US–Israel Strike Iran: War Erupts Across the Gulf

Executive Summary

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes across Iran, marking the most significant escalation between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. What began as a declared Israeli “pre-emptive strike” rapidly evolved into a full-scale American military campaign after President Donald Trump confirmed that “major combat operations” were underway. The operation targeted Iranian missile infrastructure, Revolutionary Guard facilities, naval assets and sites allegedly linked to Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Within hours, Iran retaliated with ballistic missile and drone launches toward Israel and reportedly against US military installations across the Gulf, including bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Airspace closures spread across the region. Emergency sirens sounded in Israel and Bahrain. Regional governments scrambled to avoid being drawn into a widening war. The conflict has now moved beyond a bilateral confrontation into a multi-theatre regional crisis with global implications for energy markets, maritime security and international diplomacy.
This report reconstructs how the war began, examines the strategic objectives of the principal actors, evaluates the risks of further escalation and outlines possible trajectories in the days ahead.

The Opening Strike

The conflict began before dawn when explosions were reported across Tehran, as well as in Isfahan, Qom, Karaj and Kermanshah. Smoke was seen rising over central districts of the Iranian capital. Iranian airspace was closed shortly thereafter. Israeli officials described the attack as a coordinated campaign aimed at degrading what they termed existential threats posed by Iran’s missile forces, nuclear infrastructure and proxy network.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel would “not sit idly by when the shadow of annihilation hovers over us,” framing the operation as necessary to prevent Iran from rebuilding underground nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities damaged during the June 2025 conflict. He stated that the joint campaign sought to remove the “existential threat” posed by what he called Iran’s “terror regime,” and suggested that the strikes would create conditions for the Iranian people to “take their destiny into their own hands.”

Shortly after Israeli confirmation, US President Donald Trump released an eight-minute video announcing that American forces had initiated “major combat operations” in Iran. He asserted that Washington’s objective was to eliminate imminent threats from the Iranian regime and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The campaign, according to Trump, would destroy Iran’s missile industry, annihilate its navy and neutralise its regional proxies. In an unprecedented move, he directly called on Iranian security forces to lay down their arms in exchange for immunity and urged Iranian citizens to overthrow their government once US operations concluded.

The Pentagon later identified the US campaign as “Operation Epic Fury,” signalling that Washington considers this not a limited punitive strike but a structured military operation with broader objectives.

Iran’s Immediate Response

Tehran vowed a “crushing” retaliation within hours. Iranian officials signalled that the path chosen by Israel and the United States would no longer be under their control. Ballistic missile launches toward Israel followed, triggering nationwide sirens and activating Israel’s multi-layered air defence systems. Explosions were heard in northern and central Israel as interceptor missiles engaged incoming projectiles.

More consequentially, reports emerged that Iranian missiles targeted US military installations across the Gulf region. These included Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, headquarters of US regional air operations; the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain; Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates; and facilities in Kuwait. Bahrain confirmed that a missile attack targeted the service centre associated with the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Airspace closures spread rapidly across Israel, Iran and Iraq, while Russia and Kuwait suspended flights in response to the unfolding crisis.

If confirmed in full, this marks a critical escalation threshold. For the first time in this cycle of confrontation, Iran has directly targeted US sovereign military infrastructure across multiple states simultaneously, expanding the conflict beyond a bilateral Israel-Iran exchange into a region-wide confrontation involving Gulf states.

The Strategic Context

The 28 February strikes did not emerge in isolation. They followed months of mounting tension after the June 2025 “12-Day War,” during which Israel and the United States targeted Iranian nuclear facilities. Although President Trump declared those sites “obliterated,” Iran subsequently restricted access to international inspectors and resumed aspects of enrichment activity. Diplomatic talks mediated by Oman continued into February 2026. Publicly, progress was described as constructive, yet Washington remained dissatisfied with Iran’s refusal to discuss ballistic missiles and its support for regional proxy forces.

In the days preceding the strikes, Trump had expressed frustration with negotiations and warned of “bad things” if an agreement was not reached within weeks. A significant US military build-up in the Gulf — including aircraft carriers, guided missile destroyers, fighters and air defence systems — signalled that military action was being prepared as a credible option.

From Israel’s perspective, the weakening of Iran’s air defences during the previous war and the internal unrest inside Iran created what it likely assessed as a temporary window of opportunity. Netanyahu repeatedly opposed any agreement limited solely to nuclear enrichment, insisting that missile capabilities and proxy networks must be addressed simultaneously.

Military Objectives and Political Messaging

The rhetoric accompanying the strikes suggests a campaign that blends military degradation with political signalling. Trump’s language went beyond deterrence or punishment. His call for regime change and appeals directly to Iranian security forces indicate that Washington is attempting to combine military pressure with psychological and political warfare.

Netanyahu similarly framed the operation as one that could enable the Iranian people to overthrow their rulers. Israeli intelligence services launched Farsi-language communication channels targeting Iranian citizens, reinforcing the narrative that the conflict is directed at the regime rather than the population.

Tehran, however, has historically demonstrated resilience under external pressure. Previous external attacks have often strengthened regime cohesion rather than weakened it. Moreover, if Iranian casualties among senior leadership or Revolutionary Guard structures are confirmed, the regime may perceive existential stakes, reducing the likelihood of restraint.

Escalation Risks

The conflict has now crossed several escalation thresholds. Direct US military involvement against Iranian territory, Iranian missile launches against Israel, and reported Iranian strikes on US bases collectively mark a shift from shadow war dynamics to overt interstate conflict.

Several immediate risks stand out. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows, remains vulnerable. Any attempt by Iran to disrupt maritime traffic could trigger a dramatic spike in energy prices. Gulf states hosting US bases face internal security risks and political strain as they balance alliance obligations with domestic stability.

Proxy activation is another major variable. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi militias, and Houthi forces in Yemen could expand the battlefield. Lebanon’s prime minister has already warned against being dragged into regional “adventures,” reflecting concern that Hezbollah involvement could trigger devastating retaliation.

Casualty levels will be decisive. If US personnel suffer significant losses, Washington may escalate further with expanded strikes targeting leadership decapitation or broader military infrastructure. Conversely, limited casualties could allow for calibrated responses designed to avoid uncontrolled escalation.

Regional and Global Implications

The immediate regional consequences include airspace closures, evacuation planning and emergency protocols in Gulf capitals. Energy markets are already on alert. Military traffic has been observed over Iraqi airspace, and missile interceptions have been reported across multiple theatres.

Globally, this confrontation places the United States in a direct war with Iran, something successive administrations have sought to avoid for decades. It tests US defence industrial capacity, already strained by commitments in Ukraine and support for Israel. It also places China and Russia in complex strategic positions, particularly given China’s energy dependence on Gulf supplies and Russia’s interest in reshaping regional security balances.
The diplomatic track appears effectively suspended. Even if backchannel communication continues, the trust deficit has widened dramatically. Calls for restraint from European and Gulf states are likely to intensify, yet their leverage may be limited in the face of active hostilities.

Conclusion

The events of 28 February 2026 represent more than another episode in the long US-Iran confrontation. They signal the opening of a new phase in which overt, multi-theatre military exchanges have replaced indirect confrontation and proxy engagement. The strategic objectives declared by Washington and Jerusalem extend beyond deterrence toward degradation of regime capabilities and even political transformation.

Whether this becomes a prolonged regional war or remains a contained but intense campaign will depend primarily on the scale and lethality of Iran’s retaliation, the resilience of US regional infrastructure, and the political calculus in Washington and Tehran in the coming days.

The Middle East has entered a highly unstable moment. The next 48 hours will determine whether the region steps back from the brink or accelerates toward a wider and potentially protracted war.