Operation Epic Fury: Inside the U.S.-Israeli War on Iran That Is Fracturing the Middle East — and Washington

On the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 7:00 AM local time, the skies over Iran filled with American and Israeli ordnance. In what would become the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — the world's largest bunker-buster bombs — slammed into Iran's underground nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz [1]. Tomahawk cruise missiles destroyed the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. Precision strikes leveled the compound of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Within hours, a nation of 90 million people was decapitated of its most powerful figure, its nuclear ambitions set back by decades, and the entire Middle East plunged into a conflict whose end remains nowhere in sight.

Five days later, the conflict has metastasized beyond anything its planners publicly anticipated. Iran is firing missiles at countries that did not attack it. A British military base in Cyprus has been hit by drones. An Iranian warship lies at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Senate has voted to let the president continue the war. And inside the White House, advisers are scrambling to contain what one analyst called a conflict where "you don't know what you're fighting for" and "you don't know when to stop" [2].

The Road to War

The path to Operation Epic Fury was paved over months of escalating tensions, failed diplomacy, and a White House that had been signaling its intentions with increasing clarity.

In early January 2026, Iran was already convulsing from within. Antigovernment protests that had raged for more than two weeks prompted authorities to shut down the internet nationwide. President Trump responded on January 2 with a threat of "lock and loaded" military intervention if Iran killed peaceful protesters, and by January 23, he announced that a U.S. "armada" — including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln — was heading to the Middle East [3].

A direct military confrontation nearly occurred on February 3, when six IRGC Navy gunboats attempted to seize a U.S. tanker, the Stena Imperative, in the Strait of Hormuz [3]. Diplomatic efforts continued in parallel but made little headway. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described a "historic opportunity" for a nuclear agreement as "within reach" on February 25, and a third round of indirect talks took place in Geneva the following day. The sides remained far from agreement [3]. One day later, Trump delivered a State of the Union address accusing Iran of reviving nuclear weapons efforts, and on February 28, the bombs began to fall.

The Opening Salvo: Killing the Supreme Leader

The coordinated U.S.-Israeli operation had two codenames — Operation Epic Fury (U.S.) and Operation Roaring Lion (Israel) — and four stated objectives, as outlined by President Trump on TruthSocial: preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, destroying its missile arsenal and production sites, degrading its proxy networks, and annihilating its navy. A fifth, political objective was stated openly: regime change from within [1].

The most dramatic achievement of the opening strikes was the assassination of 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Using CIA intelligence to pinpoint senior leaders' locations, Israeli airstrikes targeted Khamenei at his office within his residence compound in Tehran. Iran's government confirmed his death on March 1 [4].

The reaction inside Iran was starkly divided. President Masoud Pezeshkian described the killing as a "great crime" and vowed it would "not go unanswered." Yet videos circulated from Isfahan, Shiraz, Kermanshah, and Sanandaj showing Iranian civilians celebrating in the streets [4]. Under Article 111 of Iran's constitution, an Interim Leadership Council was established on March 1, consisting of Guardian Council head Alireza Arafi, Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje'i, parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and President Pezeshkian [4]. But with Israeli strikes continuing to target senior military and political figures, who can effectively govern — let alone negotiate — remains an open question [5].

Escalation: Iran Strikes Back Across the Region

Iran's response has been swift, far-reaching, and increasingly indiscriminate. In the hours and days following the initial strikes, Tehran launched dozens of ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli territory and U.S. military bases across the Gulf. The retaliatory fire struck not only the nations that attacked Iran, but also neighboring states — the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain, and Oman — drawing condemnation for targeting countries that had not participated in the offensive [6].

Gulf states report that Iran has expanded its targeting beyond U.S. military assets to include civilian infrastructure — hotels, airports, and energy facilities [17]. In the UAE, at least three people have been killed and 58 injured. Qatar reported 16 injuries, Kuwait 32 injuries and at least one death, Oman five injuries, and Bahrain four [17]. Bahrain alone reported intercepting 73 missiles and 91 drones since the conflict began [17]. Dubai International Airport and Abu Dhabi sustained direct damage from Iranian strikes [13].

The human cost to American forces continues to mount. Six U.S. service members have been killed, including four Army reservists — Capt. Cody Khork, 35; Sgt. 1st Class Noah Tietjens, 42; Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor, 39; and Sgt. Declan Coady, 20 — who died on March 1 when a drone struck Port Shuaiba in Kuwait [7]. Three U.S. embassies — in Kuwait, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia — were shuttered, and the State Department ordered nonessential diplomats and embassy families to leave Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE — the largest U.S. diplomatic drawdown in the Middle East since the Iraq War [18]. Americans were urged to leave 14 countries in the region, even as commercial flights and transportation remained severely disrupted [18].

By March 4, preliminary casualty figures stood at over 1,045 dead in Iran, at least 11 in Israel, dozens in Lebanon, and multiple fatalities across Gulf states, in addition to the six American soldiers [2][9].

A Historic Naval Engagement

In a moment that immediately entered military history, a U.S. submarine torpedoed and sank the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean approximately 40 nautical miles south of Galle, Sri Lanka, on March 4. A Mk 48 torpedo struck beneath the stern of the Moudge-class frigate, which had approximately 180 crew aboard. At least 87 Iranian sailors were killed, with 32 survivors rescued by the Sri Lankan navy and transported to Karapitiya Teaching Hospital in Galle [10][19].

The sinking marked the first enemy warship torpedoed by a U.S. submarine since World War II, and only the second ship ever sunk by a nuclear-powered attack submarine — after HMS Conqueror sank the ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands War in 1982. Defense Secretary Hegseth called it a demonstration of American naval supremacy [10]. The IRIS Dena had been participating in the multinational naval exercise MILAN 2026 at Visakhapatnam, India, just weeks earlier [19].

The Strait of Hormuz: A Global Economic Chokepoint Closes

Perhaps no consequence of the conflict has been felt as immediately or as widely as the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The narrow waterway through which approximately 20 million barrels of oil pass daily — roughly 20% of global seaborne oil trade — has become a no-go zone [11].

Tanker traffic dropped by approximately 70% within hours of the initial strikes and has since fallen to effectively zero. Over 150 ships anchored outside the strait, while the withdrawal of commercial operators and insurers created a de facto blockade [11][12]. Brent crude surged 10–13% in initial trading and has risen 36% year-to-date, with analysts warning prices could reach $100 per barrel or higher [12][13]. Global stock markets declined, with the Dow Jones falling over 400 points. Airspace closures led to over 4,000 daily flight cancellations, stranding hundreds of thousands of passengers [13].

Trump announced the U.S. would offer insurance for Gulf shipping and escort tankers through the strait — a measure that underscored the severity of the disruption even as it attempted to alleviate it [2].

The War Widens: Cyprus, Europe, and the Transatlantic Rift

On March 2, a Shahed-type drone struck RAF Akrotiri, the British sovereign base in Cyprus — the first direct impact of the conflict on European soil. British forces later intercepted two additional drones heading toward the island [20]. The UK responded by deploying HMS Dragon, a Type-45 air defence destroyer, along with Wildcat helicopters to bolster drone defences [20].

France ordered its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, deploying Rafale fighter jets and air defence systems. Greece dispatched two frigates and four F-16s to Cyprus [20].

The strikes triggered a public clash between Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Trump declared Starmer "no Winston Churchill," criticizing the UK's refusal to join offensive operations [21]. Starmer had initially blocked the U.S. from using British bases, including Diego Garcia, for strikes on Iran, before permitting their use for "specific, limited defensive purposes" after Iranian retaliatory strikes threatened British interests [6][21].

Starmer pushed back firmly. "We were not involved in the initial strikes against Iran, and we will not join offensive action now," he told Parliament. "But in the face of Iran's barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region" [21]. Starmer explicitly rejected the goal of regime change, stating the UK does not support "regime change from the skies" — a pointed break with Washington [6]. In a joint statement with the leaders of France and Germany, Starmer said the European group was ready to take "proportionate defensive action" to destroy threats "at their source" [6].

For Starmer, the shadow of the 2003 Iraq War looms large. Joining that conflict remains deeply unpopular, and as the first Labour prime minister since Tony Blair, he is determined to avoid repeating his party's mistakes [21].

Inside the White House: A President Following His Gut

As the conflict enters its second week, reporting from multiple outlets reveals a White House struggling with a war whose justifications keep shifting and whose endgame remains undefined [2][22].

The stated rationale for the strikes has whipsawed between preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, deposing a regime that represses dissent, preempting an imminent Iranian attack on U.S. assets, and following Israel's lead. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Trump decided to attack after having "a good feeling that the Iranian regime was going to strike the United States assets" [22]. Defense Secretary Hegseth told reporters the war is "not a so-called regime change war," focused instead on destroying Iran's "conventional shield" for its nuclear program. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, framed the strikes as preemptive, saying, "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties" [22].

Richard Fontaine, chief executive of the Center for a New American Security, summarized the confusion: "It's all over the place right now. If you don't know what you're fighting for, then among other things you don't know when you've attained it — and you don't know when to stop" [2].

The timeline has expanded accordingly. The administration initially suggested operations would last days. Trump then said four weeks. On March 4, Hegseth revised the estimate further: "You can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three" [23]. He acknowledged the U.S. "can't stop everything" Iran fires, even while asserting overall air dominance [23].

Congress Votes: The War Powers Showdown

On Wednesday, March 4, the Senate voted 47–53 to reject a War Powers Resolution that would have terminated the president's authority to continue hostilities against Iran without explicit congressional authorization [15][24].

The vote fell largely along party lines. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor of the resolution. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote against it [24]. A companion resolution in the House, introduced by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, is expected to receive a vote later this week [24].

Supporters of the resolution argued the conflict was launched without a formal declaration of war or an Authorization for Use of Military Force. Senator Tim Kaine, a co-sponsor, said the vote was about "whether Congress has any role in decisions about war and peace." Opponents, including House Speaker Johnson, called limiting the president's war powers authority "dangerous" during an active conflict [15][16].

The vote's outcome was expected, but the debate carried weight. Four American soldiers had already been killed by the time the resolution reached the floor, and the expanding scope of the conflict — with U.S. diplomats evacuating and the war timeline stretching — lent urgency to questions about congressional oversight.

Competing Perspectives: How the World Sees This War

The conflict has generated sharply divergent assessments.

The administration's case: Supporters argue the strikes were both necessary and overdue. Iran was within reach of a nuclear weapon, its proxies had destabilized the region for decades, and the regime's internal crackdowns on protesters demonstrated it would never reform from within. Senator Lindsey Graham called the operation "long overdue" and argued that destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure averted a greater future conflict [16].

The antiwar position: Critics in Congress and abroad contend the strikes were launched without legal authorization, without a clear endgame, and with a pattern of shifting justifications that echoes the lead-up to the Iraq War. Senator Chris Murphy argued that "we are watching in real time the same playbook" that led to two decades of war in the Middle East [15]. Analysts note that regime change imposed from the outside has a troubled history — the ghosts of Iraq and Libya serve as cautionary tales.

The regional view: Gulf states find themselves in an unenviable position — hosting U.S. military bases that made them targets for Iranian retaliation, yet having no say in the decision to strike. The Carnegie Endowment described the Gulf monarchies as "caught between Iran's desperation and the U.S.'s recklessness" [17]. Iran insists it is exercising its right to self-defence against an unprovoked attack.

The European position: The UK, France, and Germany have adopted a middle path — refusing to join offensive operations while supporting defensive measures against Iranian retaliation. Starmer's invocation of the Iraq War parallel reflects a broader European wariness about open-ended military commitments in the Middle East [6][21].

What Comes Next

Five days into the conflict, the trajectory remains deeply uncertain. The war has achieved several of its stated objectives: Iran's nuclear infrastructure has sustained significant damage, the supreme leader is dead, and the Iranian navy has lost a major warship. But the costs are accumulating — in American lives, in economic disruption, in a diplomatic drawdown not seen since the Iraq War, and in a widening theater that now stretches from the Indian Ocean to Cyprus.

Hegseth's acknowledgment that operations could last eight weeks — up from an initial suggestion of days — signals an administration adjusting to realities on the ground [23]. Reports indicate Iran made secret diplomatic outreach to the United States following the initial strikes, but the targeted killing campaign has eliminated many of the Iranian officials who might have conducted negotiations [5]. Trump himself acknowledged the window for talks could be closing [5].

Iran's 90 million citizens, divided between those who celebrated Khamenei's death and those who mourned it, will ultimately determine their country's future. Whether that future emerges from the rubble of Operation Epic Fury through negotiation, further violence, or prolonged chaos may be the defining geopolitical question of 2026.