In late February, the United States and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, killing the country’s leader and targeting its air defenses. In the weeks following the strikes, conflict has continued in the region, and concern has grown across the globe.
On March 17, 2026, the UW Now Live hosted political scientists Steven Brooke, Yoshiko Herrera, Andrew Kydd, and Jon Pevehouse, who discussed the war and the global effects of the conflict in the Middle East. Mike Knetter, an economist and former CEO of the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association, moderated the discussion.
Brooke began the evening’s conversation by discussing why the U.S. attacked Iran and the many unknowns, including why the U.S. has national interest in the war and what America is hoping to achieve as an end result.
“The administration hasn’t really bothered to make any case for why this action is necessary,” Brooke said. “My big question is, ‘Why now?’ ”
Brooke pointed out that Israel has a long-standing interest in overthrowing the regime in Iran, and the timing of the strikes is likely tied to a few key factors, including a weakening of Iran’s security in the Middle East, stalled negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, and pushback on the country’s nuclear program.
“Iran sees this as a conflict for their survival,” Brooke said. “And they have the capacity to ratchet up costs — to escalate.”
The discussion then shifted to Kydd, who explained the historical context of the power dynamics between the U.S. and Iran and the history of the country’s nuclear capabilities. Iran has pursued nuclear weapons to advance its status and security.
“This war is really unique in many ways,” he said. “The war is not necessarily very popular and basically illegal under both domestic and international law.”
Herrera and Pevehouse rounded out the panel by discussing the global effects of the war. Herrera focused on Ukraine and Russia, and she explained that the conflict in the Middle East has shifted attention away from the war in Ukraine. Further, she said the lack of coordination between the U.S. and the NATO alliance has weakened ties between the entities, which is a win for Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.
“It’s always been his goal to weaken NATO, and indirectly, this Iran conflict is doing that because of the tension between the U.S. and its allies,” Herrera said. “Overall, I think Russia is really the big winner here.”
Pevehouse then discussed how the war in Iran could shape the ways countries like China and Taiwan make tactical decisions moving forward. If Iran makes inroads against a U.S. fleet using low-tech tactics, China may adapt to use similar strategies. Pevehouse added that the war in Iran is unlikely to disrupt the country’s trade with China and could benefit China long-term.
The guests then answered viewer questions and discussed new technologies, U.S.-Israeli tactics, and changing foreign policy.
