Early Saturday, the U.S. and Israel began major combat operations against Iran, striking military sites, nuclear facilities, and leadership assets in Tehran and other cities under Operation Epic Fury. What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
Strategia-100, Chief Strategist:
Here’s the most up-to-date, verified — and ongoing — operational assessment of the reported U.S.-Israel military offensive against Iran that began early Saturday, 28 February 2026, often referred to in U.S. sources as Operation Epic Fury and in some Israeli sources as Operation Lion’s Roar. The situation is rapidly evolving; this summary reflects all major confirmed developments from multiple reliable news agencies.
🧭 1. Strategic Context & Course of Action
- Joint offensive launched — U.S. and Israeli forces initiated coordinated combat operations against Iran early Saturday, marking one of the most significant direct military engagements with Tehran in decades. This follows years of rising tensions over Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
- Operation naming:
- U.S. designation: Operation Epic Fury.
- Israeli component: Often reported domestically as Operation Lion’s Roar.
- The offensive is described by U.S. and Israeli leaders as pre-emptive and intended to degrade Iran’s strategic capabilities, particularly nuclear and missile infrastructure.
💥 2. Main Elements of the Offensive
a. Targets and Tactics
- Air and missile strikes hit military installations, nuclear infrastructure, missile bases, command & control centers, and regime assets in major Iranian cities including Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Tabriz, and Kermanshah.
- Iranian facilities struck reportedly include intelligence and defense ministry buildings, IRGC bases, missile storage, and nuclear research sites.
- Explosion reports and sirens were widespread in Tehran and across other urban areas early in the operation.
b. Leadership and Command
- Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was reportedly moved to a secure location amid the opening strikes.
c. Public Justification
- U.S. President Donald Trump framed the operation as defending U.S. security by eliminating “imminent threats” and targeting Iranian nuclear and missile capacity. He also issued a stark public ultimatum to Iranian forces and appealed directly to Iranian citizens to “rise up.”
- Israeli leaders portrayed the attack as self-defense against existential risks, a long-standing position in their strategic calculus.
🔁 3. Iranian Response & Escalation Dynamics
- Retaliatory strikes were reported by Iran, targeting U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and other regional locations. Some missile launches were intercepted.
- Iranian officials have declared that all U.S. and Israeli assets in the region are “legitimate targets” now that the conflict has begun, effectively signaling no restraint in future striking options.
🌍 4. Regional & International Reactions
- There are global calls for restraint, but major powers differ sharply:
- Some states condemn the offensive as destabilizing.
- Others highlight Iran’s now renewed threat.
- Diplomatic efforts that had been underway to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions reportedly collapsed in the face of these strikes.
⚠️ 5. On-the-Ground Realities & Uncertainties
- Civilian impact and casualties are not fully confirmed by independent international sources; media reports vary and should be treated cautiously.
- The duration and intensity of the conflict remain unpredictable — leaders in all capitals acknowledge risks of escalation beyond the current phase.
- Non-state actors (e.g., proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen) could widen the conflict footprint swiftly if triggered.
📌 Strategic Assessment (Standalone)
From a strategic perspective, this joint United States–Israel offensive marks a systemic shift from coercive containment and deterrence toward active regime-targeted military pressure on Iran. This move reflects a logic of decapitation and denial — aiming to disrupt Iran’s decision-making and strategic capacities at scale. According to classic strategic theory, such deep-strike paradigms significantly raise the likelihood of prolonged escalation, as the defending actor (Iran) is incentivized to retaliate asymmetrically and seek proxy leverage — potentially transforming a bilateral conflict into a regional conflagration. Echoing the security dilemma in international relations, actions calibrated as “defensive” by attackers can paradoxically advance insecurity for all major parties involved, especially in an environment where credibility, reputation, and deterrence interlink with domestic legitimacy calculations. Strategic planners must therefore anticipate not only battlefield effects but also broader systemic ripple effects, decision-cycle pressures within Tehran, and alliance cohesion dynamics among U.S. partners.
📊 Escalation Pathways & Scenario Projections
1️. Immediate (Days) — Kinetic Expansion Phase
Likely developments
- Ongoing cross-border artillery, missile, or drone exchanges between Iran and:
- U.S. bases (Bahrain/UAE/Qatar/Pentagon assets).
- Israeli airspace and regional allies.
- Increased air defense activity and civilian airspace closures across the Middle East.
Implications
- Regional militaries (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan) may be drawn into air defense postures or receive spillover hits.
- Humanitarian responses and evacuations intensify, leading to displacement pressures and panic.
Risk logic: In a high-intensity phase, each strike invites retaliation; this creates a positive feedback loop of kinetic escalation. This is consistent with classic escalation dynamics where defensive strikes provoke offensive countermeasures that widen the conflict footprint — not immediately, but very quickly.
2️. Near-Term (1–2 Weeks) — Regionalization Phase
There are three distinguishable escalation trajectories likely to compete:
A. Controlled Containment
- Diplomatic backchannels intensify (UN, EU, China, middle powers) to halt further escalation.
- Both sides could accept de-escalation if face-saving frameworks emerge (e.g., ceasefires tied to renewed negotiations).
Probability: Moderate
Risks: Limited spillover but elevated tensions remain.
B. Broader Gulf Engagement
- Iran and proxies (Hezbollah, Houthi forces, etc.) intensify attacks on U.S. allies or shipping in the Strait of Hormuz — a major strategic bottleneck.
- Gulf states may be forced to choose sides or upgrade defensive postures.
Triggers
- Strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure or closing of Hormuz.
- Proxy engagement outside direct U.S./Israel theaters.
Impact
- Global energy prices surge.
- Wider Middle East enters a generalized conflict environment.
C. Regional War Spiral
- Continued retaliation forces U.S./Israeli deeper strikes inside Iran.
- Iranian strategic assets (missile command centers, economic nodes) are targeted.
- Proxy coalitions activate — Hezbollah against Israel; IRGC proxies vs. U.S. bases.
Consequences
- Significant regional instability.
- Civilian displacement on a major scale.
- Multiple fronts of conflict beyond direct U.S.–Iran engagement.
3️. Strategic Medium-Term (Weeks to Months)
These pathways diverge sharply:
| Scenario | Depth | Broad Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| Containment & Negotiation | Limited conflict | Renewed diplomacy; economic shocks ease |
| Regional War | Multi-front conflict | Gulf infrastructure damage; military exhaustion; humanitarian crises |
| Proxy Cascade | Indirect warfare intensifies | Growth of non-state attacks; civil wars & state fractures |
Strategia-100, Chief Strategist
Three Corporate