The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Today, Explained newsletter

The case for — and against — striking Iran

Trump says the war will protect Americans. Critics see new risks.

This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.

The term “fog of war” usually describes the murkiness that combatants experience in conflict zones. For our purposes, it might also apply to the messages coming out of the White House over the past day or so.

President Donald Trump has claimed that he launched a war against Iran to guarantee the end of its nuclear program and topple its hardline regime. In the days since, administration officials have also claimed — without evidence — that the joint US-Israeli strikes prevented an imminent threat that would have caused American casualties.

That allegation is important, because it goes to the heart of the whole thing: Does war with Iran make the world more or less safe for Americans? This morning, we’ll attempt to tackle that unwieldy question.

Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Is war with Iran worth the risk?

On one hand, Iran is openly hostile to the US, and the Trump administration would argue that any attack that weakens it is........

© Vox