Iran claims over 1,300 civilians are dead. Hezbollah has re-entered the fight from Lebanon, displacing nearly 700,000 people there.

Iran's Assembly of Experts named (the son of the previous Ayatollah) Mojtaba Khamenei, 56, as the new Supreme Leader, only the third in the Islamic Republic's history. A hardliner with deep IRGC ties, he was chosen partly because Trump had publicly declared him "unacceptable." His wife, son, and mother were killed in the opening strikes. The IRGC immediately pledged loyalty. Iran's military simultaneously announced it would escalate missile attacks. Trump called the choice a "big mistake," said he was "disappointed," but also told CBS the war was "very complete, pretty much", while telling Republican lawmakers it would continue until Iran is "totally and decisively defeated."

Right-wing Framing - Fox News, Rubio, Republican lawmakers
The dominant conservative framing is one of strategic necessity. Fox News has covered the operation as a long-overdue reckoning with a terrorist-sponsoring regime. Secretary Rubio called Iran "a TERRORIST government." Most House Republicans back the air campaign, drawing a single red line at ground troops without congressional approval. Seventy-four retired generals publicly endorsed the strikes. The broader argument: Iran's nuclear ambitions and proxy network posed an existential threat that diplomacy had failed to resolve. Notable cracks exist, Tucker Carlson has broken with Trump over the war, and a Fox News poll found public opinion split 50-50.

Left-wing Framing - The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Democratic lawmakers
The Guardian's editorial board called the conflict a war with "no clear aim and no end in sight." Al Jazeera has focused heavily on civilian casualties, the Lebanese humanitarian crisis, and the fractured Iranian diaspora. Democrats have been notably divided, progressives have called the strikes unconstitutional and demanded congressional authorisation, while centrists have been reluctant to appear soft on Iran's nuclear threat. Legal experts have described the initial strikes as a potential violation of international law. Critics also point to surging oil prices and the risk of regional escalation as evidence that the operation's costs were not adequately weighed.

Rather than triggering regime collapse, the Islamic Republic has demonstrated institutional resilience, installing a new, arguably more hardline leader mid-war. The deliberate choice of someone Trump opposed signals Iran intends to fight, not fold. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz closure is already reshaping global energy markets, with the Trump administration now considering easing Russian oil sanctions to tame fuel prices, a move that risks undermining Western unity on Ukraine. The conflict is widening, not narrowing. How the next weeks unfold will determine whether this is a short campaign or a prolonged regional crisis.

Starmer told parliament his government "does not believe in regime change from the skies," citing the need for a legal basis and invoking Iraq: "We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learnt those lessons." He did approve US use of two British bases, RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, for "limited defensive purposes," but refused to join the strikes directly.

Trump hit back publicly, telling The Sun the relationship was "not like it used to be," that Starmer had "not been helpful," and that the US now had stronger ties with France and Germany. An Iranian drone subsequently struck the British RAF base in Cyprus. As of 9 March, Starmer insists the two countries are still working together "every single day." Trump says he is "disappointed."

Right-wing Framing - The Sun, Trump allies, Conservative MPs
Starmer's hesitation is seen as politically motivated, driven by his party's anti-war left flank rather than genuine strategic thinking. Conservatives argue the UK has damaged a relationship that underpins its defence, intelligence, and trade interests at a critical moment. The message from Washington allies: this isn't personal, but it has consequences.

Left-wing Framing - The Guardian, New Statesman, Labour left
Starmer's caution has been broadly welcomed on the left. The New Statesman argued "Britain has an America problem", that dependence on an unpredictable Washington has become a liability. The Guardian praised the distinction between alliance loyalty and unconditional military complicity. For many, Iraq made parliamentary scrutiny of military action non-negotiable.

The special relationship has always been more asymmetric than the phrase implies; the UK needs it more than the US does. Trump's public rebuke is a reminder of that imbalance. The stakes extend beyond Iran: UK security guarantees, Five Eyes intelligence sharing, and post-Brexit trade all run through Washington. Analysts warn that Trump developing a grievance with Britain could have serious knock-on effects for Ukraine support and broader diplomacy. At the same time, Starmer faces a genuine domestic constraint; any PM who commits British forces to a US-led Middle East war without clear legal authority risks a political crisis at home. The tension between alliance loyalty and democratic accountability is not new. It has rarely been this publicly exposed.

AI company Anthropic filed two federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, calling the Pentagon's actions an "unlawful campaign of retaliation." The dispute began when Anthropic refused to allow its AI model Claude to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or fully autonomous lethal weapons without human oversight. The administration responded by ordering all federal agencies to stop using Claude, and Defence Secretary Hegseth designated Anthropic a "supply chain risk to national security", a designation previously used only against foreign adversaries, never a US company.

Anthropic argues this violates the First Amendment and due process. The company is valued at 380 billion and projects 14 billion in revenue this year. OpenAI moved to replace Claude in Pentagon systems within hours, a move its own CEO later admitted was "rushed." Over 30 senior AI researchers at OpenAI and Google filed a legal brief supporting Anthropic. OpenAI's head of robotics resigned over her company's Pentagon deal.

Pro-Administration Framing - Hegseth, Trump administration
The administration's position is straightforward: in wartime, the military needs AI tools deployable across the full spectrum of lawful operations. A company that unilaterally restricts how its technology can be used in warfare is an unreliable partner. Hegseth framed the designation as a necessary national security measure. Supporters argue that private companies cannot be permitted to veto US military doctrine.

Pro-Anthropic Framing - AP, legal scholars, AI researchers, civil liberties groups
Critics argue the government is using its economic power to punish a company for exercising its constitutional right to set ethical limits on its own product. Legal scholar Michael Pastor said, "I've never seen a case like this... we would threaten the company essentially with destruction." The use of a foreign-adversary designation against a US firm is widely seen as a dangerous precedent. The surge in Claude downloads after Amodei's public stand suggests public sympathy lies with the company.

This case sits at the intersection of AI in warfare, executive power, and corporate ethics, and it's being decided in real time. The Pentagon's admission that it needs six months to phase out Claude, even after calling it a security risk, reveals how deeply AI is already embedded in active military operations. If the courts side with the government, it sets a precedent that companies can be coerced into removing safety guardrails under national security pressure. If Anthropic wins, it establishes that private firms retain constitutional protections even when the government is their customer. Either outcome will shape how AI is developed, deployed, and governed for years to come.