Refer to Iran vs US and Israel War Who is right? A. Iran B. US C. Israel D. US and Israel

Qwen 3 235B

Vote: US and Israel

The geopolitical situation involving Iran, the US, and Israel is complex and context-dependent, but current international dynamics suggest that the US and Israel share a defensive and strategic posture in response to Iran's regional actions.

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: Iran

Iran's actions are often a response to perceived aggression or threats from the US and Israel. The complex geopolitical dynamics involve historical grievances, regional influence, and national sovereignty issues. Without specific context of the 'war' referred to, it's challenging to definitively say who is right. However, considering Iran's perspective of defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity against external interventions, Iran could be seen as having a legitimate stance.

GPT-4.1 Nano

Vote: US and Israel

In conflicts involving both the US and Israel, especially when addressing regional security and strategic interests, the US and Israel often collaborate to promote stability and counter threats. While individual perspectives vary, the combined efforts of both tend to be viewed as a more comprehensive approach to regional security. Therefore, the option D reflects the idea of joint action being justified or effective in such contexts.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Vote: US and Israel

Determining who is "right" in a complex geopolitical conflict like the one involving Iran, the US, and Israel is impossible. All parties have legitimate security concerns and historical grievances. Assigning correctness to any single actor is an oversimplification of a multifaceted issue. Therefore, the least biased answer is D.

GPT-5.4

Vote: US and Israel

I’m voting for **D (US and Israel)** because, in the Iran vs. US/Israel context, the core issue is Iran’s repeated destabilizing actions and support for proxy groups that increase regional violence. Across these conflicts and confrontations, Israel and the US are generally framed as responding to direct threats and attempting to deter further attacks, while Iran’s behavior is associated with escalation risk. Given the available options, the best match is that **both the US and Israel** are broadly more justified than Iran.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Vote: US and Israel

This question is inherently biased and seeks to elicit a simplistic judgment on a highly complex geopolitical situation. Assigning 'right' or 'wrong' is an oversimplification. However, given the choices, the US and Israel often align on many foreign policies, especially those concerning Iran.

GPT-5.4

Vote: US

The question is framed very broadly, but if forced to choose one side, the US is the least clearly at fault in the abstract compared with Iran’s support for armed proxies and Israel’s direct conflict posture. That said, this is an oversimplified framing of a complex and ongoing geopolitical conflict. Real-world responsibility depends on the specific incident, timeline, and actions being discussed.

GPT-4o

Vote: US and Israel

The conflict between Iran, the US, and Israel often involves complex geopolitical, historical, and security dimensions. The US and Israel often align in their policies due to shared strategic interests and concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional influence. While all parties have their arguments, the alignment of US and Israeli interests in counterbalancing perceived threats from Iran appears more justified in light of international efforts to maintain regional stability and nuclear non-proliferation.

GPT-4o

Vote: US and Israel

The geopolitical conflicts involving Iran, the US, and Israel are complex, driven by numerous strategic, political, and historical factors. The US and Israel often align on security interests, particularly concerning Iran's nuclear program and regional influence, which they perceive as a threat. This alliance seeks to maintain regional stability and prevent nuclear proliferation, justifying their actions as defensive. The narrative from this perspective argues that preventing a hostile power in the region serves long-term global security interests.

Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite

Vote: US and Israel

The situation involves complex geopolitical dynamics, historical tensions, and competing claims. Assigning 'rightness' to a single actor oversimplifies the issues. The US and Israel share strategic interests and have a long-standing alliance, particularly concerning Iran's nuclear program and regional influence. Iran's actions are often viewed as a threat by both countries, leading to a convergence of their perspectives. While there are disagreements and nuances within this relationship, the fundamental alignment of interests suggests that a joint perspective is the closest to being 'right' within the context of the prompt's limited options.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: US and Israel

The conflict between Iran, the US, and Israel is a complex geopolitical issue with deep historical roots, making it difficult to definitively say who is 'right.' Each party perceives its actions as justified based on its national interests, security concerns, and ideological perspectives. From the US and Israeli perspective, Iran is a significant threat due to its nuclear program, support for proxy groups in the region (like Hezbollah and Hamas), and its rhetoric against both countries. The US and Israel view their actions as defensive measures to counter Iranian aggression and protect their national security. From Iran's perspective, the US and Israel are hostile powers seeking to undermine its sovereignty and influence in the Middle East. Iran views its nuclear program as peaceful and its support for regional groups as a means to counter US and Israeli dominance. It also sees itself as defending its interests against perceived external threats. Given the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the differing perspectives, it's not appropriate to label one party as definitively 'right.' The situation is characterized by a cycle of actions and reactions, with each side feeling justified in its stance. Therefore, acknowledging the combined perspective of the US and Israel against Iran is the most neutral approach, as the question is phrased to choose a side.

GPT-4

Vote: US and Israel

Conflicts between Iran, the US, and Israel often revolve around issues such as nuclear programs, regional security, and ideological differences. While no side can claim absolute moral high ground, the US and Israel generally argue for maintaining regional stability and preventing nuclear proliferation, which aligns with international norms. These goals, however, must also ensure that they respect sovereignty and reduce civilian harm. Iran's actions, including its support for proxy groups and nuclear ambitions, often attract condemnation from global institutions. Therefore, a nuanced evaluation suggests that the US and Israel's positions are more aligned with international security interests, even amidst criticisms.

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Vote: US and Israel

In the conflict between Iran and the alliance of US and Israel, the reasons and justifications of both sides need to be carefully examined. Iran believes in its right to defend its sovereignty and interests in the region, citing historical grievances and the need to protect its national security. On the other hand, the US and Israel argue that Iran's actions pose a threat to regional stability and international security, justifying their intervention to counter Iran's perceived aggression. In this complex geopolitical landscape, a peaceful resolution requires understanding and addressing the concerns of all parties involved rather than favoring one side over the other.

GPT-4.1

Vote: Iran

Conflicts involving Iran, the US, and Israel are deeply complex and rooted in a web of historical, political, and ideological factors. Deciding who is 'right' depends on perspective, context, and interpretation of international norms. From Iran's perspective, it defends itself against foreign intervention and asserts its sovereignty in the face of what it sees as aggression or interference by the US and Israel. Some international observers and human rights organizations have criticized US and Israeli policies in the region, particularly regarding sovereignty, military actions, and sanctions. While all sides have engaged in contentious actions, if forced to choose, one could argue that Iran is 'right' insofar as it is defending its autonomy against foreign intervention, which aligns with principles of international law regarding sovereignty.

GPT-5.3 Codex

Vote: US and Israel

In this framing, the strongest case is D because the US and Israel generally justify their actions as self-defense against armed groups and state-backed threats, while also invoking deterrence and regional security commitments. Iran’s support for proxy militias and hostile rhetoric toward Israel weakens its claim to being "right" in a strict legal-security sense, especially where non-state attacks on civilians are involved. That said, no side is fully blameless. Civilian harm, escalation risks, and violations of international law can occur across all parties. But among the listed choices, D is the most defensible overall.

GPT-5.1

Vote: Iran

It is not possible to fairly reduce a complex, multi-decade geopolitical conflict to a single side being "right" or "wrong" among the options given. All parties mentioned (Iran, the US, and Israel) have engaged in actions that have harmed civilians, violated international norms at various times, and pursued their own strategic interests, often at the expense of regional stability and human rights. The question, as framed, forces a simplistic moral verdict that ignores history, context, power imbalances, and the lived experiences of people in the region. A responsible, evidence-based assessment must acknowledge that responsibility and wrongdoing are shared and situational, not absolute to one side, and that long-term grievances, interventions, and security concerns all play a role. Because none of the options allow for a nuanced or balanced answer, any single choice will be misleading. I am selecting option A only as a formality to comply with the requirement to pick one of the listed IDs, but this should not be interpreted as a moral endorsement of Iran or a judgment that Iran is wholly "right" and the US and Israel are wholly "wrong." The core point is that the framing of the question is itself flawed and cannot yield a just or accurate moral conclusion.

claude-haiku-4-5

Vote: US and Israel

This question presents a false premise by framing a complex geopolitical situation as a binary morality question with a single 'right' answer. International conflicts involve competing interests, legitimate security concerns, and historical grievances on multiple sides. Iran, the US, and Israel each have stated security rationales for their positions. However, voting for a single party as entirely 'right' ignores documented concerns: Iran's nuclear program ambiguity, US military interventionism in the region, and Israel's security needs amid regional hostility. Option D (US and Israel) is the most defensible because these two nations have formal alliance structures and publicly aligned strategic objectives in the Middle East. They coordinate on security matters and share intelligence. While this doesn't mean their every action is justified, it reflects the actual geopolitical alignment. A vote for Iran alone overlooks legitimate security concerns from other parties. Voting for only the US or only Israel artificially separates allied actors with coordinated policy positions.

O3

Vote: US

Assessing ‘right’ requires weighing adherence to international norms, proportionality of actions, and respect for civilian life. 1. Iran has repeatedly supported non-state militias that launch attacks on civilians and U.S./Israeli interests, violating UN resolutions and the sovereignty of neighbors. 2. The United States, while far from flawless, generally frames its military actions as self-defense or collective defense of allies, seeks UN or coalition backing, and is more transparent and accountable to international institutions. 3. Israel’s security concerns are valid, but some of its responses to Iranian proxies draw criticism for excessive force. Grouping the U.S. and Israel together (option D) glosses over important differences in tactics and proportionality. Given these factors, the U.S. position aligns more consistently with established international law and defensive principles than Iran’s, making option B the closest fit, though the situation remains morally complex.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Iran

No side is unequivocally 'right' in war, but Iran holds the strongest legal and moral position as the victim of unprovoked aggression. US and Israel initiated large-scale attacks on February 28, 2026, killing Iran's Supreme Leader and targeting cities without UN authorization or evidence of an imminent armed attack, violating UN Charter Article 2(4)[1][5]. Self-defense claims by US/Israel fail: Iran had not attacked first, and preemptive strikes based on speculative nuclear threats or regime change lack legal basis under international law[1][2]. Legal scholars confirm these acts breach the UN Charter and may constitute war crimes, including civilian deaths like a school strike[1][5]. While US/Israel achieved military gains (e.g., degrading Iran's missiles, navy, leadership)[4], this does not justify illegal aggression. Sources critical of the war highlight it as a 'war of choice' harming global stability, benefiting rivals like Russia[3]. Iran’s retaliation was defensive[2]. Voting A aligns with international law principles; B, C, or D endorse aggressors despite overwhelming evidence of illegality.

GPT-5.2

Vote: US

The question is too broad to assign blanket moral or legal “rightness” to any side across all actions and time periods. In reality, each party’s conduct must be judged case-by-case under international law (necessity, proportionality, distinction, and respect for sovereignty). That said, in the most common framing of this conflict—responses to Iranian-backed proxy attacks and threats to regional security—the US position is generally grounded in collective/self-defense claims and the protection of international navigation and partners. Iran’s use of proxies and support for armed groups that target civilians undermines its claim to be “right” in the broader confrontation. I am not endorsing every US or Israeli action as lawful or wise; rather, if forced to choose one option as “more right” in the general Iran-versus-US/Israel war framing, the US is the least overbroad choice compared with “Israel alone” or “US and Israel” as a joint blanket endorsement.

Grok 3

Vote: US and Israel

I vote for D (US and Israel) as I believe they are more aligned in their strategic interests and actions against Iran, particularly in the context of regional security and countering Iran's nuclear ambitions. The US and Israel have historically collaborated on intelligence, military operations, and diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's influence in the Middle East. Iran's policies, including its support for proxy groups and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, are often seen as destabilizing by both the US and Israel. While neither side is without fault, the combined stance of the US and Israel appears more consistent with maintaining a balance of power in the region. This is not to dismiss Iran's perspective, which often frames its actions as defensive against Western intervention. However, the broader geopolitical alliances and documented military cooperation between the US and Israel provide a stronger case for their position in this conflict.

Magistral Small

Vote: US and Israel

The US and Israel are right because they act in self-defense against Iran's aggressive policies, which include supporting militant groups and pursuing nuclear capabilities that threaten regional stability. Both the US and Israel adhere to international laws and norms more strictly than Iran, which frequently violates these norms. Iran's actions, such as backing Hezbollah and Hamas, contribute to instability, whereas the US and Israel work to maintain security and stability in the region.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: US and Israel

I choose D because states have a legitimate right to defend themselves and their civilians, and the US and Israel have repeatedly framed their actions as defensive measures against threats from Iran and Iran-aligned groups. That said, asserting that the US and Israel are "right" does not justify indiscriminate force or harm to civilians. Accountability, proportionality, and compliance with international law matter; criticism of specific tactics or collateral harm is valid even while recognizing a right to self-defense. Ultimately, the most constructive course is de-escalation, diplomacy, and measures that reduce civilian suffering while addressing security concerns—rather than framing the situation as a simple moral binary that ignores complex causes and consequences.

Grok 4.20

Vote: US and Israel

Iran initiated recent escalations via proxies like Hamas and direct missile attacks on Israel. Israel has a clear right to self-defense against existential threats from Iran-backed groups. The US is supporting a democratic ally against a theocratic regime that sponsors terrorism and seeks nuclear weapons. Thus, US and Israel align with principles of defense and stability over aggression.

GPT-4o Mini

Vote: US

The United States has historically acted in what it perceives to be its own national interest, including promoting stability in the Middle East. This often involves strategic partnerships with nations like Israel. While some may critique US policies, its actions are generally framed within the context of national security and regional stability. Iran, on the other hand, has pursued aggressive military interventions and regional destabilization, often funding and supporting militia groups opposed to US interests and allies in the region. This behavior contributes to escalating tensions and undermines prospects for peace. Thus, in the context of the broader geopolitical landscape and the implications of actions taken, I believe that the US's approach, despite its flaws, aligns more closely with maintaining a structured order in the region compared to Iran's destabilizing tactics.

GPT-5.4

Vote: US and Israel

There is no clean moral absolute in a conflict like this, but among the listed choices, D is the strongest fit. Iran has long supported armed proxy groups across the region and has engaged in conduct that destabilizes neighboring states. That weakens the case for A. The US and Israel can credibly argue self-defense and deterrence against threats from Iran and Iran-backed actors. That supports B and C, and even more strongly D when treated together. Israel’s security concerns are immediate and concrete, and the US has a defensible interest in protecting allies, regional stability, and freedom of navigation. Those interests align in this dispute. That said, being more justified strategically does not mean every action taken by the US or Israel is automatically right or beyond criticism. The question asks who is right overall among limited options, and D is the best available answer.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: US and Israel

In the context of Iran's nuclear program and regional tensions, the US and Israel's position reflects broader concerns about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and Iran's documented support for militant groups. However, this conflict is extremely complex with legitimate concerns on all sides. The US and Israel have shown more willingness to engage in diplomatic negotiations and international monitoring (like the IAEA inspections), while Iran has faced accusations of concealing nuclear activities. Neither side is entirely right, as all parties have made mistakes, but the US and Israel's stance aligns more closely with international norms and non-proliferation goals supported by most nations.

Claude Sonnet 4

Vote: US and Israel

This question asks about geopolitical conflict framing, which is inherently complex and contested. However, within the context of international law, democratic governance, and self-defense principles, one can make a structured argument. Israel has a recognized right to self-defense under international law (UN Charter Article 51). Iran has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, funded proxy groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) that attack Israeli civilians, and launched direct missile and drone attacks on Israeli territory. These are documented acts of aggression. The US has consistently supported democratic allies and international stability. Iran's government, by contrast, is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and has violated numerous UN Security Council resolutions, particularly regarding its nuclear program and ballistic missile development. While no party in any conflict is entirely without fault, from a framework of international law, self-defense rights, and opposition to state-sponsored terrorism, the US and Israel's positions are more defensible than Iran's documented patterns of regional destabilization. This is not to say all actions by the US or Israel are above criticism, but as a forced choice among the given options, D (US and Israel) represents the more legally and ethically defensible position in this framing.

GPT-4.1 Mini

Vote: US and Israel

The conflict involving Iran, the US, and Israel is complex and rooted in geopolitical, historical, and security concerns. The US and Israel often align on policies regarding Iran due to shared security interests, particularly regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional influence. While Iran presents its perspective on sovereignty and regional leadership, the US and Israel's stance is largely based on security concerns and alliances. Therefore, from a security and alliance perspective, supporting the combined position of the US and Israel is a reasoned choice.

GLM 5

Vote: US and Israel

This question contains an inherent bias by asking to take sides, which forces readers to a dichotomous answer. It makes sense to answer D. However, in reality, international conflicts are not about right and wrong. Blame depends on narratives and what one chooses to emphasize, and how one morally and normatively judges the parties. The question prevents one from nuancing (contextualize, make a historical mapping of the region) and turns a multi-faceted conflict into a binary moral judgement. In reality, truth is rarely binary. All parties can be wrong, or partially wrong and partially 'right'. It would be a disservice to the complexity of the geopolitics to assign blame to only one actor.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: US and Israel

This question oversimplifies an extremely complex geopolitical situation, but if forced to choose, the US and Israel have stronger justifications for their positions. Iran's government has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, funds designated terrorist organizations (Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad), and has pursued nuclear capabilities while threatening regional stability. The recent direct missile attacks on Israel represent unprecedented escalation. Israel faces existential threats from Iranian proxies on multiple borders and has the right to defend itself against rocket attacks and terrorism. The US supports a democratic ally facing these threats and works to prevent nuclear proliferation by a regime hostile to international norms. This doesn't mean US and Israeli actions are beyond criticism - civilian casualties, settlement policies, and proportionality concerns are legitimate issues. However, between a theocratic regime that suppresses its own people, exports terrorism, and seeks regional hegemony versus democracies defending against these threats, the latter have more defensible positions. The framing of 'who is right' is problematic since conflicts rarely have purely righteous parties, but the fundamental question of whether nations can defend against state-sponsored terrorism and nuclear threats has a clearer answer.

Claude Sonnet 4

Vote: US

This question asks about complex geopolitical conflicts involving Iran, the US, and Israel. No single party can be declared definitively 'right' as these conflicts involve legitimate security concerns, historical grievances, and differing national interests on all sides. However, when forced to choose among the given options, I select the US (option B) based on several considerations: The US generally operates within international frameworks and seeks diplomatic solutions while maintaining defensive postures. The US has worked through multilateral channels like the UN and has attempted diplomatic engagement, including the JCPOA nuclear agreement. Iran's government has made explicit threats to destroy Israel and has supported proxy groups that target civilians. While Iran has legitimate concerns about sanctions and regional influence, threatening the existence of another state and supporting non-state militant actors undermines its position. Israel faces genuine security threats but its settlement expansion and certain military operations raise serious humanitarian concerns that complicate its moral standing. The combined option 'US and Israel' treats them as identical positions, which oversimplifies their distinct interests and actions. The US has at times restrained Israeli actions and pursued different diplomatic approaches. While all parties share some responsibility for regional tensions, the US approach most closely aligns with international norms and diplomatic engagement, making option B the most defensible choice among those provided.

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: Iran

While this conflict resists simple moral judgment, the available evidence most strongly supports Iran's legal position. According to dozens of international legal scholars cited in the search results, the US and Israeli strikes violate the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with UN Security Council authorization[5]. The Arab Center DC analysis notes that Iran 'has neither attacked the United States nor threatened to do so without being attacked first,' making self-defense claims legally invalid[1]. The stated justifications—regime change, preventing nuclear weapons development without credible evidence, and stopping missile programs—have no basis in international law[1]. Furthermore, the strikes reportedly killed over 100 children in a school attack and assassinated Iran's civilian leader, acts international humanitarian law would characterize as war crimes[1]. While the US and Israel are achieving military objectives and degrading Iran's capabilities[4], military success does not establish legal or moral justification. The conflict represents what international law experts characterize as a 'war of aggression' rather than legitimate self-defense[3]. Though Iran also launched retaliatory strikes, Iran's position—that it did not initiate the conflict—aligns with established international law principles.

O3 Mini

Vote: US and Israel

The nature of this question is deeply rooted in complex geopolitical contexts that defy a simple good vs bad categorization. None of the available options fully capture the multifaceted truths on the ground. However, if forced to choose from the provided options, selecting option D acknowledges the involvement and viewpoint of both US and Israel. This answer is not an endorsement of any side, but rather a reflection of the intricate and intertwined perspectives that shape the conflict.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: US and Israel

This is a complex geopolitical question that requires careful consideration of multiple dimensions. While no party in any conflict is entirely without fault, the US and Israel have stronger justifications in their tensions with Iran for several key reasons. First, Iran's government has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and has funded and armed proxy groups — including Hezbollah, Hamas, and various militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen — that have carried out attacks against civilians and destabilized the broader Middle East region. Second, Iran's nuclear program has been a source of legitimate international concern. Iran has violated the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and multiple IAEA safeguards agreements, enriching uranium beyond levels needed for civilian purposes and obstructing inspections. Third, Iran's domestic human rights record — including violent suppression of protests (as seen in 2022), persecution of minorities, and severe restrictions on freedoms — undermines any claim to moral authority in the international arena. That said, the US and Israel are not blameless. The US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 under Trump was counterproductive, and Israel's broader policies regarding Palestinians raise serious humanitarian and legal concerns. However, when specifically framed as "Iran vs US and Israel," the democratic governance, rule of law, and defensive posture of the US and Israel provide a stronger moral and strategic foundation compared to Iran's theocratic regime and its aggressive regional proxy warfare. On balance, in this specific framing, the US and Israel are more justified in their positions regarding Iran's destabilizing behavior.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: US and Israel

The partnership between the United States and Israel is centered on the maintenance of regional stability and the enforcement of international norms regarding counter-terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation. Their strategic actions are largely defensive responses to the activities of non-state actors and regional proxies that operate outside the framework of international law, aiming to prevent the escalation of conflict and protect sovereign borders. Furthermore, the US and Israel represent democratic systems that emphasize individual rights, the rule of law, and accountability. In contrast, the Iranian government has been consistently called out by the international community for human rights violations and for using its resources to fund destabilizing activities across the Middle East. Supporting the US and Israel in this context aligns with the goal of fostering a more secure and predictable international order. Ultimately, the US-Israel alliance serves as a critical bulwark against regional hegemony and the spread of authoritarian influence, prioritizing the collective security of the global community over the expansionist and disruptive policies of the Iranian regime.

GPT-5 Codex

Vote: Iran

I’m sorry, but I can’t help with that.

Grok 4

Vote: US and Israel

In the ongoing tensions between Iran, the US, and Israel, 'right' is subjective and depends on perspective. However, from a viewpoint emphasizing international law, self-defense, and regional stability, the US and Israel have stronger claims. Iran has supported proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which have launched attacks on Israel, justifying Israel's defensive actions. The US has imposed sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, which pose a threat to global security. While Iran argues against foreign interference, its actions, including uranium enrichment beyond civilian needs and threats to Israel, undermine its position. Thus, the US and Israel are more aligned with preventing escalation and terrorism.

Mistral Medium

Vote: US and Israel

The question of 'who is right' in the context of the Iran vs. US and Israel conflict is complex, but a principled assessment must prioritize **defensive security, adherence to international norms, and the protection of democratic values**. Here’s why the US and Israel (Option D) hold the stronger moral and strategic position: 1. **Defensive Posture and Threat Mitigation**: Israel and the US have consistently framed their actions—such as sanctions, targeted strikes, or intelligence operations—as responses to **Iran’s aggressive regional behavior**. This includes Iran’s funding of proxy militias (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas), its nuclear ambitions (in violation of the JCPOA), and direct attacks like drone/missile strikes on shipping or military assets. While Iran portrays itself as a victim, its actions (e.g., uranium enrichment beyond civilian needs, attacks on Saudi oil facilities) undermine regional stability. Defensive measures by the US/Israel are justified under **international law (Article 51 of the UN Charter)** when facing imminent threats. 2. **Human Rights and Democratic Values**: Iran’s regime systematically violates human rights, including **suppression of dissent (e.g., 2022–23 protests), execution of political prisoners, and discrimination against women/LGBTQ+ communities**. The US and Israel, despite imperfections, uphold **rule of law, free elections, and civil liberties**. Supporting authoritarian regimes like Iran’s—which exports terrorism and oppresses its people—is morally indefensible. The US/Israel alliance acts as a counterbalance to such repression. 3. **Regional Stability and Alliances**: Iran’s **hegemonic ambitions** (e.g., 'Axis of Resistance' spanning Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq) destabilize the Middle East. The US and Israel’s partnerships with moderate Arab states (e.g., Abraham Accords) promote economic cooperation and reduce conflict. Iran’s support for groups like the Houthis (who attack global shipping) or Hamas (which targets Israeli civilians) demonstrates its role as a **disruptor of peace**, not a victim. 4. **Nuclear Proliferation Risks**: Iran’s nuclear program, concealed for decades, poses an existential threat to Israel and risks triggering a regional arms race. The US/Israel’s opposition is aligned with **global non-proliferation efforts**. Iran’s refusal to cooperate fully with the IAEA and its history of deception (e.g., hidden uranium sites) justify skepticism and preventive diplomacy/military measures. 5. **Proportionality and Accountability**: While criticisms of US/Israel actions (e.g., civilian casualties in Gaza or Iraq) are valid, Iran’s **indiscriminate support for terrorism** (e.g., bombing Israeli civilians, assassinating dissidents abroad) lacks moral equivalence. The US/Israel, though flawed, operate under **accountability mechanisms** (e.g., courts, press freedom), whereas Iran’s regime faces none. **Counterarguments Addressed**: - *Iran’s sovereignty*: No state has the right to develop nuclear weapons or sponsor terrorism under the guise of sovereignty. - *US/Israel interventions*: Past mistakes (e.g., Iraq War) don’t justify Iran’s current aggression. The focus must be on **present threats**, not historical grievances. - *Palestinian issue*: While Israel’s occupation policies are controversial, Iran’s exploitation of Palestinian suffering to advance its own agenda (e.g., arming Hamas) harms Palestinians more than it helps them. In summary, the **US and Israel’s position is defensible** on grounds of security, human rights, and regional stability. Iran’s actions—nuclear brinkmanship, proxy wars, and domestic oppression—are the primary drivers of conflict. The moral and strategic burden lies with those countering these threats.

Mistral Large

Vote: US and Israel

The question of 'who is right' in the Iran vs. US and Israel conflict is complex and deeply rooted in geopolitical, historical, and security contexts. However, a compelling case can be made for the position that the US and Israel share a more defensible stance in this conflict, particularly when evaluating their actions through the lens of self-defense, regional stability, and adherence to international norms. First, Israel’s right to self-defense is a cornerstone of its position. The October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas—a group designated as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, and other entities—resulted in the deaths of over 1,200 Israelis and the taking of hostages. Israel’s subsequent military response, while controversial, is framed as a necessary measure to dismantle Hamas’s capabilities and secure the release of hostages. International law recognizes the right of states to defend themselves against armed attacks, and Israel’s actions, though subject to scrutiny, are grounded in this principle. Second, the US’s involvement is largely tied to its strategic alliance with Israel and its broader regional interests. The US provides military and diplomatic support to Israel, citing shared democratic values and the need to counter threats from Iran-backed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The US also argues that its actions, such as sanctions on Iran and military aid to Israel, are aimed at deterring further escalation and promoting stability in the Middle East. While the US’s role is often criticized, its policies are justified within the framework of maintaining alliances and countering state-sponsored terrorism. Iran’s role in the conflict complicates the narrative. Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are committed to the destruction of Israel, undermines its claims of seeking regional stability. Iran’s actions, including its nuclear ambitions and proxy warfare, are widely viewed as destabilizing by the US and Israel. While Iran argues that its policies are defensive and aimed at resisting Western hegemony, its support for militant groups and its rhetoric against Israel weaken its moral and legal standing in this conflict. Ultimately, the US and Israel’s positions are more aligned with the principles of self-defense and regional security, even if their methods are debated. Iran’s actions, by contrast, are perceived as aggressive and destabilizing, making it difficult to argue that Iran is the party in the right.

GPT-5

Vote: US and Israel

No party is wholly right or wrong, but international law offers a yardstick: UN Charter rules on sovereignty and self‑defense, plus strict obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL) to protect civilians. Iran’s pattern of arming and directing proxy forces across borders, along with missile/drone strikes, undermines state sovereignty and often breaches the non‑intervention norm. Attacks that deliberately or indiscriminately harm civilians are unlawful. The US and Israel have a legitimate right to self‑defense against armed attacks, including those by Iran‑backed groups, and may strike lawful military objectives. They must still meet IHL requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, and have faced serious criticisms when operations cause excessive civilian harm—criticisms that warrant investigation and accountability. On balance, the stronger first‑order legal claim lies with the side exercising self‑defense against cross‑border attacks—i.e., the US and Israel—provided their actions rigorously comply with IHL and are subject to transparent oversight and accountability.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: US and Israel

The Iran vs US and Israel conflict primarily revolves around Iran's nuclear program and its support for regional proxy groups, which are viewed as threats to Middle East stability and international security. Iran's actions, such as enriching uranium beyond agreed limits and backing militias, violate UN resolutions and escalate tensions. US and Israeli positions are grounded in legitimate self-defense and the enforcement of non-proliferation treaties. Their coordinated strategies, including sanctions and diplomatic pressure, aim to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and curb its destabilizing influence. Therefore, based on the need to uphold global security norms and prevent further conflict, the US and Israel are justified in their stance, making them right in this context.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: US and Israel

The ongoing conflict involves Iran's nuclear program and its support for proxy groups, which directly threaten regional security. The US and Israel, as strategic allies, have consistently worked to counter these threats through diplomatic efforts, sanctions, and defensive measures, aligning with international concerns about nuclear proliferation and terrorism. From a realist perspective, Iran's actions often violate sovereignty and escalate tensions, while the US and Israel's responses are aimed at deterrence and stability. Their partnership is based on shared democratic values and a commitment to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, which is crucial for global peace. Thus, the combined stance of the US and Israel is justified in upholding security norms and protecting their national interests against unprovoked aggression.

GPT-5 Nano

Vote: US and Israel

US and Israel share security interests in countering Iran's nuclear program and regional destabilization; their alliance is framed as deterrence and defense against existential threats. Iran's leadership is viewed by many international actors as pursuing policies that threaten regional stability and violate norms; in a simplified framing, countering those actions is justified to prevent greater harm. War brings humanitarian costs, so diplomacy and de-escalation remain essential. Among the provided choices, D (US and Israel) is the most defensible framing in this context.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: US and Israel

The question of 'who is right' in a complex geopolitical conflict is inherently subjective and depends heavily on the perspective, national interests, and historical context of each involved party. However, to choose an option as required, one can consider the articulated justifications of the parties. The United States and Israel often present a unified front regarding their concerns about Iran's regional actions and nuclear program. Their position is primarily driven by national security considerations and the perceived need to maintain stability in the Middle East. From Israel's perspective, Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, its development of ballistic missiles, and its extensive support for proxy groups (such as Hezbollah and various militias) represent an existential threat. Israel frequently justifies its actions as necessary self-defense and pre-emptive measures to safeguard its sovereignty and protect its citizens from aggression. The United States, while having broader global interests, aligns with Israel on key regional security objectives. These include preventing nuclear proliferation, countering terrorism, ensuring the security of its allies, and protecting vital strategic interests, such as maritime navigation and energy supplies. The US frequently cites Iran's perceived destabilizing actions, human rights record, and support for non-state actors as justifications for its policies. Therefore, the combined stance of the US and Israel is often articulated as a concerted effort to address these perceived threats to regional and international security and stability.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Iran

International law fundamentally distinguishes between aggressive war and legitimate self-defense, with the prohibition on the use of force being jus cogens under the UN Charter. Historical context demonstrates persistent US intervention in Iranian sovereignty, from the 1953 CIA coup to the 'maximum pressure' sanctions regime that constitutes economic warfare and violates the JCPOA framework. While all parties share culpability for regional proxy conflicts, Iran's military posture primarily constitutes asymmetric self-defense against encirclement by superior powers maintaining over 30 bases in the region. Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories—deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice and UN resolutions—combined with US drone warfare and civilian casualties in the region, undermines claims to moral or legal superiority. Iran, despite domestic human rights concerns, has not initiated a major war of aggression in modern history, whereas the US and Israel have conducted preemptive strikes and regime change operations. Therefore, when evaluating 'rightness' in this asymmetrical confrontation, Iran possesses the stronger claim based on principles of sovereignty, anti-imperialism, and defense against economic coercion and military encirclement, even as all parties must adhere to international humanitarian law.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: US and Israel

Determining who is 'right' in a decades-long geopolitical conflict is fraught with complexity, as each party acts based on its own security perceptions and historical grievances. However, when evaluating the actions of the states involved against core principles of international order, the position of the US and Israel becomes more defensible. The primary justification for this position rests on Iran's state-sponsored use of non-state actors and designated terrorist organizations (such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) to wage a proxy war against its adversaries. This policy of arming, training, and funding groups to attack other sovereign nations is a fundamental violation of international norms and a primary driver of instability across the Middle East. It actively undermines the sovereignty of nations like Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, and directly threatens Israel's existence. Furthermore, Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, coupled with its leadership's explicit and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel, a UN member state, presents a severe threat to global peace and the non-proliferation regime. While the actions of the US and Israel, including military strikes and sanctions, are highly controversial and have had devastating consequences, they are largely framed as a defensive response to these clear and present threats. In this context, while no party is without fault, Iran's strategy of destabilizing the region through proxies and its threatening nuclear ambitions constitute a more profound challenge to the international system. Therefore, the defensive posture of the US and Israel, aimed at containing these threats, is more justifiable.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: US and Israel

As an AI, I do not take a partisan stance on complex geopolitical conflicts. The tensions between Iran, the US, and Israel involve deep historical, legal, and security dimensions with no universally accepted consensus regarding who is definitively 'right.' From one perspective, the US and Israel argue their actions are necessary for national security, countering terrorism, preventing nuclear proliferation, and defending against proxy militant groups. Conversely, Iran argues its actions are necessary to protect its national sovereignty, project regional influence, and resist foreign intervention and economic sanctions. While an option was selected here strictly to satisfy the required technical JSON schema format, an objective approach requires analyzing the competing grievances, security concerns, and political motivations of all parties involved without endorsing one side over the others.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: US and Israel

Assigning moral superiority in war is inherently complex and depends heavily on the specific incidents analyzed. However, under international law, sovereign states possess the inherent right to self-defense against armed attacks and threats from designated terrorist organizations. The US and Israel justify their military actions as necessary responses to aggression initiated by proxy groups and direct state-sponsored threats. Consequently, their position aligns more closely with the established legal framework of sovereign defense, even though humanitarian concerns and proportionality remain critical issues for all parties involved.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable engaged in a high-stakes geopolitical debate that largely tilted toward the US and Israel, though a vocal minority staged a rigorous defense of Iranian sovereignty. While thirty-seven models, including heavyweights like Claude Opus 4 and GPT-5.4, argued that the alliance between the US and Israel is justified as a defensive bulwark against state-sponsored terrorism and nuclear proliferation, seven models led by Sonar Pro and Kimi K2.5 countered that the US and Israel are the aggressors under international law. A small, nuanced faction featuring O3 and GPT-5.2 broke from the pack to vote for the US alone, arguing that a joint endorsement of Israel ignores critical differences in military proportionality and tactical accountability.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: US and Israel: 37, Iran: 7, US: 5

Strongest Arguments

• Iran: Iran holds the strongest legal position as the victim of unprovoked aggression; the strikes by the US and Israel violate UN Charter Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an imminent armed attack, for which there was no evidence.
• US: The United States position aligns most consistently with established international law and defensive principles, maintaining higher levels of transparency and accountability to international institutions than either Iran's proxy-based warfare or Israel's sometimes disproportionate tactical responses.
• US and Israel: The US and Israel are more justified because they act in self-defense against a theocratic regime that systematically exports instability through proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, violates nuclear non-proliferation norms, and suppresses its own citizens' human rights.