.jpg)
Lidiya Zhang explores the US and Israel's war on Iran.
On Feb. 28, the US and Israel launched a “surprise air campaign” against Iran, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury.” American and Israeli jets struck several sites across Iran, with targets including the nuclear and missile facilities. President Donald Trump labelled the attacks as “major combat operations” to stop Iran’s weapons programs. Iran’s arsenal can inflict serious damage on regional targets and shipping. US and Israeli forces report having hit more than 1,000 targets in Iran, with Israeli missiles hitting Tehran and at least six other cities simultaneously. US aircraft and drones have reportedly sunk at least nine Iranian warships so far. US officials described the targets as “large and important” vessels. Taken together, the US military says it is in a “multi-day campaign” and has “full up” munitions for an “indefinite” bombardment. President Khamenei was killed on the 28th of February, marking the first-ever direct killing of a country’s top ruler by a foreign strike.
Iran responded by firing missiles and drones into neighbouring states that host US assets; Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait all reported intercepting Iranian missiles or drones over their territories. Iran’s state media argued these strikes were lawful forms of self-defence.
The Iranian Red Crescent Society reported over 1,200 killed and 3,600 wounded in the first days of the conflict. Many among the dead were children—a US missile strike on a girls’ school in Minab killed 175 girls and staff. The strikes also killed senior commanders and nuclear scientists. Power and water networks were knocked out in several cities, and Iran’s currency, the Iranian rial, is decreasing rapidly.
At the time of writing, the US reports that seven service members were killed, with roughly upwards of one hundred injured as a result of the conflict. On the political front, American support has eroded, with polls showing that a narrow plurality of US voters disapprove of the strikes. Congress voices concern about the risk of a protracted war.
Domestic and Regional Developments
Inside Iran, state TV and social media showed crowds chanting “Death to America” and flying flags in solidarity with the regime. Videos of protests in Tehran show hundreds of demonstrators outside a mosque. Many cheered for commanders and denounced the US-Israeli strikes as “barbaric aggression”. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson framed Iran’s counterattacks as fully justified “defensive actions” under international law. Government media highlight the martyrdom of schoolgirls and firefighters.
Large-scale antigovernment protests in Iran have not resumed; most demonstrations have been pro-regime. Professor Scott Lucas of UCD, a researcher in US-Iran relations, notes that attacking Iran may rally its people behind the theocratic leadership. “If the Americans choose to attack, it [...] completely undermines Iranians who are seeking rights, reform, and justice,” Lucas warned. In other words, heavy US strikes could strengthen hardliners and simultaneously silence domestic dissent. Iranian opposition activists claimed they are “not cheering war,” rather, they dread that the conflict will entrench the very rulers they oppose.
The United States maintains a vast military network across the Middle East, centred on dozens of bases and warships prepared to respond to any crisis. In early 2026, roughly 40,000 US troops were deployed across the region; this is up from about 30,000 personnel in previous years. Iran, for its part, owns fewer conventional forces but large missile and proxy capabilities. Iran’s more potent advantage is its ballistic missiles; US estimates put Iran’s total missile stockpile at over 3,000 warheads. Even after recent fighting, analysts claim Iran still retains on the order of 1,500 missiles and some 200 launchers.
Russia and China have so far backed Iran diplomatically, while the European Union condemned the loss of life and is strongly urging de-escalation. The US has rallied some NATO allies, with Britain and France dispatching ships with Tomahawk missiles to the region; several European countries offered to host US fighters and air defences.
Iran’s Arab allies have largely stayed neutral for now. Syria and Iraq’s Shiite-led governments denounced the strikes but did not enter the fighting. Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait, which had helped mediate prior US-Iran talks, condemned the “unprovoked attack” and withdrew ambassadors from the US; Kuwait halted fuel exports to the US in protest.
US parallels and objectives
Strategically, the US-Israel campaign has opted for a “high-intensity air campaign” aimed at destroying Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities; this is generally viewed as an ideal alternative to a full-scale ground war. US and Israeli officials allegedly focus on targeting only military sites, not civilians. However, the civilian death toll has been significant. There is the belief that the current operation is a “shock-and-awe” phase, intended to decapitate Iran’s offensive power and lower Iranian morale. An initial aerial bombing paired with claims about imminent threats and weapons programs greatly parallels the early phases of the Iraq War against Saddam Hussein’s forces in 2003. Unlike 2003, however, this war has so far been confined to airstrikes. Trump and his advisors are seemingly looking to avoid a future in which US troops enter Iran.
And yet no promises have been made renouncing troop deployment or draft procedures, likely attributed to the fact that the primary objective of this war has been anything but transparent. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly insisted the goal was not regime change; however, the US President has not ruled out influencing Iran’s leadership after the fighting. On March 4, Trump declared that Washington “should have a say” in choosing Iran’s next leader. This is similar to the era of “leading from behind” in installing new governments in Baghdad and Kabul.
Iranian officials point to historical grievances as the reason for the war. In 1979, Iran’s revolution was partly born of resentment toward US interference, as seen in events such as the 1953 coup. Today, Tehran shows Western strikes as a new imperial campaign. Foreign Minister Baghaei warned that the US “launching an act of aggression against another member of the United Nations” jeopardises the entire post-World War II order. The conflict is framed as a David-versus-Goliath fight, and neutral states are called on to demand a ceasefire.
Neither side expects a quick ending to this conflict. US leaders privately planned for a campaign lasting weeks, even months. Many agree that the rubble of bombed buildings alone cannot resolve Iran’s political system. The Stimson Center has noted that air power can damage Iran’s infrastructure, but “air strikes alone cannot topple a government” as these are “entrenched behind” layers of loyalist forces and religious ideology. A US ground presence labelled as “stability operations” or “counterinsurgency” could become foreseeable if Iran remains resolute.