Military operations involving the United States and Israel against Iran have entered their third week, according to recent analysis and commentary from foreign policy observers.

The Guardian's Kenneth Roth argues that Iran has not engaged in an actual or imminent attack that would justify military action under international law. He characterizes the Trump administration's rationale as preventive rather than defensive, citing concerns about Iran's missile capabilities, regional influence, and nuclear program development.

NPR's analysis focuses on the political implications for President Trump, noting that military conflicts without clear objectives or exit strategies have historically posed challenges for presidential approval ratings. The piece draws comparisons to previous administrations' experiences with prolonged military engagements.

Both commentaries suggest the military action lacks defined endpoints or clear strategic objectives. The Guardian piece specifically questions whether the operations have achieved their stated goals, while NPR emphasizes the political risks associated with open-ended conflicts.

The analyses come as observers debate the legal and strategic justifications for the military operations, with particular attention to international law regarding preventive versus defensive military action.