US and Israel Launch ‘Major Combat Operation’ against Iran

What Happened

The US and Israel launched decapitation strikes targeting the Iranian leadership on February 28, dubbed ‘OPERATION EPIC FURY’ (sic) by the Pentagon, reportedly killing several senior IRGC commanders, Iran’s defense minister, and other officials in the first wave. Iran has since retaliated with a barrage of missile strikes against Israel and US military outposts across the region, notably in Bahrain, UAE, Jordan, and Kuwait.

UPDATE: There are now reports out of Israel that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been killed in the strikes, though the claim has been refuted on Iranian state television.

Why It Matters

This is the biggest foreign policy gambit of Trump’s presidency and there is a high likelihood of destabilizing spillover events. Some factors to consider:

• History Repeating. The military operation was launched despite ‘significant progress’ being made in Oman-mediated negotiations and additional talks scheduled in the weeks ahead. This echoes the June 13 attacks, which came just days before a new round of nuclear talks was expected to commence. The element of surprise increases the odds of a successful ‘decapitation’ by catching targets outside of secure facilities engaged in daily routines. The ruse was highly effective in June, and early indications suggest it may have worked again.
• Don’t Call It a War. The architects of this ‘major combat operation’ evidently do not envision a deployment of troops and instead expect Iranians to seize control amid the chaos. President Trump has been explicit on this, saying that the Iranian people’s ‘hour of freedom’ has arrived, urging them to take over their government ‘when we are finished.’ Benjamin Netanyahu struck a similar tone in his statement. But there’s a reason why past US administrations have backed up their regime change ambitions with expensive and politically fraught military deployments – the alternative doesn’t tend to work. An idealized contingency foresees regime collapse from within, and the state’s coercive apparatus gradually coming under popular control, affording the US and Israel a reliable ground-level proxy to work through. The more likely outcome, however, is an existential struggle between an armed though fractured regime and an unarmed populace. The bloody culmination of the latest protest wave in Iran represents a tragic illustration of this. Taken to its logical conclusion, the fractures multiply and harden on both sides to eventually resemble something like the Myanmar civil war.
• Ordinance Concerns. Iran is a large country with no shortage of high-value targets; thus, the conflict will draw down an already depleted stock of sophisticated US munitions, possibly impacting operational readiness in other contexts. Previous Geopolitical Monitor articles have explored the inordinately high costs of Operation Rough Rider, US efforts to reduce costs in the age of asymmetric swarm warfare, and industrial and critical mineral chokepoints in defense supply chains.
• Experimental Military Tactics. Warfare is evolving in real time along frontlines worldwide and this conflict will be no different. The Iranian regime has long prepared for an asymmetric conflict, boasting a ‘mosquito fleet’ of swarming fast attack boats, domestic submarines, and sea mines. Moreover, under its ‘mosaic defense’ doctrine, elements of the Iranian military are supposed to compartmentalize and act autonomously in the event of a decapitation strike. Suddenly embroiled in this long-planned-for existential struggle, it’s now or never to make good on threats to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and/or contest the US Navy at sea. Should these attacks actually occur, the US military stands to gain practical experience countering the swarm tactics that are now dominating modern warfare. Should some of these attacks actually succeed, it would be politically embarrassing for President Trump and likely herald further escalations.
• Experimental Geopolitics. Out of the gates, the war is remarkable in that no significant efforts are being made to legitimize it: the objectives are unclear; there is little domestic support for it in the United States; it is not backed by any major international organization like the UN; there is no obvious legal justification; and allies are not exactly lining up to stand behind Washington and Israel. The brazenness of it all naturally lends itself to regional and global pushback, with states potentially more willing to suffer the consequences of bucking Washington’s line. We were already seeing some interesting developments along these lines even before the war broke out in China’s willingness to sell hypersonic anti-ship missiles and drones to Tehran.
• Only Safety in Nuclear Weapons. The attacks represent a turning point in nuclear nonproliferation, a decisive shift away from the carrot approach of persuasive compliance via technology sharing and assistance under the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and toward coercive enforcement. The ultimate takeaway is that only nuclear weapons can provide regime security, and this lesson will be ringing in the ears of officialdom in non-nuclear states for decades to come.
• Black Monday for Energy Markets? Iran was producing around 3.3 million barrels per day (bpd) and 1.3 million bpd of condensate before the war broke out, but the real risk comes from a potential disruption of energy supply moving through the Strait of Hormuz, which saw around 20 million bpd of oil traverse its waters daily in 2024. One estimate from Oxford Economics projects a price level of $115 per barrel should Iran actually succeed in closing the Strait to maritime traffic.