One day after US President Donald Trump publicly voiced dissatisfaction with Iran’s position in the nuclear talks, and in the wake of failed negotiations between US and Iranian officials to secure a nuclear accord, the United States and Israel initiated a coordinated military campaign against targets inside Iran. The offensive — launched at 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 28, 2026 — was branded “Operation Roaring Lion” by Israel and “Operation Epic Fury” by Washington. It unfolded amid a sustained and visible US military buildup across the Middle East. By the end of the first day, dozens of Iranians had reportedly been killed. In response, Iran launched synchronized missile barrages exceeding 200 missiles even before the close of the war’s first day, striking various Israeli provinces and cities. It then broadened the circle of retaliation by targeting US interests and bases in the Gulf and Arab countries. In strategic terms, this could indicate a breakdown in strategic communications with the high command, prompting the IRGC to make a reckless step by launching strikes against the Arab Gulf states.
These rapid escalations prompt a series of pressing questions regarding the scope, scale and underlying objectives of the joint US-Israeli action. Is the campaign designed as a sweeping assault targeting the establishment’s core power structures with the aim of precipitating its collapse? Or is it calibrated to compel full concessions and force Tehran into accepting a nuclear agreement on US terms? Alternatively, has Washington moved beyond coercive diplomacy toward an explicit strategy of regime change? How should Iran’s military and political responses be interpreted? How does Tehran appear to be assessing the joint strike? And in what principal respects does the current confrontation differ from the 12-Day War of June 2025?
Assessing the Joint Strikes Against Iran and Their Objectives
In a coordinated campaign, US and Israeli aircraft struck multiple provinces and urban centers in Iran. The following outlines the principal features of the current round in comparison with the 12-Day War of June 2015:
Timing of the US- Israeli Strikes
As in the earlier 12-day conflict — when Washington effectively granted Israel the green light to strike Iran while negotiations were ongoing — the present joint offensive coincided with talks taking place in Geneva. The distinction in this round was the heightened US demands, which Tehran views as humiliating. The Trump administration was reportedly seeking a defined framework and timetable compelling Iran to conclude a new nuclear agreement that would permanently end uranium enrichment, transfer enriched uranium abroad and curtail the range of its ballistic missiles. Tehran has rejected these conditions, maintaining that its concessions have limits.
The decision to launch the operation on a Saturday, and in broad daylight, appears calculated. As Saturday is a public holiday in Israel, civilian activity is reduced, potentially limiting casualties in the event of forceful Iranian retaliation against Israeli towns. This, in turn, mitigates the risk of further civilian deaths and injuries. Moreover, conducting the strikes during daylight — unlike the dawn assault that marked the conflict in 2025 — signals a tactical adjustment, particularly given Iran’s expectation of imminent hostilities and the diminished likelihood of strategic surprise.
Convergence of US and Israeli Objectives
Unlike the 12-Day War, during which Washington and Tel Aviv diverged — Washington sought primarily to neutralize nuclear and missile threats, and Israel pursued regime change — the current round suggests greater alignment. This convergence is reflected in the joint initiation of hostilities, in contrast to the earlier conflict, which began as an Israeli operation later backed by the United States.
Statements issued on the morning of the war by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed to a declared objective: the overthrow of the Iranian leadership as an ultimate and non-negotiable aim. Israeli sources have indicated that the first phase of operations may last four days, describing it as an extension of the earlier conflict. A US source, however, suggested that strikes could continue for approximately 10 days under the joint plan, which presently centers on the following priorities:
- US priorities: Targeting the Iranian nuclear program and strategic assets linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the government.
- Israeli priorities: Targeting missile depots, production facilities, launch platforms and the targeting of Iranian officials.
Dismantling Iranian Leadership Capabilities as a Central Objective
In contrast to the 12-Day War — the stated aim of which was to disrupt Iran’s command-and-control architecture as a precursor to potential regime collapse — the current joint Israeli-US campaign appears to prioritize, explicitly and from the outset, the systematic degradation and destruction of the establishment’s capabilities. This has involved direct strikes on sovereign, political and military institutions.
According to available details (see Table 1), the operation has targeted key political and military centers of importance, including the Presidential Complex (Presidential Palace), parts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs headquarters located in the south of the capital and the reported complete destruction of the supreme leader’s residence in central Tehran. Such actions mark a qualitative shift: the direct targeting of high-level political bodies in Iran, a step neither Israel nor the United States had undertaken in previous rounds of confrontation with Tehran.
Simultaneously, the Iranian military apparatus has been struck with precision. Targets have included defense, missile and media institutions, with a focus on Tehran and select strategic locations across other provinces. Ballistic missile and drone production facilities have also been hit. These actions suggest a coordinated US-Israeli strategy designed to erode the governing system’s military and security preparedness. Should this approach achieve its intended objectives, it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the country’s overall military readiness.
Table 1: The Major Provinces Hit by US-Israeli Strikes
| Cities and Provinces | Aftermath | Cities and Provinces | Aftermath |
| Tehran | Loud explosions were heard in central Tehran, including around Pasteur Street. Blasts were also reported in Keshvar-e Doost and Seyed Khandan. Eastern Tehran was targeted, where most military command centers are located. Mehrabad Airport was hit. Strikes also targeted University Street and the Jomhouri district. Shahriar, west of Tehran, was attacked as well. The area surrounding the supreme leader’s residence was reportedly targeted by Israeli jets or missiles. The Adliyeh district in eastern Tehran and the Parchin site were also struck. Israel reportedly hit the Armed Forces General Staff headquarters in eastern Tehran, though that remains unconfirmed. Khamenei’s residence in Tehran was said to have been completely destroyed. The strike was described as a message reflecting a US desire to dismantle and uproot the Iranian ruling establishment | Isfahan | It remains unclear whether the strikes targeted nuclear facilities or military institutions and air defense systems. |
| Sistan and Baluchistan | Military bases in Konarak were attacked | Ahwaz | Targets were struck in Andimeshk and Dezful. |
| Gilan | Adliyeh in Rasht was reportedly targeted by Israel (unconfirmed) | Shiraz | Explosions heard on the outskirts of the city |
| Kerman | The Tharallah Brigade headquarters northeast of Kerman was targeted | Chabahar | Military bases in Chabahar were attacked |
| West Azerbaijan | Targets in Urmia were shelled; the details remain unclear | East Azerbaijan | Targets in Tabriz were shelled; the details remain unclear |
| Hormozgan | Sites in Minab were struck, including a girls’ elementary school, killing more than 50 students | Qazvin | Explosions were heard in Abyek County |
| Other provinces | Multiple sites were struck, and explosions were heard in Kermanshah, Lorestan and Bushehr. |
Source: The Iranian News Agency
Invoking Historical Narratives to Justify Strikes on Iran
During the conflict in 2025, Israel’s rationale for striking Iran was straightforward, mainly Tehran’s support for Hamas and allied groups involved in Israel’s assault against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. In the current round, Trump has framed the strikes within a broader historical narrative, citing past incidents such as the US hostage crisis in Iran, the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, the assassinations of multiple US ambassadors globally and attacks on US military targets and bases in the Middle East carried out by Iranian proxies. Trump emphasized that the United States had repeatedly offered Iran opportunities during negotiations, but Tehran allegedly stalled while continuing to advance its ballistic missile program and target civilians during the recent mass protests.
This historical framing serves as a clear US justification for extensive retaliatory action, positioning the strikes as responses to Iran’s long history of aggression against US interests worldwide.
Absence of Strategic Surprise in the Current Round
Unlike the 12-Day War, which relied heavily on the element of strategic surprise — resulting in the assassination of senior military and political officials, scientists and nuclear experts, as well as the destruction of missile and drone production facilities — the current campaign lacks this advantage. Both Iran and the international community were aware that hostilities were imminent. Tehran had signaled that it had reached the limit of concessions it could offer, a threshold rejected by the US president. The large-scale US military buildup in the region, withdrawals from key bases, and the evacuation of US personnel, citizens and diplomats, including from Israel a day prior to the strikes, all indicated the inevitability of war. Senior Iranian military and political officials publicly affirmed Tehran’s preparedness, reinforcing this expectation.
Limited Effectiveness of Targeting Command-and-Control Structures
In a scene reminiscent of the decapitation of command-and-control structures during the 12-Day War —through the elimination of a large number of military leaders, Israeli sources reported the fall of a significant number of senior military and political officials. Meanwhile, Iranian authorities officially announced the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the airstrikes that targeted his headquarters on Saturday morning, following prior confirmations from officials that he had been relocated to a secure location.
Cyberattacks and Electronic Warfare
In contrast to the conflict in 2025, the United States and Israel — according to Iranian sources — have launched an extensive campaign of cyberattacks and hacking operations targeting Iranian data centers. Iran’s cyber security authorities confirmed that these operations were designed to disrupt daily life and undermine public morale. Subsequent reports indicated that major news agency websites, including IRNA, ISNA and Mehr, were either hacked or experiencing significant access difficulties. NetBlocks reported a sudden 50% drop in communications across the country, while Arvan radar data showed that the connection of all Iranian data centers to the internet had been either severed or heavily disrupted.
Overall, the current round differs markedly from the one in 2025 (see Table 2) in terms of scale, objectives, responses and potentially the actors involved, suggesting that the confrontations are becoming more open, extensive and multidimensional.
Table 2: Comparison of the Current US-Israeli Strikes on Iran With the 12-Day War
| Points of Comparison | The Late February War (2026) | The 12-Day War (2025) | |
| 1 | Starting day | Saturday morning, February 28, 2026 | Friday dawn, June 13, 2025 |
| 2 | Objectives | US-Israeli goals aligned on regime overthrow as an ultimate, non-negotiable objective | US and Israeli goals diverged: Washington aimed to eliminate the nuclear threat, while Israel sought regime change |
| 3 | The mechanism of toppling the ruling system | Complete destruction and crippling of the establishment’s capabilities | Striking Iran’s command-and-control system. |
| 4 | Justifications for the strikes | Invoking historical narratives in striking Iran | Iran providing support and backing to proxies in the Middle East against Israel |
| 5 | The element of surprise | Strongly at play | Not at play at all |
| 6 | The command-and-control apparatus | Very much intact | Very much intact |
Characteristics of Iran’s Retaliatory Missile Strikes
Iran appears to have implemented a well-defined strategy for responding to the joint US-Israeli strikes, aimed at exerting maximum pressure by raising the costs for Washington and Tel Aviv while demonstrating Tehran’s seriousness. The strategy combines rapid retaliation with strikes across multiple Middle Eastern countries.
Rapid Iranian Retaliation Against Israel
Unlike the delayed response during the 12-Day War, when shock and heavy casualties among military officials slowed action, Iran’s reaction in this round was almost immediate. Utilizing drones and missiles — including the Khorramshahr 4 — the time between the initial strikes and Iran’s counterattack did not exceed approximately 40 minutes, signaling a high state of military readiness. Israel anticipated this rapid response, triggering sirens in multiple areas as a precautionary warning, closing shops and restricting public gatherings. The IRGC reported the start of a large-scale missile and drone offensive on Israel, with explosions reported in Tel Aviv, northern and southern Israel, including Jerusalem, Haifa, the Upper Galilee and Safed.
Expanding the Target Range to US Bases in Arab States
Departing from the previous round and with the aim to inflict higher costs on Israel and the United States to stop the war, Iran’s strategy included striking US bases and interests in five Gulf states — Qatar, Bahrain (home to the US Fifth Fleet), the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — alongside explosions reported in Jordan and Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan. In the prior conflict, Gulf bases were only symbolically targeted late in the war, mainly in Qatar. This course of action constitutes a miscalculation on Iran’s part, one that will reinforce the resolve of regional states to take additional steps to safeguard their security and stability. It will also strengthen the solidarity between Arab and Gulf countries against those aggressors threatening their security and stability.
The Irrelevance of Red Lines in Iran’s Response
Iranian leaders recognize the current strikes as a decisive and existential confrontation aimed at toppling the governing system by destroying its centers of power. Consequently, Tehran’s responses have disregarded conventional red lines to maximize pressure and signal that any US-Israeli attack will provoke a proportional or greater response. The core message is clear: if Washington and Tel Aviv can carry out their threats, Iran can escalate and inflict substantial damage in return. In line with this assessment, official Iranian statements indicate targeted strikes against:
- The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.
- US bases across four Gulf states, Jordan and Erbil in Iraq.
Iranian strategic assessments frame this round as an existential battle determining the establishment’s fate: either its collapse and comprehensive political change or its continuation in power. Tehran appears prepared to employ all available measures of influence and military pressure, prioritizing regime survival even if it means risking broader state capabilities.
Table 3: Comparison of Iran’s Response in the Current Round to the 12-Day War
| Points of Comparison | The Late February War (2026) | The 12-Day War (2025) | |
| 1 | Timing of response | Rapid response — within 40 minutes of the joint US-Israeli strikes | Delayed response — several hours later than the Israeli strikes due to shock and the high number of casualties experienced in the military leadership |
| 2 | Nature of response | At the start of the war, Iran struck US bases in four Gulf countries to raise costs and pressure the United States and Israel | During the entire Twelve-Day War, Iran limited its response to strikes on Israel only, except on the final day, when it targeted US bases in Doha |
| 3 | The red lines | It is clear that Iran ignored US and Israeli red lines, potentially escalating into full-scale confrontations across all fronts | Iran adhered to some US red lines, keeping its strikes limited. |
The Position of Iran’s Axis As Well As of Regional and International Actors
Perhaps the positions of all parties involved in the current confrontation between the United States and Iran are not yet fully clear, but the most important reactions, and what is expected from the war by regional and international powers and by various proxies, can be outlined as follows:
Reaction of Iran’s Axis
Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Khamenei reportedly framed the impending confrontation as potentially his final battle, while some clerics threatened to issue a fatwa calling for a “global jihad against arrogance.” This religious symbolism appears designed primarily to mobilize domestic and regional support, projecting the conflict as a sacred struggle that extends beyond Iran’s borders.
Once the war began, statements of solidarity emerged from Iran’s regional allies. The Islamic Jihad Movement in the occupied territories declared its support for Tehran, framing the strikes as an attack on the entire nation and calling on all free people and active forces to engage in confronting the aggression. This alignment from Palestinian factions, largely Sunni, is symbolically significant for Iran, which seeks to involve diverse regional actors, though in practical military terms this front may have limited operational capacity due to the near-total destruction of its capabilities during the Gaza conflict.
On another critical front, Yemen’s Houthi group, Ansar Allah, condemned the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, stating that the strikes “aim to break the deterrence equation and pave the way for targeting everyone.” Analysts expect Yemen to be a major avenue of support for Iran, as the Houthis retain considerable capabilities not diminished by previous conflicts, including control over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which allows them to disrupt navigation through this strategically vital passage.
In Iraq, the “Coordination of Resistance,” comprising multiple armed factions, issued a statement prior to the outbreak of hostilities declaring its readiness to join the war alongside Iran if conflict erupted. The statement identified all US bases in Iraq as potential targets. The three recent attacks on the US base in Erbil appear to be part of a campaign by Iraqi factions — particularly Iraqi Hezbollah — to support Iran. This group had previously announced plans to retaliate against US bases in response to perceived aggression. Analysts suggest that Iraqi factions may open an active front in support of Iran, especially if the conflict continues over an extended period, viewing a US-Israeli victory over Iran as a strategic loss that could weaken their political position in Baghdad.
On the Lebanese front, the secretary-general of Hezbollah responded to the US military buildup and the threat of strikes on Iran by stating that the party would not remain neutral. While Hezbollah has not yet participated in any attacks, its ideological alignment with Tehran suggests it could become militarily involved should the conflict persist. At the same time, Israeli military pressure and domestic Lebanese government efforts to disarm Hezbollah may influence its level of engagement. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam emphasized that his government would not tolerate “anyone dragging the country into adventures that threaten its security and unity,” amid the escalation of US-Israeli strikes against Iran.
Responses of Regional and International Actors
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi engaged in discussions with his counterparts in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar, signaling that Tehran’s current focus is primarily on countering US interests rather than confronting these Gulf states directly. Nevertheless, Iran’s recent attacks on several Gulf states constitute clear violations of international law, prompting strong responses from the affected states.
Historically, the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have opposed any US military action against Iran and denied access to their airspace. They actively supported diplomatic channels. However, following Iranian assaults on the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait, these countries condemned the attacks and reaffirmed their readiness to defend their territories.
Saudi Arabia, which was not directly targeted, expressed solidarity with the attacked Gulf states and with Jordan. Riyadh condemned Iran’s actions, called on the international community to confront Tehran’s violations and emphasized its readiness to support regional allies. Precautionary travel measures were also taken in anticipation of further escalation. Jordan declared its neutrality, rejecting involvement in regional conflicts, while defending its sovereignty. It intercepted projectiles that breached its airspace, even if they were not aimed at Jordanian territory.
Qatar condemned both the attacks on its own territory and assaults on neighboring countries, asserting its right to respond. The UAE reported intercepting several Iranian ballistic missiles, describing the strikes as a “dangerous escalation and a cowardly act.” Bahrain confirmed that attacks had targeted facilities within its borders from outside, in violation of its sovereignty, and its security forces activated emergency response protocols. Omani mediation, voiced through Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, criticized US and Israeli strikes on Iran. “Neither the interests of the United States nor the cause of global peace are well served by this [US-Israeli strikes on Iran],” Busaidi wrote on X.
Pakistan also condemned the Iranian attacks during a call between its Foreign Minister and Araghchi, urging an immediate de-escalation and the urgent resumption of diplomacy to achieve a negotiated solution. Other regional actors, including Türkiye and Egypt, while condemning Iran’s attacks, support the diplomatic track and oppose escalation.
International responses are crystallizing. Russia’s Foreign Ministry denounced the US and Israeli strikes as reckless actions threatening regional stability, aiming to destabilize Iran for resisting Washington and Tel Aviv. Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev criticized Trump for the attacks.
European powers, largely excluded from pre-war negotiations in Geneva, have followed the escalation closely. They have labeled Iran’s IRGC as a terrorist organization and voiced concerns over the conflict. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Conte urged restraint. Individual European countries expressed reservations about military involvement: the UK refused the use of its bases in the Indian Ocean for attacks, France under President Emmanuel Macron stressed non-participation in the war while remaining ready to protect partners and Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Privotte lamented the failure of diplomacy.
Yet, as the conflict expands, some European countries may reconsider their stance, potentially engaging militarily to safeguard national or allied interests and to prevent further regional instability.
Potential Economic Consequences
Prior to the latest US-Israeli strikes, Iran was already grappling with a severe economic crisis triggered by earlier Israeli and US strikes eight months ago. The country faced a dramatic collapse of its local currency, which had lost over 90% of its value against foreign currencies, alongside inflation exceeding 40%, rising poverty and unemployment, a widening budget deficit and a critical shortage of financial resources. These pressures compounded existing economic, social, environmental and living challenges that the government struggled to address.
The outbreak of the current war is expected to intensify these economic hardships, both within Iran and across the region and beyond. The scale of the impact will largely depend on whether the conflict expands or remains limited. If the war is contained within a few days, Iran will bear the brunt, experiencing further sharp devaluation of its currency — potentially by up to 30% — alongside turmoil in financial markets, falling stock indices and capital flight to safe-haven assets such as foreign currencies, gold and real estate. Prices for essential goods, especially food and beverages, are likely to surge, further eroding citizens’ incomes and savings, given Iran’s heavy dependence on imports. In addition, the conflict threatens financial, civil and industrial infrastructure, including production facilities, service sites, airports, ports, refineries and factories, as well as energy exports and tourism revenues.
Regionally and internationally, oil markets are expected to react swiftly, as roughly 20% of global oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Prices could spike to $80–$90 per barrel from pre-war levels of around $65, with the ultimate rise depending on the duration and intensity of the conflict. Higher costs for production, shipping and insurance will also push up global commodity prices. Safe-haven assets, particularly gold, are likely to see sharp gains. The war could damage Gulf markets’ reputation as secure investment hubs, disrupt trade through major ports such as Dubai and temporarily depress regional financial markets, though stability is expected to return once hostilities subside.
In the event of a wider war involving Iran, Israel and the United States, the economic repercussions would be severe for both Iran and the global economy. For Iran, attacks on critical economic infrastructure —including oil and gas refineries, export terminals and financial institutions — could set the country back by years, effectively paralyzing the economy. All key macroeconomic indicators — growth, budget balances, exchange rates and inflation — would deteriorate sharply. Oil exports could come to a halt, financial and commodity markets would face turmoil, essential goods shortages would emerge, and overall security could collapse until political and social control is restored. The Iranian economic system itself could undergo structural changes, contingent on the survival or collapse of the current political system. However, the nature of this potential economic system relies on the orientation of the upcoming political system and the extent of political consensus at home. If the IRGC consolidates control, it could attempt to enforce its economic dominance, producing further uncertainty.
Iranian retaliation —such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or targeting energy and economic infrastructure in Gulf states — could push oil prices to unsustainable levels, potentially around $130 per barrel. Elevated risks would drive up shipping, insurance and maritime transport costs, destabilizing global markets and potentially triggering stagflation, imported inflation and a slowdown in major economies. The Gulf states would face heightened economic and financial pressures, with capital flight undermining government budgets, financial and real estate markets and the stability of goods and services.
Potential Scenarios
The onset of US and Israeli military strikes against Iran has thrust the region into a critical phase of strategic tension, where military, political and economic considerations converge among all actors. Early indicators suggest multiple potential trajectories for the conflict, ranging from limited escalation aimed at redefining deterrence, to a broader regional confrontation involving additional states, with the possibility of rapid international interventions or unforeseen developments that could dramatically reshape the crisis.
First Scenario: Reciprocal Deterrence and Calculated Escalation While Avoiding a Full-Scale War
One potential scenario involves mutual deterrence and measured escalation without triggering full-scale war. In this scenario, the strikes are not intended to topple the Iranian establishment, contrary to public statements from Washington and Tel Aviv, but to recalibrate the balance of deterrence. Following the operation, the United States and Israel could declare that their objectives have been met while keeping diplomatic channels open. The aim would be to pressure Iran into significant concessions on its nuclear program, particularly in light of ongoing negotiations in Geneva. The military threat thus functions as leverage in a high-stakes bargaining process, rather than as a tool for regime change.
From Tehran’s perspective, internal vulnerabilities suggest a reluctance to engage in a large-scale military conflict. Instead, Iran appears likely to apply tactical pressure beyond its borders by targeting sites linked to US forces and expanding tensions to several Gulf capitals. This approach represents a pragmatic form of escalation, combining military and strategic signaling, designed to influence US and Israeli operations and to strengthen Iran’s negotiating position on its nuclear program, without fully committing to all-out war.
Second Scenario: Accelerated International Containment
In this scenario, the crisis quickly transforms into a source of global economic concern, especially if oil prices rise sharply or maritime supply chains come under threat. These developments push the major powers toward urgent action to cap escalation. The central indicator here is the speed of the shift from military rhetoric to the language of restraint and preventing the war from expanding, accompanied by an almost complete freeze of operations just a few days after they began.
Third Scenario: Wider-Scale Military Escalation Leading to the Collapse of the Iranian Government
This scenario is based on the simultaneous Israeli and US statements declaring that the ultimate objective of the attacks is to bring down the regime, coupled with Netanyahu’s direct call to the Iranian people to do their part — namely, to take to the streets en masse to accelerate its overthrow. This indicates that the conflict has transcended the stage of limited deterrent messages, entering a phase of direct, strategically consequential confrontation. The strikes were not confined to traditional military installations; they extended to the establishment’s key centers of political and security influence, including the residence and offices of the supreme leader in Tehran — underscoring the seriousness of the assault on the apex of command. Iran’s swift retaliation, which expanded to target US bases across the region, similarly reflects the system’s recognition that this is an existential, fate-deciding war whose declared aim is regime collapse, necessitating a forceful response to avert its downfall. Given the explicit goal of Washington and Tel Aviv, this scenario represents the intended outcome for the attacking states. Nevertheless, definitively achieving it remains premature, and the coming days will likely clarify whether such an outcome materializes.
In conclusion, and in light of the current developments in the joint US-Israeli war against Iran — along with the nature and scope of Iran’s military responses, which have surpassed traditional face-saving retaliations involving the deployment of some of its cards to escalate costs for the United States and Israel by broadening the war’s scope and battlefields — it is plausible to anticipate a scenario of expanding conflict into a full-scale, open-ended war encompassing all possibilities, including the overthrow of the Iranian establishment. This stems from Israel’s success in convincing the US president that the negotiation track is a waste of time and yields no results with the Iranian government, leaving regime change as the most effective solution to address the entire Iranian issue comprehensively. Consequently, we observe that the United States, in this phase, has entered the war through direct military partnership with Israel for the first time — after previously limiting itself to providing military support to Israel during Operation Rising Lion 2 and merely endorsing Operation Rising Lion 1 — coupled with the US president’s explicit statements outlining a clear strategic objective of toppling the leadership. Undoubtedly, however, this scenario will entail significant costs, as the Iranian establishment has nothing left to lose once its downfall is targeted; it will proceed to utilize all its leverage to prevent its collapse and maximize costs against the United States and Israel in order to halt the war. Therefore, the war’s evolutions in the coming few days remain open to all possibilities, potentially leading toward a comprehensive conflict and perhaps transitioning to a phase of targeting the Iranian navy to fully paralyze Iran’s capabilities — while anticipating Tehran’s move to completely close the Strait of Hormuz and possibly involve its regional proxies in the war should they sense the establishment’s imminent fall.
