Shock, Awe, and Uncertainty: Inside the Massive U.S.-Israeli Strikes on Iran and Their Cascading Consequences

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched what may be the most consequential military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The joint assault—dubbed Operation Epic Fury by the Pentagon and Operation Roaring Lion by Israel—killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, obliterated swaths of military infrastructure, and set in motion a chain of events that has reshaped the regional order almost overnight. But as the dust settles over Iran's bombed-out missile sites and command bunkers, the question looming over policymakers, analysts, and millions of civilians across the region is stark: What comes next?

The Scale of the Assault

The numbers alone convey the operation's staggering scope. Israel's air force dropped more than 1,200 munitions across 24 of Iran's 31 provinces within the first 24 hours, while the combined U.S.-Israeli tally reached approximately 2,000 strikes by March 1 [1]. The U.S. military struck over 1,000 targets on the first day alone, deploying a fleet of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on 37-hour nonstop sorties. Four B-2s dropped GBU-31 2,000-pound bombs on hardened Iranian ballistic missile facilities [2][3].

The operation had four stated military objectives: preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, destroying its missile arsenal and production sites, degrading its proxy networks, and annihilating its navy [4]. But it also carried a fifth, more politically charged goal—regime change from within.

President Trump announced the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on March 1, marking the first assassination of a sitting head of state by U.S. forces since the operation has been in motion [5]. The decapitation strike did not stop at Khamenei. The Council on Foreign Relations documented the elimination of General Hossein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC; General Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces; Commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards' Aerospace Force; and Quds Force commander Ismail Ghaani, among at least 20 other senior commanders, two nuclear scientists, and a member of Iran's nuclear negotiation team [6].

The Nuclear Question: How Much Was Actually Destroyed?

The strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure represent one of the most contested aspects of the entire operation. The assessments diverge sharply depending on who is doing the assessing.

The June 2025 strikes—a precursor 12-day war between Israel and Iran that also saw U.S. participation—had already targeted major nuclear facilities. Seven B-2 bombers dropped 14 of the massive 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs on the Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz sites [7]. The Institute for Science and International Security assessed that those strikes caused "major setbacks," including the elimination or severe damage of the majority of centrifuges at Natanz, significant damage to Fordow's underground facility, and the likely destruction of the IR-40 Arak Heavy Water Reactor [8].

But the claimed damage varies wildly. The Trump White House declared in June 2025 that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated" [9]. A preliminary classified U.S. intelligence report, however, told a different story: American bombs had only knocked Iran's program back by less than six months, far short of the administration's public claims [10]. The Pentagon's own estimate settled on "one to two years," while the Israel Atomic Energy Commission claimed "many years" [10]. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi further muddied the waters, assessing that Iran could resume uranium enrichment in a "matter of months" [10].

Regarding the February 2026 strikes, Iran's nuclear ambassador alleged that U.S.-Israeli airstrikes targeted the Natanz enrichment facility [11]. Yet on March 2, the IAEA stated it had "no indication that any of the nuclear installations" had been hit or damaged in the latest round of strikes [1]—a claim that remains difficult to independently verify amid the fog of an ongoing conflict.

Iran Strikes Back—Across Nine Countries

Tehran's retaliation was swift and sprawling. Within hours of the initial assault, Iranian forces launched missiles at targets in Tel Aviv and Haifa, as well as U.S. military bases across the Persian Gulf [12]. The Iranian counter-strikes—estimated to number in the hundreds of missiles, drones, and other munitions—marked the most extensive retaliatory campaign Iran has ever mounted.

But it was the geographic breadth of the retaliation that stunned observers. Iran struck targets across nine countries: Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel [1][12]. U.S. military assets in these countries were targeted alongside civilian infrastructure, including airports. Three U.S. service members were killed, with President Trump warning that "more deaths are likely" [3][13].

The IRGC's retaliation extended beyond conventional military strikes. A representative from the IRGC reported that ships in the region were receiving radio communications declaring a prohibition on all maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz [1], the narrow waterway through which 20% of the world's oil passes. While Iran has not officially closed the strait, several tanker owners suspended oil and gas shipments. Brent crude surged 9% and analysts warned it could hit $100 to $120 per barrel. Economists cautioned that a prolonged closure could tip the global economy into recession [14][15].

The Proxy Front: Hezbollah Returns to War

The strikes reactivated Iran's regional proxy network—or what remains of it. On March 2, Hezbollah's secretary-general Naim Qassem announced the group would "undertake our duty of confronting the aggression" and launched rockets into northern Israel, the first such attack since the November 2024 ceasefire [16]. Israel responded with airstrikes on Beirut and issued evacuation orders to civilians in 50 villages across southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley.

In Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah threatened to "soon begin attacking U.S. bases" after a strike in Jurf al-Nasr killed two people and injured three others [16]. Yemen's Houthi movement condemned the attacks on Iran and threatened to resume missile and drone attacks on U.S. and Israeli-flagged ships in the Red Sea, though as of early March they had not yet followed through [16].

Analysts at CSIS described the regional reverberations as the most significant test of the "axis of resistance" network since its formation, noting that Khamenei's killing has "essentially shattered the command-and-control structure" of Iran's proxy alliances [4][17].

A Dangerous Power Vacuum in Tehran

The assassination of over 40 senior Iranian officials has plunged the Islamic Republic into an unprecedented succession crisis [18]. A temporary three-member leadership council was established, including judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei and President Masoud Pezeshkian, while the IRGC pushed for the swift appointment of a permanent supreme leader [18].

But analysts warn the vacuum could produce something far more volatile than the regime it replaced. Al Jazeera's analysis cautioned that the power vacuum could "birth a more aggressive military leadership fuelled by nationalist fury" [18]. With much of the civilian and clerical leadership eliminated, the IRGC—already Iran's most powerful institution—is widely expected to consolidate power behind the scenes.

The question of whether regime change will actually follow the military decapitation remains deeply uncertain. CSIS analysis highlighted a fundamental strategic contradiction: "Air power alone has never been able to effect regime change," and the current U.S. military contingent in the region lacks the Marines, special operations forces, and logistics required for sustained ground operations [4]. Roughly 40% of the U.S. Navy's ships are now engaged in Middle East operations, stretching American force posture thin globally.

The Civilian Toll

The human cost has been devastating. By March 1, the Red Crescent reported at least 555 people killed and hundreds more injured across 131 counties in Iran [1]. In one of the most horrifying incidents, a girls' elementary school in Minab was reportedly hit, with Iranian state media claiming 148 students killed and 95 wounded [19]. While several outlets noted the lack of independent confirmation of the exact toll, The Washington Post and The New York Times verified footage taken in the immediate aftermath [19].

The World Health Organization reported that Gandhi Hospital in Tehran was damaged in bombardments, issuing a statement that "all efforts must be taken to prevent health facilities from being caught up in the ongoing conflict" [19]. Two students were killed in a separate strike in Tehran, and a further 20 civilians died in an attack near Tehran's Niloofar Square on March 2 [19].

International Condemnation—And Support

The diplomatic fallout has been severe. UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attacks, noting they occurred while indirect U.S.-Iran talks mediated by Oman were underway, "squandering an opportunity for diplomacy" [20]. An emergency UN Security Council meeting saw sharp divisions: Russia's Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia called the strikes "yet another unprovoked act of armed aggression," while China's Ambassador Fu Cong described them as "brazen" and condemned the use of force to settle international disputes [21].

European allies struck a cautious middle ground. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for a return to negotiations over Iran's nuclear program [21]. Oman, which had been facilitating the nuclear talks, said the U.S. action "constitutes a violation of the rules of international law" but added that "the door to diplomacy remains open" [21].

Canada and Australia expressed open support for the U.S. strikes [21]. At the heated Security Council session, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz strongly denied charges that the operation violated international law [22].

The Strategic Endgame—Or Lack Thereof

Perhaps the most sobering assessment comes from CSIS, which warned that "the greatest danger may be a prolonged campaign that fails to produce dramatic internal change in Iran and lacks a clearly defined termination mechanism, resulting in an open-ended conflict with no visible conclusion on the horizon" [4].

The CFR echoed this concern, noting that "an escalatory cycle can only end if cool heads prevail, and there is little evidence today that there are cool heads in either capital" [6]. Iran's ability to deliver a proportionate counterpunch appears diminished—the regime is "weaker now than at any point in recent memory"—but weakness and desperation are a volatile combination, particularly for a state that still possesses the ability to disrupt global energy markets and activate armed groups across multiple countries [6].

The Stimson Center's expert roundtable concluded that Operation Epic Fury "signals to the world" a willingness by the United States and Israel to use overwhelming force to reshape the Middle East's strategic landscape—but whether that reshaping produces stability or a widening spiral of violence remains the defining question of this conflict [23].

As of March 3, 2026, combat operations continue. The strikes have not stopped. The retaliations have not stopped. And the diplomacy that might end it all has barely begun.