The Middle East edged closer to full-scale war in the early hours of February 28, 2026, as hundreds of American and Israeli missiles struck targets across Iran in what Washington has dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” a sweeping military campaign that appears to have shattered any remaining prospects for diplomacy and raised the specter of regime change in Tehran.
The scale and scope of the strikes — reportedly targeting nuclear facilities, ballistic missile infrastructure, military command centers and even senior leadership compounds — mark a dramatic escalation beyond previous confrontations between the United States, Israel and the Islamic Republic.
Iran has vowed a “crushing” response. Regional capitals are bracing for fallout. And analysts warn that the conflict now unfolding may prove fundamentally different from earlier episodes of calibrated retaliation and limited signaling.
In recent years, Iran has demonstrated a pattern of controlled escalation. After a U.S. drone strike in January 2020 killed General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, Tehran responded with missile attacks on two American bases in Iraq. Though significant, the strikes were carefully calibrated and appeared designed to avoid American fatalities.
Similarly, when U.S. and Israeli forces struck Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025, Tehran answered with a limited attack on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, home to U.S. Central Command’s forward headquarters. The exchange, while serious, stopped short of triggering a regionwide war.
This time, however, officials and experts say restraint may no longer be part of Iran’s calculus.
The February 28 barrage was preceded by months of American military buildup in the region, including the deployment of a second carrier strike group, additional fighter squadrons and expanded missile defense assets across Gulf states. U.S. officials framed the operation as a necessary response to what they described as Iranian noncompliance in nuclear negotiations and continued support for regional proxy forces.
President Donald Trump addressed the American public hours after the strikes began, describing the campaign as a decisive move to eliminate Iran’s “nuclear and ballistic missile threat once and for all.” In a video message directed at the Iranian people, he went further: “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”
The statement underscored what many observers interpret as an explicit embrace of regime change — a goal that successive U.S. administrations had publicly avoided, even while pursuing maximum pressure policies.
The military action comes despite months of diplomatic engagement in Oman and Geneva aimed at reviving a framework to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Talks had reportedly focused not only on uranium enrichment levels but also on Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and its support for proxy groups across the region — issues that Tehran has historically refused to place on the negotiating table.
While U.S. officials had signaled frustration with the pace of negotiations, there had been no public indication that talks were on the verge of collapse. Yet by February 26, after the latest round in Geneva, the tone from Washington had shifted noticeably. President Trump remained largely silent, even as military assets continued to flow into the region.
Now, any diplomatic off-ramp appears distant.
Iranian officials have declared the negotiations “void” in light of what they describe as unprovoked aggression. Foreign Ministry statements accuse Washington and Israel of seeking to “impose surrender” rather than pursue genuine compromise.
At the heart of Operation Epic Fury appears to be an effort to cripple Iran’s ballistic and cruise missile capabilities — long considered Tehran’s primary deterrent in the absence of a nuclear weapon.
During a 12-day conflict with Israel in June 2025, Iran launched more than 600 missiles, overwhelming portions of Israel’s air defense network and demonstrating its capacity for sustained barrages. Subsequent intelligence assessments suggested that Iran had replenished parts of its missile stockpile in the months since.
Initial reports indicate that U.S. and Israeli strikes have hit missile production facilities, storage depots, launch sites and command-and-control nodes. Satellite imagery circulating in regional media shows damage to facilities believed to house medium-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Gulf states and Israel.
Yet the fact that Iran has already launched missiles toward the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain suggests that its capabilities remain intact to a significant degree.
For Tehran, ballistic missiles are not merely weapons; they are a cornerstone of national security doctrine. Iranian officials have consistently rejected any attempt to include missile limitations in nuclear agreements, arguing that without them the country would be defenseless against technologically superior adversaries.
Perhaps the most consequential element of the operation has been its apparent targeting of Iran’s leadership.
Among the sites struck in Tehran was a compound associated with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Khamenei was among the intended targets. As of this writing, his status remains unclear.
If confirmed, the targeting of Iran’s highest authority would mark a dramatic escalation. Khamenei, 86, has led the Islamic Republic since 1989 and remains the ultimate arbiter of political and military decisions.
Decapitation strikes carry both strategic promise and profound risk. Removing senior leaders could disrupt command structures and embolden internal opposition. But it could also unify factions within the regime and galvanize nationalist sentiment against foreign intervention.
Analysts say Iran’s leadership is likely to interpret the operation as an existential threat.
Previous confrontations, including the Soleimani strike and the 2025 conflict, were painful but contained. This time, the combination of widespread military strikes and explicit regime-change rhetoric leaves little ambiguity about Washington’s ambitions.
Faced with such a threat, Tehran may feel unconstrained by the caution that characterized earlier responses. Iranian officials have warned that any attack on the country’s sovereignty would be met with measures that “transcend all previous equations.”
That could mean seeking American casualties — a step Tehran avoided in past episodes but one that might now be deemed necessary to restore deterrence.
President Trump has acknowledged the possibility of U.S. losses, stating that “there may be sacrifices” but arguing that the operation is essential to long-term security.
Even if Iran’s conventional capabilities have been degraded, it retains a web of unconventional tools.
The Quds Force, despite setbacks, maintains relationships with armed groups across the region. Hezbollah in Lebanon possesses an extensive rocket arsenal. Houthi forces in Yemen have demonstrated the ability to strike Gulf infrastructure and shipping lanes. Shia militias in Iraq have targeted American facilities before.
Coordinated or independent actions by these actors could widen the conflict dramatically. A sustained campaign against U.S. interests in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf would test Washington’s appetite for escalation.
Maritime security is another concern. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil passes, remains vulnerable. Even limited disruptions could send energy prices soaring and rattle global markets.
Western intelligence agencies are also on alert for potential terrorist operations beyond the Middle East. While Iran has historically exercised caution in this domain, the calculus may shift if leaders conclude that regime survival is at stake.
Operation Epic Fury carries significant legal and political implications at home.
Unlike the 2003 invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush, there is no explicit congressional authorization for the use of force against Iran. Administration lawyers are reportedly relying on the president’s Article II powers as commander in chief.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, however, the administration must notify Congress and faces a 60-day clock before requiring authorization for continued hostilities.
Some lawmakers have already questioned the legality of the operation, warning against an open-ended conflict without legislative backing. Others have rallied behind the president, framing the strikes as a necessary defense against an advancing nuclear threat.
Public opinion remains uncertain. Polls in recent years have shown limited appetite for large-scale military engagements in the Middle East. The prospect of U.S. ground troops in Iran — a scenario officials insist is not under consideration — would likely face significant resistance.
President Trump’s appeal to the Iranian public seeks to capitalize on internal unrest.
In January, widespread protests erupted across Iranian cities, fueled by economic hardship, political repression and anger at corruption. Security forces responded with force, and human rights groups reported thousands of deaths and arrests.
Whether those grievances translate into mass mobilization under the shadow of foreign bombardment is an open question.
History suggests that external attacks can rally populations around embattled governments, even unpopular ones. Yet Iran’s society is complex, and resentment toward the ruling elite runs deep.
For opposition activists, the dilemma is acute: oppose a regime many despise, or resist foreign intervention perceived as violating national sovereignty.
Much remains unknown in these early hours. Casualty figures among Iran’s leadership and military remain unconfirmed. The extent of damage to nuclear facilities and missile infrastructure is still being assessed.
What is clear is that both sides are operating under altered assumptions.
Washington appears to believe that overwhelming force, coupled with internal pressure, could tip the balance against Iran’s leadership. Tehran, viewing the assault as an existential challenge, may conclude that only dramatic escalation can restore deterrence.
Each miscalculation risks cascading consequences.
A successful strike causing significant American casualties could compel a harsher U.S. response. Conversely, an extended bombing campaign without decisive results could trap Washington in a protracted conflict it seeks to avoid.
Gulf states hosting U.S. bases now find themselves in the crosshairs. Missile defense systems have intercepted several projectiles, but officials acknowledge that not all threats can be neutralized.
The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have urged restraint while reaffirming security cooperation with Washington. Kuwait and Bahrain have heightened alert levels.
Israel, already engaged in periodic exchanges with Iranian-backed forces in Syria and Lebanon, has placed its military on high readiness.
Oil markets have reacted swiftly, with prices surging amid fears of supply disruptions. European and Asian governments have called for de-escalation, warning of global economic repercussions.
In prior crises, backchannel diplomacy provided avenues to step back from the brink. Oman has historically played a mediating role between Washington and Tehran. Switzerland has conveyed messages as the U.S. protecting power in Iran.
For now, those channels appear dormant.
If the initial wave of strikes was intended to coerce Iran into accepting U.S. demands, the effect may prove the opposite. Once blood is shed and leadership targeted, compromise becomes politically perilous.
The coming days will reveal whether Operation Epic Fury is a discrete campaign or the opening salvo of a sustained effort.
What seems certain is that the conflict has entered uncharted territory. The old pattern of symbolic retaliation and carefully managed escalation may no longer apply.
Iran’s regime faces what it perceives as an existential threat. Its response is unlikely to mirror the restraint of the past.
