US-Israel Military Campaign Against Iran: What Comes After the First Strikes

The Opening Salvos: A Coordinated Campaign Underway

The speculation has ended. According to Articles 2 and 4, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military operations against Iran on Saturday, February 28, 2026, with strikes continuing into Sunday, March 1. Named "Epic Fury" (US) and "Roaring Lion" (Israel), these operations represent the most significant direct military action against Iran in decades, fundamentally altering Middle Eastern geopolitical dynamics. US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed ongoing operations through social media, declaring "the Iranian regime was warned" while releasing footage of missile launches and strike assessments (Article 4). The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reported targeting Iran's ballistic missile forces and air defense systems in western and central Iran. This marks an escalation beyond the 12-day Israel-Iran war of June 2025, now drawing direct American military involvement on a massive scale.

The Strategic Context: Why Now?

Multiple factors converged to trigger this military action. Article 6 notes that negotiations over Iran's nuclear program had stalled, with President Trump warning during his State of the Union address that Iran was developing missiles capable of reaching Europe, US bases, and eventually American soil. Article 10 emphasizes a crucial strategic shift: the focus has moved beyond uranium enrichment levels to Iran's ballistic missile capabilities—a delivery system that poses immediate operational threats regardless of nuclear warhead development. The military buildup preceding these strikes was substantial and deliberate. Articles 6 and 7 document the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to Israeli waters, the evacuation of non-essential US personnel from Israel and Iraq, and Ambassador Mike Huckabee's urgent directive for remaining staff to leave "TODAY." These preparatory moves signaled imminent action while protecting American lives from anticipated Iranian retaliation.

Predicted Iranian Response: Multi-Vector Retaliation

Iran's response will likely unfold across multiple dimensions simultaneously, creating a complex threat environment: ### Primary Target: Israel According to Articles 8, 12, and 13, analysis from the Alma Research and Education Center identifies Israel as Iran's top retaliatory priority, despite potentially limited direct Israeli involvement in the strikes. Iran still possesses hundreds of missiles capable of reaching Israel (Article 18), and experts predict strikes against Israeli military installations, critical civilian infrastructure, airports, and major cities—mirroring targets from the June 2025 conflict. Article 16 warns of a particularly dangerous scenario: Iran launching as many as 500 missiles simultaneously in a preemptive strike, compared to the dozen or two fired at a time during the 12-day war. This saturation attack could overwhelm even Israel's advanced air defense systems. ### Proxy Mobilization Articles 11, 12, and 17 indicate Iran will activate its regional proxy network, with Hezbollah in Lebanon expected to play the largest role, followed by Houthi forces in Yemen. These groups provide Iran with plausible deniability while expanding the conflict's geographic scope and complicating coalition defensive planning. ### Direct Strikes on US Assets Iran's UN Ambassador declared "all bases, facilities and assets of the hostile force in the region" legitimate targets (Articles 18, 19). Article 2 catalogs vulnerable US installations: the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar (housing 10,000 troops), Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, and Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE. Iran possesses substantial arsenals of shorter-range missiles capable of striking these facilities. ### Strait of Hormuz Closure Articles 11, 18, and 19 note Iran's repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of global oil passes. Iran claimed partial closure during military drills last week, demonstrating both capability and intent. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei specifically warned Iran could sink American warships.

The Regime Change Calculus

Article 5 reveals President Trump's explicit objective: regime change supported from outside but executed from within. This represents a fundamental shift from containment to transformation, suggesting the current military campaign is not a punitive strike but the opening phase of sustained pressure designed to collapse the Islamic Republic. Article 15 exposes internal White House deliberations showing some advisers wanted "Israel to attack Iran first for better optics," calculating that Iranian retaliation would "muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike." This political calculation indicates awareness that extended conflict requires domestic American support—support that may prove difficult to maintain if casualties mount.

What Happens Next: Three Critical Predictions

### Week 1-2: Iranian Counter-Strikes and Regional Escalation Within the next 7-14 days, expect large-scale Iranian retaliation targeting both Israel and US regional bases. The timeframe will be dictated by Iran's need to demonstrate strength while its command and control systems remain functional after the initial strikes. This response will likely combine direct missile attacks with proxy operations, testing the limits of American and Israeli air defenses while assessing international reaction. ### Weeks 2-4: Secondary Wave and Diplomatic Paralysis As casualties accumulate and economic disruption spreads (Article 3 already reports hundreds of thousands of stranded airline passengers), international pressure for ceasefire will intensify. However, Article 17 notes both sides are following war-planning procedures with heightened military alerts, suggesting institutional momentum toward sustained conflict rather than quick resolution. The Trump administration's stated regime-change objective precludes early diplomatic offramps. ### Months 1-3: Sustained Campaign or Negotiated Pause The conflict's trajectory depends on three variables: the extent of damage to Iran's command structure and military capabilities, the effectiveness of Iranian retaliation in imposing costs on the US-Israel coalition, and the resilience of domestic support in all three countries. Article 18 notes Iran's increased vulnerability following the June 2025 war and recent anti-government protests, but Article 11 warns the regime may feel survival is at stake—a calculation that typically produces desperate rather than rational responses.

The Broader Regional Implications

Article 5's description of this as a "beispielloses Kriegsszenario" (unprecedented war scenario) that overshadows everything since October 7, 2023, captures the historical magnitude. The coordinated US-Israeli operation establishes a new precedent for military cooperation and signals to other regional actors—particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE—that accommodation with the West offers protection while resistance invites destruction. Yet the path from military strikes to regime collapse remains uncertain and fraught. History suggests external military pressure often consolidates rather than fractures authoritarian regimes, particularly when national survival narratives can be invoked. Iran's response in the coming days will reveal whether this operation achieves its transformative objectives or instead ignites the protracted regional war that Iran's leadership has explicitly threatened.