On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated military strike on Iran, with explosions reported across Tehran and other parts of the country. Iranian retaliation followed quickly, with missiles and drones targeting northern Israel and locations in Gulf Arab states, including Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
According to statements from US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the operation was a joint action aimed at neutralising what they described as imminent threats from the Iranian government. But beyond official language, the strikes reflect deeper strategic objectives and long standing tensions.
The Stated Reason: Eliminating “Imminent Threats”
President Trump said the operation was designed to “eliminate threats from the Iranian regime” and defend American lives. Netanyahu described Iran as posing an “existential threat” to Israel.
For years, Israel has accused Iran of advancing its nuclear programme toward potential weapons capability. The US has also pressured Tehran over uranium enrichment levels, ballistic missile development and its support for armed groups across the region. From Washington and Tel Aviv’s perspective, the strikes were framed as pre-emptive, meant to disrupt military infrastructure, weapons systems and possibly nuclear facilities before they could be used.
Israeli officials have repeatedly argued that waiting would allow Iran to strengthen its deterrence capacity. A preventative strike, in their view, reduces long term risk even if it triggers short term escalation.
Nuclear Programme Pressure
A central issue is Iran’s nuclear programme. The US has assembled military assets in the region in recent months while attempting to push Tehran toward a negotiated agreement limiting enrichment and inspection conditions.
Some analysts believe the timing of the attack was linked to stalled negotiations. By demonstrating military capability and willingness to act, Washington and Israel may be seeking leverage. The message could be that continued nuclear advancement will come at direct military cost.
Israel, which views a nuclear armed Iran as an unacceptable security threat, has long maintained that it reserves the right to act alone if necessary. This joint operation signals that the US is prepared to move beyond diplomacy under certain conditions.
Deterrence and Regional Signalling
Another objective appears to be deterrence. Iran supports allied armed groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which Israel and the US consider hostile actors. By striking Iranian territory directly, both countries may be trying to reestablish red lines and signal that escalation through proxies will not shield Tehran from consequences.
The attacks also send a message to Gulf Arab states. Countries such as Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates host US military assets and are strategically positioned in the regional security architecture. By acting decisively, Washington may be reassuring regional partners of its continued military commitment.
At the same time, Iranian retaliation against sites in the Gulf demonstrates how interconnected regional security has become. Any conflict between Israel and Iran now carries immediate implications for the wider Middle East.
Domestic Political Factors
Domestic considerations can also shape decisions of this magnitude. Leaders sometimes act forcefully during periods of political pressure or geopolitical uncertainty. Demonstrating resolve against a long standing adversary can consolidate support among key constituencies.
For Israel, confronting Iran has broad political backing across much of the security establishment. For the US administration, projecting strength against Tehran aligns with a tougher regional posture.
Attempt to Shape Iran’s Internal Dynamics
Netanyahu suggested that joint action could create conditions for the “brave Iranian people” to determine their future. That language hints at another possible objective, weakening the Iranian state’s military and security apparatus in ways that might shift internal political dynamics.
Whether military action actually produces such outcomes is uncertain. External attacks often strengthen nationalist sentiment and consolidate ruling authorities rather than weaken them.
Risks and Consequences
Iranian officials have warned of “crushing” retaliation and declared that American and Israeli assets in the region are now legitimate targets. Explosions reported in northern Israel and Gulf capitals underscore how quickly the confrontation has expanded.
Airspace closures across multiple countries, emergency alerts and missile interceptions show that the conflict risks spreading beyond a contained exchange. The possibility of escalation into a broader regional war remains a central concern.
Conclusion
The joint US and Israeli strike on Iran appears driven by a mix of objectives: disrupting perceived imminent threats, constraining Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, restoring deterrence and reshaping regional power dynamics. While framed as defensive and preventative, the operation marks a significant escalation in an already volatile rivalry.
Whether it achieves its strategic aims or triggers a wider conflict will depend on the scale of retaliation, diplomatic backchannels and the calculations of all parties involved in the days ahead.