The ongoing war between Iran, the United States and Israel is just the latest chapter in a complex history of political theater between the U.S. and Middle East. But as a pair of UNC international affair scholars explained, this latest effort is a departure from past U.S. conflicts in the region and could have global ramifications – at a time when the world already faces rising tensions.
The joint U.S. and Israeli airstrikes to close out February and start the latest stage of war came after months of fluctuating tensions, where the countries had been negotiating with Iran about scaling back its nuclear and missiles programs. The first wave of strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has since been replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei — who has indicated the 17th largest country in the world will respond against the attacks.
While the Khamenei regime had many detractors and was not democratic, UNC history and international affairs professor Klaus Larres said the U.S. tact of firing airstrikes during active negotiations raises questions about President Donald Trump and his administration’s strategy.
“[The old regime] certainly doesn’t know the words ‘human rights,’” Larres said. “It’s only recently killed over 30,000 protestors…so it is a bad and [even] evil regime.
“But was war really the only possibility to deal with that regime,” he asked. “We know that the war started in the middle of negotiations to destroy the nuclear facilities, the ballistic missile facilities Iran has. Suddenly, [the U.S. and Israel] decided the negotiations weren’t successful enough and weren’t going anywhere, so they started a war out of the blue. And one wonders whether there was no other option.”
The main takeaway from Larres, as well as Chair of UNC’s political science department Navin Bapat in a roundtable with 97.9 The Hill, is the lack of a clear goal of this escalation from the U.S. president and military. So far, the Trump administration has simply said it will end when Iran “unconditionally” surrenders and no longer poses a threat to the U.S. and its allies. Bapat said that messaging is still leaving many experts and world leaders wondering why start a war now – and how it ultimately ends.
“If we compare it to past military ventures by the United States, there hasn’t really been a great articulation of what the actual objective is,” said the professor in international relations. “There also hasn’t been a clear buildup of forces. The U.S. didn’t have as many forces in the Gulf as it had during the Iraq campaign and also during the first Gulf War. That, coupled with the lack of an objective that’s clear and identifiable, is a source of concern.”
From right to left: UNC professor Klaus Larres and Chair of UNC’s police science department Navin Bapat join 97.9 The Hill’s Aaron Keck in-studio. (Photo by Aaron Keck/Chapel Hill Media Group.)
After years of rebuilding the two countries’ relationship, the U.S. and Iran struck a nuclear deal under the Obama administration in 2015 that lifted financial sanctions on Iran in exchange for winding down nuclear weapons development. But President Trump backed out that deal in 2018 and re-imposed the sanctions, which led to traded airstrikes and more hostility in the following eight years.
That dynamic, Bapat said, will likely play a role in how Iran responds to the U.S. and Israel’s new demands – especially considering the countries attacked during active negotiations.
“I think the way that Iran is interpreting this is just the U.S. is not a credible bargaining partner, which is another reason why you might see a bargaining failure. No matter what they do, it seems like the United States is going to exploit them, which puts them in a position where they should not accept negotiations. So, this puts us in a precarious spot: if there is to be an end to the war, there has to be a credible bargaining partner – and right now, it doesn’t look like Iran views the U.S. as that.”
“Iran stuck to [the nuclear deal], they did not violate it,” Larres added. “Only when Trump withdrew in 2018, they gradually did not stick to it…but initially, for the first couple of years, they actually still fulfilled the terms of the agreement. And then Trump was getting back to the agreement he withdrew from in the first place! So, it’s all very, very strange.”
Bapat said he believes the best case scenario for a clean stop on the U.S. side of the conflict has already passed, which was after killing Khamenei in the initial wave of airstrikes. But with the war dragging on, both UNC political scientists said the approach appears to rely on an uprising in Iran against the new regime that would allow the U.S. to install a leader more favorable to their demands – similar to its 1950s intervention to establish a more influence of the country’s oil operations.
Larres said he sees that as “wishful thinking” that goes against the outcomes of past conflicts in the region. Instead, the professor said it could echo the U.S.’s wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, where oppositional forces dug in and prolonged the conflict.
“The worst case scenario,” said Larres, “is that Iran will not give up, they will [get] more weapons or will fight more missiles and that war will continue forever…exactly like a “forever war’ which Trump criticized Biden, Obama and all the other [presidents] for. And I think we could very well see that.”
Flames rise from an oil storage facility south of the capital Tehran as strikes hit the city during the U.S.–Israel military campaign, Iran, Saturday, March 7, 2026. (Photo via AP Photo/Vahid Salemi.)
Meanwhile, the consequences of the two-week war are already being felt. Polling efforts across the globe show the military action is deeply unpopular outside of Israel. In addition to the cost of human life, the environmental impact of burning oil depots, and the high resources spent on the warfare’s weaponry, Bapat said the resulting price changes from the global oil supplies being impacted are likely to be felt in dozens of ways.
“You’re looking at higher food prices, you’re looking at higher medicine prices,” he said, “and there are several countries that are not equipped to handle that kind of big shock like this. The U.S. might be able to absorb it, Europe might be able to…but several states – especially in Africa and other parts of the world – might not be able to handle something like this.
“This is a recipe for social unrest,” Bapat concluded, “in addition to all the other consequences.”
Featured photo via AP Photo/Vahid Salemi.
Chapelboro.com does not charge subscription fees, and you can directly support our efforts in local journalism here. Want more of what you see on Chapelboro? Let us bring free local news and community information to you by signing up for our newsletter.
‘A Recipe for Social Unrest’: UNC Political Scientists Share Reactions to U.S. Military Conflict with Iran Chapelboro.com.
Hence then, the article about a recipe for social unrest unc political scientists share reactions to u s military conflict with iran was published today ( ) and is available on chapelboro ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( ‘A Recipe for Social Unrest’: UNC Political Scientists Share Reactions to U.S. Military Conflict with Iran )
Also on site :