On February 28, Israel and the United States attacked Iran, starting a conflict that has sent shockwaves across the Middle East and the rest of the world. In a series of columns, our correspondents tell how the war has been received in countries around the world. Maja Hammarström is FUF's correspondent in the United States in the spring of 2026.
A month ago, I was in a class here in Seattle. We were discussing possible future scenarios for Iran and the Middle East. It was a conversation filled with hypothetical reasoning and political analysis that at the time felt far away. When I was reached by the news of the US and Israeli attacks, the conversations were no longer hypothetical. What had just belonged to the future was now reality.
What may feel far away feels extra close here in Seattle when I listen to people around me who have personal ties or relatives in the region. While they describe the happiness of the Iranian people, they talk about how difficult it is to focus on anything other than the war and the people there. The phone is always close at hand. I am struck by how many people around me are currently struggling to continue their daily lives on this side of the world., while they are somewhere else mentally. In the midst of it all, there is also another feeling that seems to recur, the worry that this will disappear in the crowd in a news flow where wars, disasters and crises follow one another.
At the university, the situation in the classrooms is being discussed. How are the attacks motivated and justified? How should one interpret the conflicting messages from the White House? Opinion polls shows that a majority of Americans surveyed oppose the attacks. Even parts of Republicans oppose the latest developments. Trump was elected president under the America First doctrine and with an anti-war profile, writes NY Times.
What was first motivated as a desire to provoke regime change in Iran received new explanations on the fourth day of the war, writes Washington Post. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth argued for the tangible risk that Iran's weapons development and ambitions to develop nuclear weapons posed to the United States. At the same time, Iran's main nuclear facilities have been left untouched, despite over 1000 airstrikes.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raises another motive, that the US knew about Israel's attack plans and that an American attack was intended to minimize the risk of counterattacks against American forces. On one issue, there seems to be consensus: there was no information indicating an immediate threat to the US before the attacks.
With this, it is difficult not to wonder what the decision-making process really looked like. In an interview with the radio channel Kuow says Resat Kasaba, an expert in Middle East history and politics at the University of Washington, that the conflicting messages about goals, motives and timeframe suggest that very little discussion led to the decision. He also points out that long-term security policy decisions typically take regional expertise into account in decision-making.
The sentiment that recurs in many conversations is largely about the political responsibility for the decision to start this war. The pressure on Trump is clear. At the same time, the situation raises another question: what happens in the Middle East if or when the US loses interest in continuing?
Read more perspectives on the war in Iran:
Economic concerns characterize everyday life in Italy
This is a chronicle. The author is responsible for analysis and opinions in the text.
Do you also want to write a column for Development magazine? Contact us at opinion@fuf.se