A large-scale joint military operation between the United States and Israel targeting Iranian leadership and assets has been carried out, with U.S. President Donald Trump calling for “regime change” following a bloody crackdown on protests earlier in the year.
On Saturday, February 28, U.S. And Israeli forces struck hundreds of targets across the country, reportedly targeting several high-level leaders, including Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who, according to reports, was killed along with family members and key advisors.
The latest attack is being described as opening a “Pandora’s Box,” as there is currently no clear achievable objective or path to de-escalation. This contrasts with a previous operation in June, which was described as bold but limited, and met with a signaled response from Iran – a strike on a pre-evacuated U.S. Base in Qatar.
Iran had warned that it would retaliate prior to the strikes, and retains significant military power even in a weakened state. Reports indicate that Iran has been rebuilding its ballistic missile arsenal “at a rapid pace” since last June.
Iran has already launched hundreds of missiles at U.S. Bases and civilian targets belonging to allies. The development underscores growing regional tensions and raises concerns about a wider conflict.
Turning Point in Protests
According to a report in Foreign Affairs, President Trump’s initial impetus for the attack stemmed from protests that shook Iran in late December. The unrest began among Iranian merchants fearful of a collapsing national currency, but quickly spread across the country with calls to overthrow the regime.
This was followed by what has been described as an extremely violent crackdown on the protests, resulting in the deaths of at least several thousand people. On January 2, as the death toll rose, Trump warned that the U.S. Was prepared to support the protesters.
Previously, U.S. Responses typically consisted of statements regarding protesters’ rights, condemning rhetoric, and sanctions against individuals involved in the repression. This time, Trump, having already demonstrated a willingness to follow through on threats in June, raised the prospect of direct U.S. Intervention.
The initial response was economic, with the announcement of 25 percent tariffs on goods traded with Iran, followed by sanctions targeting Tehran’s “shadow banking” networks and regime officials. A second step involved Trump’s personal engagement with Elon Musk to counter Tehran’s internet blockade, and reports of thousands of “Starlink” devices being sent to Iran.
A third step was a brief suspension of diplomatic dialogue while the repression continued, accompanied by Trump’s call for Iranians to “continue protesting – grab over the institutions.”
Tehran, in turn, attempted to deter U.S. Intervention by threatening that any attack against the Islamic Republic, large or tiny, would be met with a significant response. U.S. Military personnel and assets, as well as those of its security partners in the region, would be potential targets, officials said.
Escalating Tensions
As tensions increased, U.S. Allies in the region reportedly urged Washington to proceed with caution, as they would be vulnerable to Iranian retaliatory actions. By mid-January, the U.S. Had bolstered its military presence in the region, including deploying two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of aircraft – the largest concentration of forces since the Iraq War over two decades ago.
With U.S. Forces mobilizing, Trump tightened an ultimatum to Tehran: the amassed force could strike “much more powerfully” than in June if Iran did not accept a “fair and just deal.” Such a deal, as described, would include at least a commitment from Iran to abandon its nuclear program, and more ambitiously, to halt the development of ballistic missiles and support for regional non-state allies.
Numerous contacts took place between regional intermediaries in an attempt to revive diplomacy, which had stalled after 12 days of fighting last year. In February, three separate rounds of negotiations were held in Oman and Switzerland, but fundamental disagreements remained regarding Iranian nuclear concessions and the easing of U.S. Sanctions.
Iran’s efforts to separate non-nuclear issues, including its missile program and support for non-state actors, likewise reportedly did not meet Washington’s expectations. Progress did not offset the accelerating trajectory toward confrontation, and “hawkish” voices in the U.S. And Israel reportedly pushed for military action.
In a State of the Union address, Trump stated that the Iranians are “back to their nefarious ambitions” in the nuclear sphere and “working on missiles that will soon reach the United States.” It was noted, however, that these threats were not considered inevitable.
While Tehran is not allowing international inspectors access to damaged nuclear facilities, U.S. Assessments indicate that uranium enrichment is not currently taking place. It was also stated that, following the disruption of Iran’s conventional capabilities after the June strikes, the prospect of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. Territory is a “year-away question.”
Despite this, on February 28, Trump gave the order to carry out the strikes, opening a conflict whose direction is now difficult to predict.
A Fight for Survival
Allowing retaliatory strikes against Israel and U.S. Bases in the Persian Gulf, Iran’s logic is understandable: any strike costing U.S. Lives and resources could be politically damaging to Trump, who had pledged to avoid military interventions.
Iran is hoping that Trump prefers limited, high-profile operations to prolonged and open campaigns. Tehran reportedly expects that by demonstrating the potential for unlimited escalation, it can deter Trump from continuing the campaign, as he halted a costly war against the Houthis in Yemen last year.
This could prove to be a miscalculation, as Iran has repeatedly overestimated its capabilities and underestimated the resolve of its adversaries since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. In the short term, the risk of escalation remains very high, and a U.S. Retreat following Iranian strikes may be less likely to produce Trump’s risky decision appear unsuccessful.
Other experts believe that the Iranian regime believes that external attacks will rally and unite Iranians under one flag. However, such thinking may be flawed, as the regime recently shed the blood of thousands of its own people. Nevertheless, if Trump’s plan is for air strikes to “finish the job from above” and Iranians to do so “from below,” this strategy also has little potential, as there are no such examples in world history.
More likely scenarios include greater control by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has already grow a significant political and economic force under Khamenei, or a prolonged civil upheaval.
As the Islamic Republic fights for its survival, predicting what happens next is impossible, but in any case, the changes will be profound.
Prepared based on information from Foreign Affairs.
