Campus conversations on Iran
Illustration by Sami Seyedhosseini, Cartoonist
On Feb. 28, the United States and Israel launched nearly 900 strikes in 12 hours, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other Iranian officials, igniting a regional war that has killed thousands, including 13 Americans, and displaced more than a million, rattling global markets.
Iran retaliated immediately with missiles and drones targeting Israel and U.S. military bases across the region. Iran also moved to restrict passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that carries roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply, sending global fuel prices through the roof.
A ceasefire brokered by Pakistan paused the fighting in early April, but peace talks have since collapsed, and the situation remains deeply uncertain.
On April 15, 20 students gathered for the first meeting of BridgeUSA at Chapman, a new chapter of a nationwide student-led movement dedicated to bringing people of all political beliefs into the same room. The topic of the inaugural gathering was the war in Iran.
"A lot of conflict, a lot of money, a lot of nothing," said Ramon Arguelles, a sophomore business and political science double major and the club's vice president of finance.
The club’s president, junior business administration major Luke Sonderman, said the shifting U.S. objective troubled him most.
"If there's not really an end goal in this conflict, that's at least apparent to me, then pulling out is probably what I would do," he said.
Hannah Ridge, assistant professor of political science, said this conflict is not unexpected.
"A lot of Americans believe this came out of nowhere," said Ridge. "However, it really didn't."
Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israel's history, has long pushed for action against Iran, Ridge said. The Trump administration has been more cooperative toward that goal than previous administrations, and as Israel has no reelection constraints, the political calculus shifted.
"Whether or not this is actually the optimal time for this to happen is highly unlikely," Ridge said. "It doesn't necessarily advance U.S. interests, and it doesn't seem to have happened with clear, executable goals."
The Trump administration has offered justifications for launching the strikes, ranging from regime change to preventing an imminent threat.
A National Intelligence Council assessment completed before the war concluded that military intervention was not likely to lead to regime change.
On the nuclear front, Ridge pointed to the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a 2015 agreement that allowed international monitoring of Iran's nuclear facilities, during his first term.
"If there was an effort really focused on the nuclear program, the U.S. administration should have stayed in the negotiations that were ongoing rather than continually walking them back," she said.
Vikki Katz, a communications professor and Fletcher Jones Foundation Endowed Chair in Free Speech, said the conflict has been flattened into two sides in popular discourse, making it hard for students to understand Iran's broader regional role, funding Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen.
"It's very hard, if you've only thought about what's gone on in the Middle East as Israel and Palestine, to understand what Iran has to do with it," she said.
Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has been one of the conflict's most consequential moves. Ridge said it was also predictable.
"The Iranian missile program can't strike the United States homeland, but they can do this," Ridge said. "If they can drive up oil prices around the world, they can push back against what's being done to them."
Ridge said a broader escalation is unlikely. Russia and China have little incentive to intervene directly, and the only realistic path forward is negotiations. A ground invasion, she said, is not something the U.S. wants to repeat after Iraq and Afghanistan.
When asked how history will judge the conflict, Ridge did not hesitate.
"There's a high likelihood that this is seen as a U.S. self-inflicted defeat," she said. "If you don't have a clear objective, you cannot accomplish it. And the stated objective for this has changed many times."
Katz, who serves as BridgeUSA’s faculty advisor, said she draws cautious optimism from her own history, having grown up in apartheid-era South Africa.
"Nothing is impossible with the right leadership," she said. "The only people who should really determine what happens in a place are the people who will live with the consequences of it."
Ridge, however, sees this particular conflict as far from over.
"Even when it ends, it's not going to be over," she said. "Things in this region tend to come back."