As of 28 February 2026, the Middle East is witnessing one of the most significant and volatile military escalations in modern history. The joint military operation launched by the United States and Israel—codenamed “Operation Epic Fury” and “Operation The Roar of The Lion”, respectively—has targeted strategic hubs including Tehran, Isfahan, and Qom. This massive offensive follows the collapse of nuclear negotiations in Geneva on 27 February, where President Trump expressed profound dissatisfaction with Iran’s position. The transition from inconclusive diplomacy to high-intensity kinetic action marks a definitive rupture in the regional security architecture.
Tel Aviv’s New Doctrine and Outsized Israeli influence on U.S. policy
In the post-7 October landscape, a fundamental shift has occurred in Israel’s strategic posture, moving from a reliant protectorate to a “proactive hegemon” that effectively dictates the tempo of American engagement. Analysts suggest that Israel is now leaning heavily on U.S. military power to compensate for its own defensive deficiencies and depleted missile stocks following previous conflicts. By framing the Iranian threat as existential, Tel Aviv has leveraged intelligence on alleged assassination plots. Additionally, it has endeavoured to derail diplomatic efforts, ensuring that Washington “goes for broke” in its military response. Consequently, the U.S. appears increasingly tethered to a strategic agenda primarily authored in Israel, prioritising the total degradation of Iranian assets over regional stabilisation.
From Isolationism to Regional Interventionism
The 2026 intervention exposes a glaring paradox within Donald Trump’s foreign policy doctrine: a president who campaigned on ending ‘forever wars’ now oversees a campaign of ‘Maximum Pressure 2.0’ and starts new wars. This shift follows a pattern of recent aggressive actions, including the abduction of Venezuela’s Maduro and operations against the “El Mencho” cartel, which served as a “proof of concept” for the “Donroe Doctrine” – a rationale for pre-emptive, decapitating strikes. Despite branding himself as the “Peace President,” Trump’s current rhetoric of “unconditional surrender” and the “MIGA” (Make Iran Great Again) slogan indicates a total abandonment of isolationist restraint in favour of a neo-interventionist policy that views a weakened Iran as an “easy win”.
From Nuclear Concern to ‘Freedom’ Rhetoric: Mission Creep
While the initial justification for the strikes was the neutralisation of Iran’s nuclear programme—continuing the work of June 2025’s “Operation Midnight Hammer”—the narrative has rapidly expanded into a clear agenda for regime change. Trump’s direct appeal to the Iranian people to “take over your government” and Netanyahu’s calls for “freedom” for various ethnic groups (Persians, Kurds, Azeris, etc.) reveal that the objective is no longer merely non-proliferation. This mission creep suggests that the true goal is the permanent removal of a regional adversary to secure Israeli hegemony, weaponising the internal dissent and economic misery caused by a historic collapse of the Rial to provide a moral veneer for military action.
A Ring of Fire in the Gulf: Bases and Proxies
The Iranian response has been swift and geographically expansive, targeting U.S. and Israeli assets across the Gulf with no “red lines”. Strikes have been reported near the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain, the Ali Salem base in Kuwait, and strategic sites in Abu Dhabi and Qatar. This “ring of fire” threatens the world’s most vital energy corridors, as the potential disruption of the Strait of Hormuz could spike global oil prices and undermine the domestic economic stability Trump seeks to protect. Furthermore, the near-total internet blackout in Iran (dropping to 4% connectivity) and the closure of airspaces in Iraq and Jordan indicate that the conflict is already transcending national borders, dragging the entire region into a digital and kinetic battlefield.
Future Projection: Regional Chaos or a New Order?
The current trajectory points more toward catastrophic miscalculation than a stable “new order”. The assumption that internal protests and external military pressure will generate a “synergy” for liberation overlooks the continued cohesion of Iran’s security apparatus, such as the IRGC. Without a unified opposition or a credible plan for the “day after,” the U.S. risks repeating the failures of past interventions, leaving a political vacuum that even more radical elements could fill. Iran’s capacity to turn a targeted strike into a regional inferno remains high, and the lack of a diplomatic off-ramp suggests that the next chapter may be characterised by prolonged, asymmetric warfare rather than a swift victory.
The 28 February operations represent a high-stakes gamble that prioritises the immediate elimination of a strategic threat over long-term regional stability. By relying on rhetoric over substantive strategy, the U.S. and Israel have entered a path where the “end is no longer in their control”. Whether this leads to the promised “liberation” of the Iranian people or leaves the Middle East in flames remains to be seen; however, the transition from nuclear containment to overt regime change has undeniably set a course for a period of unprecedented regional chaos.
