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.'
Why does it matter?
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.
What does the AP consider?
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.
What are previous examples of conflicts where the AP issued guidance to use the word 'war'?
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.
Why is it 'war' and not 'War'?
AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist.
Could the guidance change?
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
Japan Forward
2 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Immigration in Japan: Understanding Who is a Refugee
このページを 日本語 で読む Criticisms such as "Japan is cold toward refugees" or "Japan accepts very few refugees" frequently appear in the media. In the past, there may have been a basis to think so. But, I have worked in immigration and refugee support for decades. I believe it's important to highlight that Japan has a nearly 50-year history of accepting and assisting refugees. Fourth in the Series. Read the series, Immigration in Japan Recent years have seen a sharp rise in displaced persons and refugees. This has been driven by events such as the military coup in Myanmar, the Taliban's return in Afghanistan, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In response to these crises, Japan has offered protection by granting various forms of legal status to those seeking asylum. Unlike some countries, Japan does not take a blanket approach to granting refugee status based solely on country or regional origin. This includes cases such as victims of severe food shortages and disease in the Congo, natural disaster survivors, or those fleeing conflict zones like Syria and Iraq. Each application is examined individually, and when there is a strong likelihood that the applicant qualifies as a refugee, they are granted refugee status. Even when an applicant does not meet the criteria for refugee status, Japan may give special humanitarian consideration specific to the individual's circumstances. When it is determined that those humanitarian circumstances warrant, special permission to stay beyond the normal period of their visa may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Japan's approach to refugee issues began to shift in a more positive direction after it signed the international conventions and developed a domestic legal framework in the 1980s. In Japan, the question of "Who qualifies as a refugee?" has been debated for many years. Japan joined the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (collectively referred to as the "Refugee Convention"). Since then, the government has consistently adhered to a strict interpretation of the definition when determining refugee status. So, what is a "refugee?" In summary, a refugee is someone who: "Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country." If even one of these criteria is not met, the person will not be granted refugee status. A family of Afghan refugees arrives on the outskirts of Chaman, a town in southwestern Pakistan near the Afghan border. April 3, 2025 (©AP via Kyodo News). Japan's approach to refugee issues began to shift in a more positive direction after it signed the international conventions and developed a domestic legal framework in the 1980s. Public support for Indochinese refugees during this period was especially commendable. Those included laudable efforts by the Refugee Assistance Headquarters of the Foundation for the Welfare and Education of the Asian People, other civic groups, and corporations. While there may be differing views on the number of refugees accepted, that debate should not overshadow Japan's efforts. The fact that the country continued accepting Indochinese refugees until 2005 is something that deserves positive recognition. From the late 1990s to the early 2010s, the number of asylum applications increased significantly. This period also saw the rise of the internet and affordable international travel booking systems, making the global refugee situation more visible and accessible. For applicants, the world became a more easily connected place. In 2024, 12,373 individuals applied for refugee status in Japan. That marked a decrease of 1,450 applicants, about 10.5% lower than the 2023 high of 13,823 applications. Notably, of these, 1,355 applicants (roughly 11%) had previously filed for refugee status. Refugee applicants came from 92 different countries in 2024, with the most common nationalities being Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, India, and Pakistan. Particularly, applicants claiming to be Thai nationals accounted for 2,128 cases, a dramatic, elevenfold surge from just 184 cases in 2023. Thailand thus ranked as the second largest nationality group, after Sri Lanka. One possible reason for this spike is the tightened crackdown on illegal employment in South Korea, which has long accepted large numbers of foreign workers. As a result, some observers believe that Thai labor brokers involved in undocumented employment are now redirecting their operations toward Japan. Japan's current policy focuses on accurately identifying and supporting those who genuinely need protection. To achieve this, the government is working to enhance the transparency of the application process, reinforce the administrative and institutional foundations of refugee support, improve the analysis and sharing of country-of-origin information, and train personnel involved in processing refugee claims. But it all depends on understanding who is a refugee. It's necessary to process applications quickly and fairly. Ensuring that employment permissions for applicants during the application process are handled properly is also an important issue. Misuse and abuse of the system require careful and appropriate responses. Especially egregious cases of abuse should be dealt with strictly for the sake of the applicants. This is also essential to maintaining long-term trust in the system. The Refugee Convention is based on the sovereignty of nations and the importance of borders. As it defines a refugee under the treaty, those who flee for reasons other than persecution would not be considered refugees. Nevertheless, terms like "persecution" and "fear," along with the qualifier "well-founded," are abstract and ultimately left to each country's interpretation. In other words, states are permitted some flexibility to apply the definition in ways that align with their national interests. Taking national differences into account, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) later developed more standardized guidelines. In its Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, the UNHCR calls on countries to apply a consistent interpretation of what defines a refugee. Over half a century has passed since the Refugee Convention was established. While its core principles remain, the circumstances that compel people to flee their homelands have become far more diverse than just persecution. Today, there are civil wars, large-scale political unrest involving both domestic and foreign actors, natural disasters, extreme poverty, and foreign occupation. As we have moved into the 21st century, globalization has sped up changes in how we live, work, govern, and connect, from our cultures and economies to politics and technology. These days, people around the world can access information and communicate across borders with ease and at little cost. A malnourished child receiving treatment in Port Sudan, northeastern Sudan. The country remains gripped by civil war. September 2024 (©Reuters via Kyodo). Social media and widespread internet access have fueled dreams of safe, prosperous societies. They have also spread admiration for democracy, an ideal that transcends race, religion, and national borders. Its influence now seems almost limitless. However, the gap between these digital ideals and the reality of the international system is growing quickly. I believe it remains essential that we respect the broadly recognized principle that decisions to accept refugees lie within the sovereign rights of each nation. Continues in Part Five: So, You Want to Live Here? Author: Fusako Yanase In addition to being an expert on immigration, Yanase is a best-selling author and former Honorary Chair of the Certified NPO Association for Aid and Relief, Japan. このページを 日本語 で読む
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Israel, Iran launch fresh attacks as war enters second week without diplomatic breakthrough
Hours of talks aimed at de-escalating fighting between Israel and Iran failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough as the war entered its second week with a fresh round of strikes between the two adversaries. European ministers and Iran's top diplomat met for four hours Friday in Geneva, as President Donald Trump continued to weigh U.S. military involvement and worries rose over potential strikes on nuclear reactors. European officials expressed hope for future negotiations, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he was open to further dialogue while emphasizing that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the U.S. while Israel continued attacking. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes,' he told reporters. No date was set for the next round of talks. European leaders' meeting with Iran leaves room for more talks, but no breakthrough Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and arsenal of ballistic missiles. Israel's top general echoed the warning, saying the Israeli military was ready 'for a prolonged campaign.' But Netanyahu's goal could be out of reach without U.S. help. Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered to be out of reach to all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Trump said he would put off deciding whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran for up to two weeks. Analysis: Trump's two-week pause on Iran puts him at centre of world's biggest drama The war between Israel and Iran erupted June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multitiered air defenses, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Addressing an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. 'I want to make it absolutely and completely clear: In case of an attack on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment,' said Rafael Grossi, chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog. 'This is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences could be most serious.' Israel has not targeted Iran's nuclear reactors, instead focusing its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Grossi has warned repeatedly that such sites should not be military targets. Explainer: What are the risks of a nuclear disaster from Israel's attacks on Iran? After initially reporting no visible damage from Israel's Thursday strikes on the Arak heavy water reactor, the IAEA on Friday said it had assessed 'key buildings at the facility were damaged,' including the distillation unit. The reactor was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so the damage posed no risk of contamination, the watchdog said. Iran previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the U.S., France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60 per cent – a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent – and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but it is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60 per cent. Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear weapons program but has never acknowledged it. Israel said its warplanes hit dozens of military targets across Iran on Friday, including missile-manufacturing facilities, while an Iranian missile hit Israel's northern city of Haifa, sending plumes of smoke billowing over the Mediterranean port and wounding at least 31 people. Iranian state media reported explosions from Israeli strikes in an industrial area of Rasht, along the coast of the Caspian Sea. Israel's military had warned Iranians to evacuate the area around Rasht's Industrial City, southwest of the city's downtown. But with Iran's internet shut off – now for more than 48 hours – it's unclear how many people could see the message. The Israeli military believes it has destroyed most of Iran's ballistic missile launchers, contributing to the steady decline in Iranian attacks. But several of the roughly three dozen missiles that Israel said Iran fired on Friday slipped through the country's aerial defense system, setting off air-raid sirens across the country and sending shrapnel flying into a residential area in the southern city of Beersheba, a frequent target of Iranian missiles where a hospital was hit Thursday.
Toronto Star
3 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Israel-Iran war stretches into a second week without diplomatic breakthrough
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Hours of talks aimed at de-escalating fighting between Israel and Iran failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough as the war entered its second week with a fresh round of strikes between the two adversaries. European ministers and Iran's top diplomat met for four hours Friday in Geneva, as President Donald Trump continued to weigh U.S. military involvement and worries rose over potential strikes on nuclear reactors.
