WASHINGTON, Feb 28 - President Trump’s choice to authorize a sweeping military campaign against Iran marks a defining and high-risk turn in his foreign policy approach. By aligning U.S. forces with Israeli actions and employing broad strikes against Iranian targets, Trump has signaled a readiness to use overwhelming military force. The result may be a prolonged confrontation rather than the brief operations that have characterized some recent U.S. actions.
A different kind of operation
The strikes, which U.S. officials have tied to an effort to blunt Iran’s ballistic missile threat and to deny Tehran a path to a nuclear weapon, represent a departure from the limited, rapid missions the administration has favored in the early weeks of the second term. Last month’s quick raid in Venezuela was cited internally as the type of narrow operation that Trump preferred. In contrast, the campaign against Iran carries the hallmarks of a broader and potentially lengthier military engagement.
In a brief pre-dawn video posted on his Truth Social platform, the president framed the action as necessary to remove what he described as an imminent ballistic missile threat and to give Iranians an opportunity to rise up and topple their government. The Pentagon has labeled the operation "Operation Epic Fury." The administration’s stated objectives include eroding much of Iran’s military capabilities and denying Tehran the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran, however, denies that its nuclear program has military aims.
Goals, doubts and historical parallels
Trump’s declaration that air power can prompt a popular uprising that results in regime change echoes an ambitious goal that outside bombing campaigns have historically struggled to achieve without a ground component. Analysts highlighted by the administration and some former officials note that air strikes alone have rarely, if ever, toppled established governments without additional forces on the ground.
"Most Americans will wake up Saturday morning and wonder why we are at war with Iran, what is the goal, and why U.S. bases in the Middle East are under attack," said Daniel Shapiro, a former senior Pentagon official and U.S. ambassador to Israel now at the Atlantic Council.
That uncertainty - about both strategic aims and battlefield outcomes - is central to why some observers call the move the biggest foreign policy gamble of Mr. Trump’s presidency. The administration’s public explanation has been limited, offering broad justifications without detailed plans for how the campaign would lead to the political transformation the president describes.
Diplomatic doors shut and a regional response
The resort to force came as nuclear talks in Geneva produced no breakthrough, and the buildup of U.S. military assets in the region over recent weeks gave the president an operational option that appears to have closed off diplomatic avenues for the immediate future. Some aides had argued previously that bombing might pressure Tehran into negotiations. Instead, Iran replied to the strikes by launching missiles at U.S. allies in the region, including Israel and oil-producing Gulf Arab states.
Trump’s recent public statements also contained claims about Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities that critics say overstate the immediacy of the threat. Sources familiar with U.S. intelligence assessments have told officials that the president’s remark in his State of the Union address about an imminent Iranian missile now able to strike the U.S. is not supported by the intelligence community’s evaluations, and experts have expressed skepticism about assertions that Tehran could quickly accelerate its nuclear program to weapons capability.
Regime change as an explicit objective
While the president had earlier threatened strikes in January in support of protesters facing domestic repression in Iran, the recent operations have made it plain that part of the administration’s aim is to pressure Tehran toward regime change. Even so, analysts inside and outside government question whether that aim is achievable without deploying ground forces, a step Mr. Trump has explicitly ruled out.
A source familiar with the initial wave of strikes said the first targets were mainly Iranian officials. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was not in Tehran at the time and had been moved to a secure location, a separate source with knowledge of the matter said. An Iranian source close to the establishment reported that several senior commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and political officials were killed in the attacks.
Experts warn that removing top leaders could have unintended consequences. The absence of a clear successor plan or a predictable post-strike outcome could generate widespread instability across Iran - a nation of about 93 million people - or pave the way for military figures to assume control, potentially producing a government that is harder-line toward the West and more repressive domestically.
"He wants to change the government," said Jon Alterman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But it’s hard to change the government from the air. It’s hard to change the minds of Iranians through the air."
Tyson Barker, a former senior U.S. official now at the Atlantic Council, added that the administration’s public appeals to Iranians to rise up could expose civilians to danger. "They’re really exposing these poor Iranian people by saying, 'Stand up and overthrow your government. We got your back'," Barker said.
Shifts in presidential appetite for military risk
The president’s reliance on large-scale military options appears to have increased since the start of his second term. Officials briefing the president in advance of the strikes conveyed blunt assessments about the possibility of significant U.S. casualties while also highlighting the potential upside of a regional realignment in favor of U.S. interests, a U.S. official said.
Trump has expressed confidence that prior military operations validated his approach. He viewed last June’s U.S.-led strikes on Iran’s main nuclear facilities as a major success and considered the January raid in Venezuela that captured President Nicolas Maduro to be a demonstration of decisive action that also yielded leverage over the country’s oil reserves. Those recent operations may have reinforced the president’s willingness to authorize forceful measures, even when such moves risk provoking a broader confrontation.
Analysts caution the president has now engaged a far more capable adversary. Iran, while suffering degradation of some air defenses and missile systems in earlier joint strikes, remains better armed and more formidable than recent opponents the administration has confronted. The current flare-up in the Gulf reflects a willingness by Tehran to take steps that earlier it had been reluctant to take, expanding the range of actions that could shape the conflict.
"Iran is a more formidable military power, and even what the response is right now in the Gulf - they’re willing to cross lines that they weren’t willing to cross before," said Nicole Grajewski of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Others, however, argue Tehran’s weakened condition justifies taking risks to reduce its nuclear and missile capabilities. Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said that even if the Iranian government does not collapse, significantly degrading Iran’s strategic capabilities could be viewed as a victory for the United States.
"Whether or not the Iranian government falls, severely degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile programs could be a victory for Trump," Dubowitz said.
Domestic political and market considerations
The president’s intensified focus on Iran has at times pushed foreign policy to the forefront of his agenda during the first 13 months of his second term, overtaking domestic issues such as the rising cost of living, which public opinion polling suggests remains a higher priority for many Americans. Some aides have privately urged the president to refocus on voters’ economic concerns, warning of political risks ahead of November’s midterm elections, when the Republican Party could lose control of one or both chambers of Congress.
Markets and regional economies are likely to be affected by the unfolding conflict. The strikes and subsequent missile launches targeted by Iran at Israel and Gulf oil producers increase the potential for supply disruptions in an oil-rich region. Investors and traders will be closely watching developments for any signs of a broader escalation that could affect energy markets and global trade routes.
What remains uncertain
Key questions remain unanswered by the administration’s public statements: how the strikes will translate into durable political change within Iran, what contingency plans exist should the campaign expand, and whether U.S. forces will face sustained counterattacks that increase American casualties. Officials have warned of those possibilities in private briefings, but the public has received limited detail about the administration’s exit strategy or criteria for success.
As the operation continues to unfold, policymakers, analysts and markets will be assessing both the military effects on Iran’s capabilities and the political consequences for the wider Middle East and U.S. domestic politics. The path forward is uncertain, and the costs and benefits of the campaign will be debated as evidence of its outcomes becomes clearer.
Reporting for this analysis drew on statements from current and former officials and public remarks by analysts cited above.