Jaibans Singh
On 28 February 2026, United States President Donald Trump, long perceived as eager to secure a Nobel Peace Prize, authorised a major military offensive against Iran. The operation, code-named Operation Epic Fury, was spearheaded by the United States Central Command (CENTCOM). Although Washington has referred to “partner forces,” the only clearly visible ally participating in the offensive has been Israel.
The stated objective of the operation is to dismantle Iran’s security infrastructure and neutralise what the United States describes as an imminent nuclear threat. Beneath this formal justification lies a broader strategic ambition – the possibility of engineering a regime change in Tehran and replacing the current revolutionary establishment with a government more accommodating to US and Israeli interests.
On the very first day of the operation, 28 February, Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, was killed in Israeli airstrikes near Tehran along with several senior officials in Iran’s political and military command structure. The Iranian government confirmed his death on 1 March.
The strike targets of the US-Israel coalition reportedly included the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s military command-and-control systems, air defence networks, missile and drone launch facilities, and several military airfields. According to US statements, more than 3,000 strikes have been conducted since the start of the campaign.
Despite these dramatic developments, the anticipated rapid collapse of the Iranian regime has not materialised.
US–Iran Relations
The origins of the present hostility lie deep in twentieth-century geopolitics.
During the Cold War, the United States viewed Iran as a critical strategic partner against the Soviet Union. Western oil corporations and defence manufacturers also maintained extensive commercial interests in the country.
In the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, the US and the UK supported the removal of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalised Iran’s oil industry. The coup restored the authority of the Shah of Iran, who thereafter aligned closely with Washington.
For nearly three decades, Iran maintained cordial relations with the West. This relationship collapsed in January 1979 when the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, amid a revolutionary uprising, left the country on exile at the behest of Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar. The Shah, at that time, was in an advanced stage of Cancer.
Several factors contributed to the downfall of the monarchy to include authoritarian governance, suppression of political opposition, unequal distribution of oil wealth, and the notorious brutality of the secret police organisation SAVAK. The Shah’s ambitious “White Revolution” reforms modernised parts of Iranian society but were perceived by many religious and traditional groups as an assault on Islamic values.
The revolution brought to power a new political system. The Islamic Republic, led by an Ayatollah (Shia cleric) came into being. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the first Supreme Leader.
For many Iranians, the revolution represented liberation from monarchy but also the establishment of a theocratic political structure in which religious authority superseded elected institutions, a typical case of “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
Although Iranian culture remained deeply rooted in the country’s ancient Persian civilisational heritage, governance now combined Persian nationalism with an assertive revolutionary interpretation of Shi’a Islam.
The Breakdown of US–Iran Relations
The revolutionary transformation fundamentally altered Iran’s relationship with the United States. Washington refused to recognise the legitimacy of the new regime and increasingly viewed Iran as a destabilising actor. Tehran, for its part, branded the United States the “Great Satan,” accusing it of decades of interference in Iranian affairs.
The rupture became irreversible post the Iran hostage crisis of November 1979, when Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held 52 American diplomats and citizen’s hostage for 444 days.
The United States imposed sweeping sanctions. Iran responded by pursuing strategic autonomy, including the development of nuclear technology and support for regional groups hostile to US allies in the region, especially Israel.
Tensions deepened further during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988), when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Iran. While a territorial dispute over Shatt al-Arab waterway was given as the reason for unilateral declaration of the war by Saddam Hussein, the underlying factor was his fear of a Shah type toppling of his government through an Islamic revolution engineered by Iran.
Although Washington officially maintained neutrality, it provided intelligence and indirect support to Iraq. Ironically, the US also secretly supplied arms to Iran.
The war devastated both countries, killing roughly a million people and ending without significant territorial change.
Iran, Israel, and the “Axis of Resistance”
Iran’s hostility toward Israel is often misunderstood. Iran is predominantly Shi’a, while most Palestinians are Sunni. The two do not share borders and have no direct territorial dispute. Iran’s antagonism toward Israel is, therefore, strategic and ideological, not ethnic or geographic.
The Islamic Republic adopted an anti-Israel posture partly because Israel was, and remains, a close ally of the United States. In the logic of geopolitical rivalry, an enemy’s ally becomes an adversary.
The Ayatollahs further felt that remaining neutral in the context of Israel would negatively impact their ideological credibility and allow domination of the Muslim world by Saudi Arabia or Turkey. The Iranian leadership, thus, recognised that championing the Palestinian cause would enhance its ideological legitimacy across the Muslim world. By presenting itself as the defender of Jerusalem, Iran sought to challenge the leadership claims of regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Under this doctrine, Iran cultivated what it calls the “Axis of Resistance.” This network includes groups such as:
- Hezbollah in Lebanon
- Hamas in Gaza
- Palestinian Islamic Jihad
- Various pro-Iran militias in Iraq and Syria
Through these proxies, Iran has sought to project influence beyond its borders and create strategic depth against potential adversaries.
Israel, however, perceives Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional militia network as an existential threat. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran has therefore become a central pillar of Israeli national security doctrine. Israeli intelligence agencies have conducted numerous covert operations and strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists.
Competing Strategic Calculations
Iran’s political system contains elected institutions, but real authority ultimately rests with the clerical establishment and the IRGC. This structure creates a powerful internal “deep state” that prioritises regime survival above all else.
Iran’s strategy traditionally relies on:
- Proxy warfare
- Missile deterrence
- Asymmetric regional influence
These tools allow Tehran to maintain pressure on adversaries without inviting full-scale war.
Israel’s strategy, by contrast, focuses on preventing the emergence of multi-front threats from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran simultaneously.
The Gulf countries like United Arab Emirates, Bahrain etc. in present times, have more interest in economic diversification than religious ideology. They look for security through US alignment and are not averse to engaging with both Israel and Iran to avoid becoming a battlefield. Saudi Arabia also recently restored diplomatic ties with Iran in a China-mediated deal.
With the Gulf showing preference to pragmatic engagement with both Israel and Iran to avoid becoming a battleground in a regional conflict, Iran’s belligerent posture has actually helped Israel build alliances with Gulf states. It has almost normalised relations with countries that look at Iran as a bigger long-term threat than Israel.
The Road to the Current Escalation
During the presidency of Joe Biden, tensions between Iran and Israel remained volatile but largely contained, even as attempts to find a permanent solution were not put in place.
A turning point occurred with the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, which triggered Israel’s devastating military campaign in Gaza. Israel increasingly blamed Iran for enabling Hamas.
Meanwhile, internal unrest within Iran intensified following protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini. At the same time, Iran accelerated uranium enrichment beyond limits previously negotiated with world powers.
Donald Trump had pursued an aggressive posture against Iran during his first term. It, however, did not reach the level of open hostilities probably since he had some other priorities. After returning to the presidency, he revived his hard-line Iran policy. New nuclear negotiations began indirectly in Oman and Europe in 2025, but collapsed after Washington issued a 60-day ultimatum demanding stricter restrictions.
By early 2026, the United States had significantly increased its military presence in the Middle East, deploying aircraft carriers and expanding regional bases. Iran continued signaling its ability to threaten Israel and disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
The political posture for the present situation can be summarised as below: –
- Iran really did not want to go all the way but did little to stop the situation from aggravating.
- Israeli leadership adopted a hawkish posture and has consistently pressurised the US to intervene militarily.
- The Gulf state were quite content with the situation of strategic dormancy as during the tenure of President Joe Biden and were not in favour of any kind of military action by the US.
- Donald Trump got played in the hands of the deep state of Hawks and took to the field without thinking the matter through and taking the US allies on board.
The stage was thus set for confrontation.
Operation Epic Fury
The assassination of the Iranian Supreme Leader and the subsequent wave of US and Israeli strikes marked an unprecedented escalation. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on US bases across the Gulf region and on Israeli targets. It also threatened to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global oil supply.
Both sides claim significant military successes. US statements emphasise operational dominance, while Iranian sources highlight damage to American bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
If reports are even partially accurate, the conflict may already have inflicted substantial strategic and economic damage on the US military infrastructure built over decades in the region. However, Iran may have made a critical strategic error by striking US bases located in Gulf states that had previously opposed escalation. Such actions risk alienating potential diplomatic space.
Iran, it seems had war-gamed and thought through all contingencies and prepared multiple responses.
It has also collected the military wherewithal that it requires to play out a long haul. Despite the loss of its senior leadership and massive physical damage, the country is in no mood to succumb. Despite severe losses, including the death of senior leadership, Iran appears prepared for a prolonged confrontation.
The assumption in Washington and Tel Aviv that eliminating the Supreme Leader would trigger rapid regime collapse has not proven correct. Iran’s revolutionary system has previously survived major internal upheavals, including the 1999 student protests, the 2009 Green Movement, and the 2022–23 protests following Mahsa Amini’s death.
The Way Forward
The current crisis reflects decades of accumulated strategic miscalculations by multiple actors.
Iran may have succeeded in absorbing the initial shock of US attacks, but a prolonged war with the United States would eventually place overwhelming strain on its infrastructure and economy. Voices within Iran advocating a reduced regional footprint and a focus on domestic priorities may gain increasing relevance.
Israel needs to understand that it is carrying its existential threat narrative a bit too far and the same as now reached a point where the entire Middle East is facing a very potent and real existential threat. The country will need to carry out some strategic and policy readjustments in the face of the evolving situation.
For the United States, the conflict already carries substantial costs. Even if Washington succeeds in delaying Iran’s nuclear programme, achieving broader objectives, such as dismantling Iran’s regional proxy network or engineering regime change would be far more difficult.
A prolonged conflict could weaken US strategic credibility while destabilising global energy markets.
In the immediate term, removing regime change from the agenda may be a necessary step toward de-escalation, but, it does not seem to be happening soon.
India’s Potential Diplomatic Role
In this evolving geopolitical landscape, India could potentially play a constructive diplomatic role.
Under the leadership of Narendra Modi, India maintains working relations with the United States, Israel, and Iran. This rare diplomatic balance provides New Delhi with credibility as a mediator capable of encouraging dialogue.
Track-II diplomacy and quiet engagement could help create channels for negotiation, though the complexity of the conflict means such efforts would face formidable obstacles.
Conclusion
Even if the immediate intensity of the conflict eventually subsides, the confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran is unlikely to end quickly.
The geopolitical, ideological, and strategic contradictions that produced this crisis remain unresolved.
What is certain, however, is that the conflict already carries the potential to trigger severe economic repercussions globally, particularly through disruptions to energy markets and instability across the Middle East.
The world may therefore be entering a prolonged period of uncertainty, one in which restraint, diplomacy, and strategic realism will be in desperately short supply.