US and Israel Launch Strikes on Iran as Trump Calls for Regime Change

The commencement of coordinated US and Israeli military strikes against Iranian territory on February 28, 2026, represents the most significant escalation in Middle Eastern geopolitics in decades. By transitioning from a policy of maximum pressure and shadow warfare to direct kinetic engagement, the alliance has signaled a definitive end to the era of containment. The strikes, which reportedly targeted infrastructure across the country, were immediately followed by a provocative call from President Donald Trump for the Iranian people to dismantle the current clerical leadership. This dual-track approach—combining military force with an explicit appeal for regime change—places the region on the precipice of a full-scale war with global economic and security ramifications.

Historically, US and Israeli operations against Iran have been characterized by deniability, focusing on cyberattacks, targeted assassinations, or strikes against regional proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The current campaign breaks this precedent by striking the Iranian heartland directly. While specific target lists remain classified, the scope of the operation suggests a focus on degrading the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command structures, air defense networks, and potentially facilities associated with the nation’s nuclear program. For Israel, the operation is seen as a pre-emptive necessity to neutralize long-range missile threats; for the United States, it serves as a demonstration of renewed military assertiveness under the Trump administration.

“

The commencement of coordinated US and Israeli military strikes against Iranian territory on February 28, 2026, represents the most significant escalation in Middle Eastern geopolitics in decades.

The strategic shift toward regime change is perhaps the most volatile element of this development. By calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government, President Trump has effectively closed the door on diplomatic de-escalation. This rhetoric is designed to capitalize on internal Iranian dissent, which has simmered for years due to economic mismanagement and social restrictions. However, history suggests that external military intervention often has the opposite effect, potentially rallying nationalist sentiment around the existing regime in the face of foreign aggression. The success of this strategy depends entirely on the Iranian public’s willingness and ability to mobilize under the duress of an active bombing campaign.

The immediate impact on global markets has been swift, with oil prices reacting to the threat of a prolonged conflict in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil passes—gives Tehran significant leverage to retaliate by disrupting maritime trade. Any Iranian counter-response targeting energy infrastructure in neighboring Gulf states or international shipping lanes would likely trigger a global energy crisis, complicating the economic calculus for the US and its allies.

Looking forward, the international community will be watching for the scale of Iran’s retaliation. Tehran’s Axis of Resistance, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, remains a potent tool for asymmetric warfare that could expand the conflict into a multi-front regional conflagration. Furthermore, the reaction of Moscow and Beijing will be critical; both powers have deepened ties with Tehran in recent years and may view a US-led regime change effort as a direct challenge to their own strategic interests. As the situation unfolds, the primary indicators of success or failure will be the resilience of the Iranian state apparatus and the degree to which the US and Israel are prepared to sustain a high-intensity conflict if the initial strikes do not achieve their political objectives.