Lead: On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated series of strikes against targets in Iran, touching off immediate Iranian reprisals and fresh regional instability. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told NBC News he seeks de-escalation while accusing the United States of choosing war. Council on Foreign Relations experts assess likely outcomes, from damage containment to the risks of prolonged conflict and regional spillover.
Key Takeaways
- U.S. and Israeli forces conducted a major combined operation on February 28; the full scale of damage and its effect on Iran’s leadership remain under assessment.
- Iran has reportedly struck U.S. bases in the region and launched attacks toward Israel and several Gulf states; casualty figures for U.S. personnel were unconfirmed at the time of reporting.
- Senior U.S. officials framed the action as aimed at degrading Iran’s military tools and pressuring its leadership; some U.S. statements also signaled an intent to pursue regime change.
- Diplomatic talks that were reportedly ongoing—by some accounts including Iranian proposals to pause enrichment—appear to have been interrupted by the onset of military operations.
- Gulf states are alarmed: public condemnations of Iran’s strikes came alongside private concern about spillover effects and about the long-term stability of the region.
- Hezbollah’s capacity to intervene is constrained after recent Israeli operations that degraded its leadership and advanced assets, though its future role remains a key unknown.
- Analysts warn that air power alone is unlikely to deliver sustainable regime change; a prolonged campaign would raise risks of mission creep, higher casualties, and a broader regional war.
Background
Tensions between Tehran and Washington—and between Tehran and Jerusalem—have escalated over years of mutual distrust, proxy clashes, and competing regional strategies. In June 2025 the United States struck Iranian nuclear facilities, a prior wave of force that set a precedent for kinetic pressure on Tehran. Those earlier strikes were framed as disruption of nuclear capabilities; officials now describe a broader campaign with more expansive political aims.
Domestically, Iran remains a resilient political system built on ideological institutions, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and networks of control that survived recent internal unrest. Even where popular protest has occurred, state security forces have shown capacity to suppress dissent, complicating outside expectations about swift regime collapse. Regionally, Gulf governments balance security ties with Washington against fears of instability next door; public statements and private diplomacy often diverge in moments of crisis.
Main Event
According to multiple expert assessments, the February 28 operation was a carefully coordinated U.S.-Israeli effort. Israeli officials reportedly agreed the timing in advance, and the campaign combined strikes on military and sensitive infrastructure targets. Eyewitness and open reports indicate Iranian defenses engaged incoming munitions, and Iran answered with missile and drone strikes directed at U.S. bases in neighboring states and at Israeli territory.
The immediate human and material toll remains partly unclear as officials reconcile after-action accounts. Israel imposed airspace closures and asked civilians to shelter as ballistic and cruise threats were tracked and intercepted. Tehran framed its response as retaliatory and warned of further action if pressure continued; Iranian leaders also referenced the need to defend sovereignty and respond to what they characterize as an attack on the republic.
Washington’s public statements emphasized degradation of Iranian military capability and the disruption of networks that support proxy groups, while some senior U.S. rhetoric suggested broader political aims. Regional militaries and intelligence services have been placed on heightened alert; several Gulf capitals publicly condemned Iran’s attacks and pledged defensive measures or support for coordination among U.S. partners.
Analysis & Implications
First, regime survival remains plausible. Iran’s governance system is multi-layered, and while popular dissent has eroded some domestic support, the institutional resilience of the theocratic state and the IRGC’s command structure make rapid collapse unlikely. Experts caution that battlefield defeats do not automatically translate into political implosion.
Second, the apparent end of active diplomacy is consequential. Reports that Iranian negotiators had offered temporary suspension of enrichment underscore how military action can foreclose diplomatic options. Even when negotiations are incomplete, the sudden use of force can convince Tehran that talks were a pretext, hardening positions and intensifying retaliation.
Third, the stated goal of regime change—if maintained—creates strategic disconnects between ends and means. Air campaigns can degrade capabilities temporarily but are ill-suited to dismantle entrenched political and security networks. Achieving political replacement of Tehran’s leadership would likely require either a sustained internal collapse or a costly ground presence, both of which carry high uncertainty and risk.
Finally, regional alignment and instability will shape the conflict’s trajectory. Some Arab states, publicly cautious, are privately anxious about economic and security fallout. A protracted campaign risks deepening humanitarian strains, disrupting energy markets, and prompting proxy escalation across multiple theaters.
Comparison & Data
| Date | Apparent Objective | Scope | Primary Targets |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 2025 | Degrade nuclear infrastructure | Selective strikes | Nuclear sites, related facilities |
| February 28, 2026 | Wider campaign to degrade military capability; signals toward regime change | Coordinated U.S.-Israeli operation, broader geographic reach | Military infrastructure, command nodes, regional bases |
The table contrasts the narrower June 2025 strikes—focused on nuclear-related targets—with the broader February 28 operation, which combined strategic messaging with a wider array of targets. Quantitative damage assessments and casualty figures were not available at the time of reporting and will be essential for evaluating operational success versus strategic cost.
Reactions & Quotes
Iranian officials voiced a mix of calls for de-escalation and sharp criticism of U.S. actions. Below are representative public remarks and their immediate context.
We are certainly interested in de-escalation, but this is a war of choice by the United States, and they have to pay for that.
Abbas Araghchi, Iranian foreign minister; reported to NBC News
Araghchi’s comment, reported to a U.S. news outlet, underscores Tehran’s dual posture of seeking reduced tensions while framing the strikes as an externally imposed crisis that demands retaliation.
We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and degrade the networks that threaten our forces.
President Donald J. Trump; public statement
The U.S. president’s statement framed the campaign as defensive and preventive regarding Iran’s nuclear and proxy capabilities while also signaling punitive intent. That rhetoric informs both public expectations and debate about achievable objectives.
The possibility of achieving regime change without a ground campaign is slim; air power alone cannot uproot a deeply embedded security apparatus.
Council on Foreign Relations analysts (collective assessment)
Multiple CFR experts advised caution: they highlighted the limits of aerial strikes against a regime whose military and political instruments are interwoven with social structures and external networks.
Unconfirmed
- Exact casualty figures for U.S. personnel at regional bases struck by Iran were unverified at the time of reporting.
- The extent of damage to senior Iranian leadership, including any fatalities, had not been publicly confirmed.
- Whether Gulf partners provided technical support to U.S. forces beyond intelligence sharing remains partially opaque.
- Any formal, behind-the-scenes agreement setting the campaign’s end state or duration has not been disclosed.
Bottom Line
The February 28 U.S.-Israeli strikes and Iran’s immediate reprisals mark a dangerous intensification of hostilities with unclear end points. While the campaign aims to degrade weapons and networks, experts caution that the architecture of Iranian power and the IRGC’s resilience make rapid regime removal unlikely through air strikes alone.
Absent a clear diplomatic off-ramp or a rapid political implosion inside Iran, the conflict risks becoming protracted, increasing costs for U.S. forces, regional partners, and civilian populations. Policymakers will need to weigh achievable military effects against longer-term political and humanitarian consequences.
Close monitoring of casualty reports, damage assessments, and Gulf-state responses will be essential in the coming days to determine whether the crisis can be contained or will broaden into a larger regional confrontation.
Sources
- Council on Foreign Relations (think tank analysis) — primary compilation of expert assessments and context.
- NBC News (news outlet) — reported quotes attributed to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and contemporaneous coverage.