On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against Iran. The attacks targeted Iranian leadership, security forces, nuclear sites, and missile facilities, with the stated goals of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and pushing for regime change. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the strikes, sparking retaliation from Iran, including missile attacks on Israel and U.S. bases in the region. Hundreds of civilians and some U.S. service members have died in the ongoing conflict.
The Guardian recently asked readers in the United States for their thoughts on this military action. Most responses expressed strong disapproval, viewing the strikes as unnecessary and risky. While some acknowledged deep dislike for Iran’s ruling regime, they questioned the strategy and long-term outcomes.
Iraj Roshan, a 66-year-old retired cardiologist and U.S. citizen originally from Tehran, shared his perspective. Having fled Iran after the 1979 revolution and lived in the U.S. since 1983, Roshan said he holds no affection for the ayatollahs. However, he criticized the approach: “These wars are won by narrative.” He argued that the U.S. lacks a clear strategy in the Middle East and sees no path to victory without either sending ground troops or arming Iranians themselves. Roshan worried that young Americans will be pulled into a conflict impossible to win under current terms, calling it a war the U.S. cannot define as successful.
In New York City’s Bay Ridge neighborhood, home to a large Arab American community, 41-year-old small business owner Meg highlighted the human toll closer to home. With Ramadan underway (from February 17 to March 19), she described the strikes as a renewed tragedy hitting during a sacred time for many of her Muslim friends and neighbors. Meg spoke of ongoing fear in her community, first from immigration enforcement threats and now from the war. “How much can people take? How much suffering has to be inflicted on them for mindless reasons?” she asked.
From North Carolina, 74-year-old retired mental health counselor Barb wrote that she believes President Trump launched the war for personal reasons—perhaps to show power, shift media attention, or for other self-serving motives. She called it “a needless war” that does not truly help the Iranian people.
Even those more critical of the Iranian regime expressed reservations. Sriram Shanmugam, an 18-year-old Republican from Texas whose father escaped the Iranian revolution, described the regime as controlling and horrible. Yet he pointed out flaws in the U.S. approach: limited efforts to avoid civilian deaths and no clear plan for what comes next. “What will replace the government of Iran, and will we have boots on the ground?” he asked. “Is there any guarantee that this won’t be our generation’s Afghanistan or Iraq?”
A 47-year-old anonymous social worker from Washington, D.C., who spent 15 years supporting combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, focused on the domestic costs. She noted how those earlier wars enriched contractors while leaving veterans with lifelong physical and emotional scars. With Americans facing homelessness, lack of health insurance, job losses, and an affordability crisis, she questioned the government’s priorities: “People in our country are suffering on the streets, homeless, without hope. And this is where the government focuses its money and energy?”
Overall, these voices reflect widespread concern among the Americans surveyed. Many see the strikes as reckless, lacking a viable endgame, and diverting resources from pressing needs at home. While some recognize problems with Iran’s government, the prevailing sentiment is that this military path brings more harm than good, echoing broader debates about U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. As the war continues, these personal stories highlight the human stakes on all sides.