostile intention, with the active strategy of modifying the power relations in the region.”
Smolin said he recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The region is poised for a major transformation in technology, health care, construction and other aspects of a “new Middle East.”
But these developments hinge on the safety of the area, he said, emphasizing that he was not diminishing the suffering of people in Iran.
“What I’m talking about is the transformation that’s happening or the potential transformation in the Gulf Cooperation Council, is that I think this is potentially a profound moment of transformation, and a moment of a kind of bubble being burst in terms of security and that that has unforeseen consequences, unknown consequences,” Smolin said.
The Q&A included some passionate voices, students with family in Iran arguing for the importance of highlighting the on-the-ground struggles and anguish of everyday Iranians.
Thousands of protesters were killed in January in a crackdown by the country’s clerical authoritarian government. While Iranian officials have said 3,117 people died, human rights groups estimate the death toll to be more than double that official tally, plus nearly 12,000 deaths under investigation.
After the panel discussion, two undergraduates who were among the 85 attendees said they got a lot out of it. (Another 620 watched by livestream.)
“First and foremost, these conversations are important, so I’m glad that we’re having them,” said Deven Carkner ’28. “It’s obvious that there’s a lot of uncertainty in what’s happening. I don’t know that much history, so I was just trying to come here to learn more, and I feel like I did that.”
Sophia Kohmann ’28 said she appreciated gaining some clarity from the scholars.
“I think it was really interesting to hear about it from people who have been spending a lot of time thinking about it, and I think we got a little bit of a historical, contextual perspective,” she said. “And then, I also think when we think about risks and events, it has really highlighted how much uncertainty there is about what’s happening.”
The panel discussion continued Dartmouth efforts to foster dialogue on contentious issues in the Middle East. This includes the Dartmouth Dialogues’ special topic series Middle East Dialogues, a series of discussions following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the Israelis’ military offensive against Hamas in Gaza.
Professor Susannah Heschel, chair of the Jewish Studies Program, had been scheduled to moderate the panel but was unable to travel back to Dartmouth due to poor weather conditions.
Vice Provost for Academic and International Affairs Barbara Will introduced the panel members, and her office was a co-sponsor of the event.