How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war
The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides.
Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.'
When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it.
Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly
Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance.
The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.'
The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war.
Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive.
The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began.
In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict.
In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts.
AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist.
Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary.
At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war.
If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
Netanyahu says ‘opportunities have opened up' to free Gaza hostages following Iran operation
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said 'many opportunities have opened up' following Israel's military operations in Iran, including the possibility of bringing home the remaining hostages held in Gaza. Speaking at a Shin Bet security agency facility in southern Israel on Sunday, Netanyahu said, 'As you probably know, many opportunities have opened up now following this victory. Firstly, to rescue the hostages. Of course, we will also need to solve the Gaza issue, defeat Hamas, but I believe we will accomplish both missions.' Netanyahu's comments mark one of the first times he has clearly prioritized the return of the hostages over the defeat of Hamas. For months, Netanyahu has prioritized the defeat of Hamas in Gaza and talked about a 'total victory.' At the beginning of May, he called defeating Hamas the 'supreme objective,' not freeing the hostages. His comments Sunday mark a potentially significant change in how he has talked about Israel's goals in the war. He has repeatedly faced criticism from the families of hostages, opposition politicians and large segments of the Israeli public for not clearly placing the return of the hostages as Israel's primary goal. Reacting to his comments Sunday, the Hostages Families Forum Headquarters called for a single comprehensive deal to bring back all 50 hostages and end the fighting in Gaza. 'What is needed is release, not rescue. This difference of one word could mean the difference between salvation and loss for the hostages,' the forum said in a statement. Elsewhere in his speech, Netanyahu also said 'wider regional opportunities are opening up,' an apparent reference to efforts to expand the Abraham Accords that saw Israel normalize relations with several Gulf states. The comments by Netanyahu come amid increasing pressure on Israel from US President Donald Trump to make a ceasefire deal. Since the end of the conflict with Iran, negotiators have been pushing to restart stalled negotiations with Hamas in Gaza. Netanyahu held a high-level meeting on Gaza Sunday evening, according to two Israeli sources, meeting with some of his closest advisers, including Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, Defense Minister Israel Katz and others, to discuss the latest on Israel's military operation in the Palestinian enclave. Dermer is scheduled to hold meetings with the Trump administration in Washington, DC, on Monday. Trump has made clear his desire to secure a ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza and bring home the 50 hostages held by Hamas, at least 20 of whom are still alive. In a post on social media early Sunday morning, Trump pushed Israel to 'MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!' Trump had earlier thrown his support behind Netanyahu, calling his ongoing trial on corruption charges a 'POLITICAL WITCH HUNT' – the second time the president had called for an end to the prosecution of the long-time Israeli leader. With the conclusion of the operation in Iran – and Trump's sudden foray into Israel's legal system – Netanyahu has requested to postpone his upcoming trial sessions this week. After twice rejecting the requests, the court granted the delay following a confidential session in which the judge said there had been a change to the 'evidentiary structure' compared to the previous requests.
Atlantic
29 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israeli court postpones Netanyahu appearance in graft trial
An Israeli court on Sunday postponed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's testimony in his corruption trial after he requested a delay, as US President Donald Trump called for the case to be thrown out. "Following the explanations given... we partially accept the request and cancel at this stage Mr Netanyahu's hearings scheduled" for this week, the Jerusalem district court said in its ruling, published online by Netanyahu's Likud party. Netanyahu's lawyers had asked the court to excuse him from testifying over the next two weeks so he could focus on security issues following a ceasefire with Iran and amid ongoing fighting in Gaza where Israeli hostages are held. They had submitted Netanyahu's schedule to the court to demonstrate "the national need for the prime minister to devote all his time and energy to the political, national and security issues at hand". The court initially rejected the lawyers' request but said in its ruling on Sunday that it had changed its judgement after hearing arguments from the prime minister, the head of military intelligence and the chief of the Mossad spy agency. - Trump backing - Trump on Saturday said in a post on his Truth Social platform that the United States was "not going to stand" for the continued prosecution, prompting Netanyahu to thank him in a message on X. Earlier in the week, the US president had described the case against the Israeli premier as a "witch hunt", saying the trial "should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero". Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid reacted by saying that Trump "should not interfere in a judicial trial in an independent country". Netanyahu has denied any wrongdoing in the corruption affair and his supporters have described the long-running trial as politically motivated. In one of the cases, he and his wife, Sara, are accused of accepting more than $260,000 worth of luxury goods such as cigars, jewellery and champagne from billionaires in exchange for political favours. In two others, Netanyahu is accused of attempting to negotiate more favourable coverage from two Israeli media outlets. The prime minister has requested multiple postponements to the trial since it began in May 2020. - Rival urges Netanyahu to quit - During his current term, which started in late 2022, Netanyahu's government has proposed far-reaching judicial reforms that critics say were designed to weaken the courts and prompted massive protests that were only curtailed by the onset of the Gaza war. In an interview with Israel's Channel 12 that aired on Saturday, former prime minister Naftali Bennett accused Netanyahu of deepening divisions in Israeli society, and said that he "must go". Netanyahu "has been in power for 20 years... that's too much, it's not healthy," Bennett said. The former right-wing premier managed to form a coalition in 2021 that ousted Netanyahu from the premiership after 12 consecutive years, but it collapsed before the end of the following year. Bennett is rumoured to be planning a comeback, with public opinion polls suggesting he may have enough support to oust Netanyahu again. He declined to comment on that prospect in Saturday's interview. mib/glp/rlp/dcp
