Fact check: Who instigated and/or is the aggressor in the current Israel Iran conflict?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Israel appears to be the primary instigator of the current escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict. Multiple sources indicate that Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 12, 2025, which prompted Iranian retaliation ^[1]. Israel's military struck an Iranian nuclear research facility and killed senior Iranian commanders, leading to Iran responding with drones and missiles ^[2].

The Associated Press reports that Israel's military announced it struck an Iranian nuclear research facility overnight and is preparing for a lengthy war, while Iran has retaliated by firing missiles and drones at Israel ^[2]. However, the sources acknowledge this represents a cycle of aggression and retaliation between both countries rather than a clear-cut case of single-party aggression ^[2].

International law perspectives suggest Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities may not be justified as self-defense, as there is little evidence that Iran has irrevocably committed to attacking Israel with nuclear weapons ^[3]. The IAEA has not found evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons production, and Iran remains a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

• Historical precedent: One source references Iran's previous attack on Israel with missiles and drones as a response to a deadly strike on its consulate building in Damascus, Syria, indicating this conflict has deeper historical roots ^[4].
• Information warfare: The BBC highlights that both pro-Israeli and pro-Iranian accounts are spreading fake videos and images online, making it difficult to determine the aggressor based on available information ^[5]. This disinformation campaign benefits both sides by allowing them to shape public perception.
• International diplomatic positioning: The Tehran Times criticizes the G7 for implicitly backing Israel's actions while blaming Iran as the principal source of regional instability, suggesting that major Western powers benefit from portraying Iran as the aggressor ^[6].
• Geopolitical complexity: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's comments on the conflict reveal concerns about Russian influence, indicating broader geopolitical dimensions beyond the bilateral Israel-Iran dispute ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains an inherent bias by seeking to identify a single "aggressor" in what the sources reveal to be a complex cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation. This framing benefits:

• Israeli leadership - by potentially justifying preemptive strikes as defensive actions
• Iranian leadership - by allowing them to frame their responses as justified retaliation
• Western governments - by simplifying a complex conflict for public consumption

The question fails to acknowledge that determining aggression requires understanding the legal framework under international law and the historical context of previous incidents. One source specifically notes that there is an ongoing debate about this topic, with 100 AIs being used to analyze the question, suggesting the complexity defies simple answers ^[8].

The framing also ignores the disinformation campaigns actively being waged by both sides, which makes any definitive assessment of aggression potentially compromised by deliberately false information ^[5].