Joint U.S.-Israel Airstrike on Iran: The Outbreak of Full-Scale Military Conflict in the Middle East and Strategic Dilemmas

In the early hours of February 28, 2026, the long-standing tension and confrontation in the Middle East escalated into an open, full-scale military conflict. U.S. President Donald Trump announced via video that the American military, in collaboration with the Israel Defense Forces, had launched a major combat operation against Iran. Almost simultaneously, explosions were reported in multiple Iranian cities, including Tehran, Isfahan, and Qom, while air raid sirens sounded across Israel. American military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates also came under missile attack. This operation, possibly codenamed "Roar of the Lion," marks a significant escalation in direct military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran since the 12-day air war in June 2025. The conflict may last for several days, and the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is undergoing dramatic changes.

Progress of the War and Initial Results

The operation commenced at approximately 8:15 AM local time on February 28. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz was the first to announce that the Israeli military had launched a preemptive strike aimed at eliminating threats to the State of Israel. Subsequently, Trump confirmed U.S. military involvement in a video posted on Truth Social, describing it as a large-scale and ongoing operation. The initial targets of the strike demonstrated clear strategic intent: Iranian state media and eyewitnesses reported that areas near the office of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei in Tehran, as well as the location of the presidential office, were attacked. This indicates that the operation directly targeted the command core of the Iranian regime.

Iran's retaliatory response was swift. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, via Fars News Agency, claimed that its missiles and drones targeted the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, other U.S. military bases in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as military and security centers deep within the occupied territories. Bahrain's state news agency confirmed that the service center of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet was struck by missiles. The UAE Ministry of Defense reported that its air defense systems intercepted several Iranian ballistic missiles, but civilian casualties still occurred—an Asian civilian was killed in Abu Dhabi due to falling debris. The Israel Defense Forces reported detecting a new wave of missiles launched from Iran toward Israeli territory, with national emergency services handling the wounded.

From a tactical perspective, both sides demonstrated long-range strike capabilities in the first round of confrontation. The U.S. military and Israeli forces launched attacks from air and sea platforms. Iran, in response, utilized its ballistic missiles and drones to counterattack U.S. military targets in the Persian Gulf region. The Patriot air defense system deployed by the United Arab Emirates participated in interceptions in Qatar, indicating that the conflict had spread to multiple countries. Cyberspace also became a battleground, with monitoring organization NetBlocks reporting that Iran experienced a near-nationwide internet outage following the attacks.

Strategic Motivation and Decision-Making Logic

This conflict is the result of years of accumulated diplomatic deadlock and security dilemmas. Following the joint U.S.-Israel strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, diplomatic negotiations aimed at resolving the Iranian nuclear issue stalled in early 2026. Despite three rounds of talks between the U.S. and Iran in Geneva, core disagreements remained irreconcilable: the United States and Israel demanded that any agreement must include the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear facilities, restrictions on its ballistic missile program, and an end to its support for regional proxies; Iran insisted that its missile program is a matter of sovereignty and security, refused to include it in the negotiations, and viewed ceasing support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as interference in its internal affairs.

The Trump administration's decision-making blended preemptive war theory with domestic political considerations. In a video address, Trump labeled Iran as the world's top state sponsor of terrorism, accusing it of attempting to restart its nuclear program and develop long-range missiles. This continued his rejection of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Trump emphasized that the action was to prevent this evil regime from threatening the United States, hinting that Iranian missiles could already threaten U.S. allies in Europe and overseas troops. Analysts point out that in the election year of 2026, demonstrating a tough stance aligns with the expectations of his political base. Trump even directly called on the Iranian people to take over the government, reflecting his intent for regime change.

The motivation of the Netanyahu government in Israel is more straightforward—survival and security. Israel views Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities as an ultimate threat to its national existence. Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that an agreement that only restricts nuclear activities without limiting missiles or constraining regional behavior is ineffective for Israel. Israel's preemptive strikes essentially represent the practice of its long-standing Begin Doctrine, which entails taking unilateral action, if necessary, to eliminate the possibility of hostile neighboring countries acquiring nuclear weapons. Netanyahu's gratitude to Trump for his historic leadership highlights the deep alignment of the U.S.-Israel alliance in this operation.

Iran's response reflects a strategy combining strategic patience with asymmetric retaliation. The statement from Iran's Supreme National Security Council vowed to deliver a crushing retaliation, specifically noting that the attack occurred during negotiations. This serves both the need to unite domestic public opinion and to project a tough stance externally. Iran's missile counterattack did not directly target the U.S. mainland or Israeli population centers but instead chose U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf region. This aims to increase the cost of war for the United States, test the resilience of its allies, and attempt to foster discontent in the Arab world regarding the U.S. military presence. The strategy is to make the conflict costly for the U.S. and Israel without triggering a full-scale invasion.

Regional chain reactions and global impacts.

The conflict has rapidly spilled over, putting pressure on the security architecture across the entire Middle East. The hostilities have spread across a vast area from the Eastern Mediterranean, the Levant, the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. Apart from the countries directly involved in the fighting, the airspace of nations such as Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain has been closed or has effectively become a war zone. The Russian Ministry of Transport announced that Russian airlines have suspended flights to Iran and Israel, highlighting the immediate impact of the conflict on international aviation.

Countries in the region face difficult choices in taking sides. While announcing the interception of Iranian missiles, the UAE Ministry of Defense condemned the action as a dangerous escalation and a cowardly act, reserving the right to respond fully. Such wording reflects the complex situation of Gulf Arab states: although they rely on the United States for security and have normalized relations with Israel, they are unwilling to engage in full-scale hostility with Iran and are even more concerned about their own territories becoming battlefields. Iran's regional proxies, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah, have not yet intervened on a large scale, but their presence could open second or third fronts at any time, dragging Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria into a broader war.

The global energy and economic lifelines face direct threats. The Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint for approximately one-third of the world's seaborne oil—is at the heart of the conflict. Any attack on shipping or blockade of the strait would immediately trigger a global surge in oil prices and a supply chain crisis. With the shadow of the 2025 Red Sea shipping crisis still lingering, the explosions in the Persian Gulf have once again rattled global markets.

The international community's response shows initial signs of division. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese issued a statement supporting the United States' actions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and advised citizens to leave Iran. This represents the stance of some Western allies. However, the operation occurred during negotiations and lacked authorization from the United Nations Security Council, resulting in a weak basis in international law. This is bound to provoke serious disagreements within the international community, including among European countries. The United Nations Security Council may convene an emergency meeting, but the power struggles among major nations will make it difficult to reach any binding resolution.

Conflict Prospects and Unpredictable Endgames

Trump acknowledged that the operation could last several days and warned that there might be casualties among U.S. military personnel. This suggests that the objectives of the U.S.-Israel coalition may be quite extensive, covering Iran's nuclear facilities, missile bases, command centers, and key assets of the Revolutionary Guard. The duration of the war will depend on the intensity of Iran's resistance, the resilience of its underground facilities, and the political and military risks the U.S. and Israel are willing to bear.

Iran's retaliatory capability should not be underestimated. Its stockpile of thousands of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones is sufficient to launch multiple rounds of attacks against U.S. military targets in the Middle East, Israeli cities, and energy infrastructure in Gulf countries. Although Israel's Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow missile defense systems, along with the U.S. regional air defense network, would intercept most of them, even a few missiles breaking through would be enough to cause significant casualties and political shock. This conflict is likely to evolve into a war of attrition, testing the social endurance, economic resilience, and international support of both sides.

The most dangerous variable lies in the escalation logic of the conflict. Once Iran's critical nuclear facilities (such as the underground enrichment plant in Natanz) are destroyed, or its top leadership faces decapitation strikes, Iran may mobilize its proxy network to launch global attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets, or attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz. At that point, would the United States launch a ground offensive against Iran's homeland? Would Israel become entangled in a full-scale war with Hezbollah in Lebanon? These scenarios could drag the Middle East and even the world into deeper turmoil.

The explosion on February 28, 2026 shattered the early morning in Tehran and Tel Aviv, along with the fragile hope of managing the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic channels. This was a preventive war launched based on the worst-case assumptions, with its initiators hoping to reshape the regional order through military victory. However, historical experience shows that the deserts of the Middle East are most adept at turning invaders’ blueprints for victory into quicksand. When bombs began to fall, the window for dialogue closed, leaving only the contest of steel and fire, and a future for the Middle East that is more turbulent and unpredictable. This conflict has no winners, only losers to varying degrees, and the greatest cost will be borne by the people of this ancient land.