On February 28, 2026, the world woke up to a dramatic escalation in the Middle East. Israel and the United States launched coordinated airstrikes against multiple targets across Iran—an operation described by the Israel Defense Forces as the largest in the Israeli Air Force’s history . Explosions rocked Tehran, and within hours, Iran retaliated with missile strikes toward Israel and US bases across the Gulf .
The Man Who Made Iran His Life’s Mission
To understand why Israel attacked, you have to understand Benjamin Netanyahu. He hasn’t just been a prime minister dealing with Iran as one issue among many—he has made confronting Iran the defining mission of his political career .
For more than three decades, Netanyahu has portrayed Iran’s Islamic regime as an existential threat to Israel—not just a strategic rival, but a modern-day incarnation of the enemies that sought to destroy the Jewish people throughout history. He has repeatedly likened Iran’s leaders to Hitler’s Germany, arguing that their genocidal rhetoric (“wiping Israel off the map”) must be taken literally and seriously .
In Netanyahu’s worldview, a nuclear-armed Iran is not a problem to be managed or contained. It’s a red line that must never be crossed. He has argued this at the United Nations, in speeches to the US Congress, and in countless interviews over three decades.
So when Israel and the US launched Operation Lion’s Roar (the Israeli name) and Operation Epic Fury (the US name), Netanyahu was finally taking the shot he had been positioning himself for his entire career .
The October 7 Earthquake: Why Deterrence Died
But 2026 is different from previous years—and that difference has a name: October 7.
When Hamas launched its devastating attack on October 7, 2023, it didn’t just start a war in Gaza. It shattered a foundational assumption that had guided Israeli strategic thinking for years: that enemies could be managed, contained, and deterred .
For a decade, Israel had tolerated dangerous capabilities from its enemies, believing that so long as intentions appeared constrained, the threat could be managed. Hamas had rockets, but they were mostly intercepted. Hezbollah had missiles, but they stayed north of the border. Iran had proxies, but they operated at a distance.
October 7 demolished that premise .
“The lesson drawn across Israel’s political and security establishment was clear: you do not allow a sworn enemy to accumulate the capacity to destroy you and trust that deterrence will indefinitely hold,” wrote analysts at The Jerusalem Post .
Hamas was a proxy. Hezbollah is a proxy. At the center of that network sits Iran—the architect, financier, trainer, and supplier . If the massacre exposed the cost of underestimating a proxy’s intent, it sharpened attention on the patron’s capabilities.
There’s a deep irony here that analysts have noted: Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader, sought to derail Israel’s normalization in the region and restore the “axis of resistance” to center stage. He wanted to light a fire. He did—but the flames didn’t consume Israel as he had hoped. They consumed Gaza, then spread to Lebanon, and now they have drawn Israel and the United States into direct confrontation with the regime that empowered him .
A Window of Opportunity: Iran’s Vulnerability
Timing matters in war. Israel and the US didn’t attack now by accident. They saw a strategic window .
Iran in early 2026 is genuinely vulnerable:
- Economic crisis: Severe sanctions and mismanagement have crippled the economy .
- Domestic dissent: The regime has faced waves of protests, most recently in January 2026, and has demonstrated its willingness to shoot and kill thousands of fellow citizens to stay in power .
- Military degradation: Iran’s defenses are still badly damaged from the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025 .
- Proxy network weakened: Israel’s campaigns since October 7 have severely degraded Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian assets across the region .
BBC’s international editor Jeremy Bowen put it bluntly: “Israel and the United States have calculated that the Islamic regime in Iran is vulnerable… Their conclusion seems to have been that this was an opportunity that should not be squandered” .
In other words, this is a war of choice, not a response to an imminent threat. The word “pre-emptive” was used in official statements, but the evidence suggests this is about seizing a moment of Iranian weakness .
The Nuclear Factor: Red Lines and Broken Talks
Iran’s nuclear program has always been the core of the conflict. Iran insists it has no intention of building a bomb—a position repeated for years . But it has enriched uranium to levels that have no civilian use, and at minimum, it seems to want the option of building a weapon .
Talks between Washington and Tehran had been ongoing, mediated by Oman. A new round in Geneva had just ended on Thursday—two days before the strikes .
What happened in those talks? Analysts point to a fundamental disconnect. “Iran believes it made great concessions, but that clashed sharply with US and Israeli views,” one analyst told CGTN. “Continuing talks would be a waste of time” .
US President Donald Trump had set a 10-15 day deadline for meaningful diplomatic progress. When that deadline passed without a breakthrough, military pressure became the chosen path . Some analysts go further, arguing that “the negotiations were completely a smokescreen”—that the military buildup was already in place and the decision to strike was made regardless of diplomatic outcomes .
Either way, the nuclear program remains the stated justification. Netanyahu said plainly: the “murderous terror regime” in Tehran must not be armed with nuclear weapons capable of threatening “all of humanity” .
Regime Change: The New, Ambitious Goal
Here’s where this conflict differs from previous rounds. The goal now appears to be not just nuclear containment, but regime change .
In a video message, Netanyahu called on Iran’s diverse ethnic groups—Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Baloch, Ahwazi—to throw off “the yoke of tyranny” and establish a “free and peace-loving Iran” . Trump went further: “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations” .
Nothing would burnish Netanyahu’s legacy more than toppling the Islamic Republic . It would be the ultimate validation of his decades-long crusade.
But analysts warn this is enormously ambitious—and enormously risky . Iran is a nation of 93 million people, with around 15 million considered devoted supporters of the Supreme Leader, backed by well-armed security forces . Decapitating leadership doesn’t automatically trigger a popular uprising. And if the regime fights for its life, it has nothing left to lose .
As one former Israeli intelligence official put it: “Let’s assume the people won’t go into the streets, and the supreme leader is still alive, and Iran will continue launching missiles. Then what? You can continue the war for how long?”
Domestic Politics: Netanyahu’s Election Calculus
We can’t ignore the political dimension. Israel faces a general election later in 2026 . Netanyahu’s political position has been weakened by the costly two-year war with Hamas and the trauma of October 7 .
History shows that Israeli leaders often benefit politically when the nation is at war. The 2023-2025 Gaza war demonstrated that Netanyahu “believes his political position strengthens when Israel is at war” .
Analysts note that Netanyahu has “strong incentives to sustain a posture of external confrontation, which can consolidate political support and prolong his governing viability” . A major military win—especially one that neutralizes Iran’s nuclear threat or even topples the regime—would dramatically reshape the electoral landscape in his favor.
This doesn’t mean the war is only about domestic politics. The strategic threats are real. But political timing is rarely coincidental in the Middle East.
The US-Israel Alignment: Hand in Glove
Previous Israeli strikes faced US opposition. In 1956, Eisenhower forced a withdrawal. In 1967, Johnson warned Israel would stand alone . In June 2025, the US participated but played a supporting role, mainly “under Israel’s persuasion” .
This time is different. Washington and Jerusalem acted together, “hand in glove,” with extensive coordination and two US carrier strike groups deployed to the region . The US is playing the main role, and the scale and targets have expanded significantly .
Trump framed Iran not as Israel’s problem alone, but as a wider threat to global security . This alignment gives Israel strategic depth it has rarely enjoyed in past confrontations.
The Risks: A War That Could Spiral
For all the confidence, the dangers are enormous. Iran has already struck US bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan . The Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint for global energy supplies—is now a potential flashpoint .
Analysts warn that a “single misinterpreted strike, an overzealous militia commander, or a cyber operation that crosses an unseen red line could ignite a chain reaction” . Unlike last June’s limited exchange, this conflict carries “significantly greater escalation” risks .
If the regime genuinely fears for its survival, Iranian allies in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq could join the fight in earnest . What began as an air campaign could expand into a broader regional war with unpredictable consequences.
The Bottom Line
So why did Netanyahu push for this attack?
- Ideological conviction: He has spent his career arguing Iran is an existential threat.
- October 7 trauma: The assumption that enemies can be deterred is dead.
- A window of opportunity: Iran is economically weak, domestically divided, and militarily degraded.
- Nuclear red lines: Diplomacy failed, and Israel won’t accept a nuclear-armed Iran.
- Regime change ambition: For the first time, this is an explicit goal.
- Domestic politics: A major win could reshape elections in his favor.
In Netanyahu’s calculation, the stars have aligned. Whether that calculation proves correct—or whether it unleashes consequences nobody can control—is the question that will define the Middle East for years to come.
As one analyst put it: “The current situation is a reaction to years of the Iranian regime’s proxy strategy… Effectively, a strategy meant to keep war at bay has invariably returned home” .
The war is here. And its end is nowhere in sight.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Did Iran actually attack Israel first, or was this a “pre-emptive” strike?
Israel and the US described their action as “pre-emptive,” but evidence suggests this was a war of choice based on a perceived window of opportunity . Iran had not launched an imminent attack before the US-Israeli strikes, though it did retaliate afterward. Analysts point to the collapse of nuclear talks and Iran’s vulnerabilities—not an imminent threat—as the real triggers .
2. What does Israel hope to achieve militarily?
Israel aims to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, degrade its ballistic missile and drone capabilities, and potentially trigger regime change by encouraging internal uprisings . Unlike previous limited strikes, this operation explicitly targets leadership and seeks to create conditions for a new government in Tehran .
3. How is this different from the June 2025 Israel-Iran war?
The scale and goals are dramatically different. Last June’s 12-day war was more limited and Israel-led. This time, the US is playing the main role with two carrier strike groups, targets are expanded to include leadership and infrastructure, and regime change is an explicit—not just implicit—objective .
4. Could this lead to a broader regional war?
5. What happens if Iran’s Supreme Leader is killed?
Khamenei’s death would trigger a succession battle within Iran’s complex political system. He would likely be replaced by another cleric supported by the IRGC, not a liberal democracy . While succession could create internal turmoil, it doesn’t automatically mean regime collapse. The IRGC remains the ultimate arbiter of power .
