US-Israel Attacks on Iran: Tehran Responds

Middle East Escalation: Strike on Iran

A rapidly escalating confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran in early 2026 followed years of diplomatic friction, sanctions, proxy wars and domestic unrest in Iran. After months of high-level talks and intense military posturing, the U.S. and Israel launched large-scale strikes on Iran targeting nuclear and military sites; Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks across the region. The crisis unfolded against the backdrop of Iran’s long-running nuclear program, its support for regional proxies (IRGC–Quds Force, Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas), severe domestic protests and crackdowns (Iranian regime killing about 30,000 to 50,000 citizens, and competing diplomatic efforts (P5+1, JCPOA-era legacies, new U.S.–Iran indirect talks). Key points:

• Military escalation: U.S. and Israeli strikes hit Iranian nuclear sites and military facilities (including senior officials); Iran responded with ballistic missile and drone attacks on Israel and U.S. bases and facilities across the Middle East. Casualties include U.S. service members killed during Operation Epic Fury (March 1, 2026).
• Nuclear history and diplomacy: Iran’s nuclear program dates to the 1950s, grew covertly after the 1980s, and was constrained by the 2015 JCPOA; the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and subsequent sanctions pushed Iran to resume enrichment and develop related capabilities. Renewed indirect talks in 2026 sought limits but failed to avert strikes.
• Regional proxy influence: Iran expanded influence via the IRGC–Quds Force, supplying, training and funding proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi forces, militias in Syria/Iraq/Yemen), escalating regional violence and complicating de-escalation.
• Domestic unrest and international pressure: Mass protests across Iran (since late 2025) and harsh crackdowns increased internal instability; Western sanctions and condemnation (EU, U.S., others) compounded economic distress and influenced foreign policy choices.
• Political dynamics: The Trump administration restored “maximum pressure,” signaled support for Israel’s hard line, and directly participated in strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure—marking a notable shift toward direct U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear program despite ongoing diplomatic exchanges.

The US-Israeli Plan for Iranian Regime Change

The Islamic Republic of Iran is unusually vulnerable after recent military setbacks, economic strain, and mass protests, and that the Trump administration was using threats and force to coerce regime change or a better nuclear deal. Limited strikes were unlikely to suffice: a larger, coordinated U.S. campaign — combining covert support for protesters and intelligence operations with decisive strikes on Iran’s air defenses, missile and nuclear infrastructure, and security institutions — could degrade the regime’s repressive capacity, encourage defections in security forces, and create space for Iranians to overturn the government without a full U.S. ground invasion. This seems to be the strategy of the US.

The strategy includes arming and supporting several ethnic groups within Iran (Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis) along with asking Iranians to start potests again after the US-Israeli bombings are finished. It is estimated that up to 80 to 85% of the population hates the current regime and wants change. However, unarmed civilians faced armed ruthless regime troops could result in more slaughter.

Major risks (escalation, civilian harm, and instability) are strongly possible before a plausible route to “win” by enabling an internal political transition even works. This is a very risky move by the Trump administration likely nudged on by Israel and some Gulf countries to finish off the Iranian regime while it is weak. Key points:

• Iran is described as unusually weak because of recent attacks on its enrichment and air defenses, severe economic/environmental crises, and widespread protests.
• The protests were seen as a severe risk for the Iranian regime and they killed from 30,000 to 50,000 protestors. The security services even went into hospitals and shot dead wounded protestors.
• Trump had massed forces and threatened strikes to compel Iran back to a tougher nuclear deal or to topple its leadership; past actions suggest a preference for short, sharp attacks rather than prolonged occupation. The choice is to topple the regime.
• The regime is resilient and institutionalized; decapitating strikes could backfire by rallying insiders, so the U.S. would need a broader campaign to degrade air defenses, missile forces, nuclear infrastructure, and the security apparatus.
• S. strategy proposed: combine covert assistance to protesters (secure communications, information ops, cultivating defectors) with targeted airstrikes against military and political-security targets to fracture the regime and reduce its ability to suppress mass protests.
• Risks include significant Iranian retaliation, regional escalation, civilian casualties, and chaotic post-regime instability; proponents argue these risks are manageable and preferable to leaving the Islamic Republic intact.

Risk of Failure to Topple the Regime

The U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran and Iran’s rapid missile attacks produce a dangerous, uncertain escalation. While theocratic Iran is likely to be battered rather than toppled by air strikes alone, the campaign signals unprecedented U.S.–Israel coordination and ambitious goals (including regime change) that cannot be achieved with airpower alone. Gulf states face hard choices and fear instability; Hezbollah appears weakened and reluctant to open a wider front. The conflict risks prolonged, unpredictable violence, regional fallout, and blowback against U.S. forces and partners. Summary:

• Iran probably will survive air campaign: the regime’s multi-layered, repressive apparatus (IRGC) and loyal cadres make rapid collapse unlikely despite damage and political strain.
• Exceptional U.S.–Israeli coordination: the strikes reflect close planning and shared, unusually ambitious objectives—degrading Iran’s capabilities and pressuring regime change—which raise escalation risks.
• Regional states are cautious and exposed: Gulf governments condemned Iran’s reprisals, fear a weakened, vengeful neighbor, and may provide technical or political support to the U.S. while avoiding direct involvement.
• Limits of airpower and high risks of regime-change aims: air strikes alone cannot reliably eliminate Iran’s nuclear or proxy capabilities or guarantee the fall of the clerical regime; attempts to force regime change risk protracted war, ground intervention, and wider instability.
• Hezbollah’s role muted for now: Lebanon’s group appears degraded and politically constrained; it has not embraced immediate broad retaliation, reducing—but not eliminating—the risk of a new Lebanon front.

 Potential Risk to Oil Markets

Tensions between the United States, Israel and Iran have raised fears of disruptions to regional oil production and shipping—especially through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea—after strikes and threats tied to escalating combat operations. Oil prices already rose on the news; markets and insurers are reacting to the risk of attacks, mining or closures of chokepoints that would sharply affect global crude flows. OPEC members may boost output to calm markets, while U.S. and allied naval forces stand ready to keep shipping lanes open if Iran or its proxies attempt to block them, summary below:

• Immediate market reaction: Crude prices jumped (nearly 3%) on fears the conflict will disrupt supply; traders expect further moves once markets reopen.
• Chokepoints at risk: The Strait of Hormuz (carrying ~20% of the world’s oil) and the Suez/Red Sea route face threats from Iran and proxies (e.g., the Houthis), with Hormuz especially hard to mitigate if closed.
• Military and insurance responses: U.S./regional navies prepared to counter attempts to close Hormuz; maritime insurers have raised premiums or cancelled coverage, signaling serious shipping risk.
• Supply mitigation: OPEC (and Gulf producers) may increase output beyond previously signalled rises to reassure markets; Saudi Arabia and others had already been increasing shipments ahead of conflict.
• Escalation caveat: A full closure of Hormuz would be highly escalatory and likely elicit strong military responses; limited harassment or one-off attacks are the more probable near-term scenarios.