Indian Strategic Studies: 03/06/26

6 March 2026

India-Canada Relations Reset Following Carney’s India Visit

Dr. Rajaram Panda

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney’s four-day visit to India from 26 February to 2 March 2026 was significant mainly for two reasons: resetting bilateral ties that were frayed during his predecessor Justin Trudeau, and deepening ties in a host of areas. The visit provided an opportunity to advance a forward-looking partnership between the two nations. This was Carney’s first visit to India as the Prime Minister.

The primary reason driving Carney’s decision to travel to India was because of pressure from the US President Donald Trump and his protectionist threats and possible tariffs and therefore wanted to reshape Canada’s foreign policy by pivoting India to reduce economic dependence on the US. Deciding to revive ties with India, Carney signed key agreements in energy, minerals, uranium, and artificial intelligence. This shift aligned with Canada’s broader trade diversification strategy as Ottawa sought to double non-US exports amid rising trade tensions in North America. With his visit, the shift marked a significant departure from the strained India-Canada relations seen during the latter years of Trudeau’s tenure. The visit also showed Carney’s resolve to rapidly expand bilateral trade and restore high-level engagement after more than two years of diplomatic chill.

Why the Karachi Siege Shatters the Pakistan-Iran Bargain

Albert Wolf

Karachi – The durability of a diplomatic “buffer state” is rarely tested by its successes, but by its ability to absorb shocks that its domestic population finds intolerable. For the Pakistani civilian and military establishments, that ability vanished on Sunday afternoon on Karachi’s Mai Kolachi Road. With at least 22 reported fatalities following a breach of the U.S. Consulate, the crisis is being framed by international observers as a predictable spasm of religious fury over the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader. This assessment is dangerously shallow.

To the casual observer, the 560-mile frontier dividing the Balochi nation is a site of constant friction. But realists know that Islamabad and Tehran have long maintained a sophisticated “live and let live” arrangement. It is a pact born of mutual strategic necessity that does not bear any of the formal obligations of an alliance. Both nations are heavily invested in sensitive nuclear and ballistic programs; both recognize that a “hot” western border would invite the kind of international intervention and scrutiny that threatens their respective survival.

What the Afghanistan-Pakistan War Means for Central Asia

Nilofar Sakhi

Over the past several months, relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have deteriorated to one of their lowest points in years. Escalating border tensions, a surge of militant attacks inside Pakistan, and Islamabad’s ongoing statement that the Afghan Taliban are providing sanctuary and support to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistani Taliban, have brought the two neighbors into direct confrontation.

On February 27, Pakistan launched airstrikes targeting Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia of Afghanistan, the action as a response to a surge in deadly attacks carried out by the TTP inside Pakistan. Pakistan alleges that these attacks, including an attack on a Shia mosque in Islamabad earlier in February, were supported by the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan.

This latest escalation did not emerge suddenly. Rather, it is the culmination of tensions that have been building for several years, particularly since the return of the Taliban to power in Kabul in August 2021.

The relationship between the Afghan Taliban and the TTP is rooted in shared ideology, historical cooperation, similar organizational structure, and personal networks forged during decades of conflict. The TTP has often been described as the “Pakistan wing” of the broader Taliban movement.

Taiwan should create drone swarm ‘asymmetric hellscape’ to blunt Chinese invasion: Report

Mike Yeo

MELBOURNE — Taiwan’s current approach to defense is unlikely to deter Chinese aggression, and it needs a new operational concept that builds mass and provides operational flexibility but yet remain affordable, according to a new report.

In its report, the US-based thinktank Center for a New American Security (CNAS) also calls on the island to create an “asymmetric hellscape” made up of thousands of drones working in concert with more conventional weapons to render an invasion prohibitively costly by focusing on defeating China’s People’s Liberation Army when it is most vulnerable: during its cross-strait transit and when its troops are landing.

The report, titled Hellscape for Taiwan: Rethinking Asymmetric Defense, however also warned that Taiwan still faces hurdles in making this a reality, ranging from lacking the domestic industrial base to produce the drones at scale and institutional problems in its military.

China’s Iran Strategy: A Proxy Laboratory for War with America

Dr.Nadia Helmy

Following the US-Israeli military attacks on Iran, China is attempting to implement a “regime destruction strategy” in Iran. This strategy relies on understanding US and Israeli military technologies through field data obtained from all the US and Israeli missiles, drones, and fighter jets that participated in directing and launching military operations against Iranian targets. Intelligence, military, defense, and security think tanks in Beijing aim to study the performance of all these Israeli, Western, and American weapons in other conflicts, such as Ukraine, to develop their own defense systems and integrate artificial intelligence into them. This is intended to defend their sovereignty and national security in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and their areas of direct influence. This vision reflects a fundamental shift in the nature of the military and technological alliance between Beijing and Tehran, where cooperation is no longer limited to commercial deals but has transformed into a comprehensive field laboratory on the actual battlefield.

How China Views the US Strikes on Iran

Jianli Yang

Operation Epic Fury is a reminder to China that its global position depends on overwhelming hard power.

When the United States and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure—and reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening phase—the shock waves reached far beyond Tehran. China condemned the campaign as a violation of sovereignty and warned against “regime change.” It evacuated thousands of its nationals. It assessed the risks to oil flows, shipping lanes, and regional investments. And it recalculated.

For China, Operation Epic Fury presents both temptation and danger. In the short term, it offers openings in diplomacy and propaganda. In the medium and long term, it exposes structural vulnerabilities in energy security, technological dependence, and geopolitical positioning. For Washington, the task is not simply to manage the Iranian theater. It is to understand what this moment does to the broader US-China contest—and to act accordingly.

The Power of Innovation: The Strategic Value of China’s High-Tech Drive

Scott Kennedy

This report argues that China’s advancement across high-tech sectors has directly strengthened the country’s international power and influence, and that other governments need to respond pragmatically to reduce the downside costs and raise the upside opportunities to make the most of these developments. Based on several years of fieldwork and analysis of quantitative data and primary-source documents, the report first evaluates China’s high-tech drive in general and with respect to specific industries. It then analyzes the effect of these developments on China’s military capabilities as well as its role in shaping international technical standards. The study concludes by suggesting that the United States and like-minded countries should pursue a pragmatic strategy, which the report calls “calibrated coupling,” to maximize the opportunities and minimize the risks to themselves of China’s high-tech drive.

We Bombed the Wrong Target

Joe Funderburke

In the predawn hours of February 28, 2026, Operation Epic Fury began. U.S. and Israeli forces struck targets across Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah, targeting nuclear infrastructure, missile production facilities, and the compound of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The operation followed Operation Midnight Hammer from June 2025 and, as I argued in ‘The Gathering Storm,’ represented not a departure from the maximum pressure strategy but its logical culmination. Trump’s language had been unambiguous for weeks. The carriers were positioned. The F-22s had made their Atlantic transit. The decision, as a source told Iran International, had already been made.

But as smoke rose over Tehran and Iran launched retaliatory ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE, killing at least one civilian in Abu Dhabi and striking the Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters, a harder question emerged from the rubble: what happens next? The nuclear infrastructure may be damaged or destroyed. Khamenei may be dead or incapacitated. But the IRGC Quds Force is still operational. Hezbollah maintains tens of thousands of active combatants in Lebanon. The Houthis have already announced a resumption of missile and drone attacks on Red Sea shipping. Kataib Hezbollah has pledged to begin attacking U.S. bases across Iraq.

Trump’s Iran Gamble: How the Latest Strikes Risk Opening a Pandora’s Box in the Gulf

Ali Vaez

For the second time in eight months, the United States and Israel have conducted military strikes in Iran. Last June, Washington’s focus was almost entirely on Iran’s nuclear program, with the U.S. strikes hitting three of the Islamic Republic’s key nuclear facilities, and Israel hitting a wider set of strategic targets, including military commanders, missile launch and production facilities, and nuclear infrastructure.

This time, the United States and Israel conducted a sweeping joint military operation against Iranian leadership and capabilities, and U.S. President Donald Trump has called for “regime change” after Iranian protesters were viciously repressed by their own government early this year. On Saturday, February 28, the U.S. and Israeli militaries struck hundreds of sites across the country and targeted several top leaders, including Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed along with members of his family and key advisers.

Iran Got Trump All Wrong

Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr.

For decades, Iran managed to bluff American presidents. It deterred attacks from a superpower and carried out proxy campaigns against its neighbors and Israel. Our strikes on Iran on Saturday are evidence that this long-term strategy of negotiating in bad faith is bankrupt. The military campaign underway is the direct result of Iranian leaders’ foot-dragging, obfuscation and delay tactics.

This time, they misjudged the president.

The path to today began in 2020, when President Trump made the decision to strike then Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, an Iranian military leader who masterminded attacks against American people and facilities in the Middle East. Since his death, Iran has been unable to recover the coherence and purpose of General Suleimani’s proxy operations. Equally important, the strike established Mr. Trump’s credentials as someone who would not be in thrall to Iran. The president is the unique advantage we have in the region. For the first time in decades, American military power in the Middle East deployed against Iran is coupled with a commander in chief who isn’t afraid to use it.

Retired Vice Admiral gives military perspective on US-Israel attacks on Iran

Mary Louise Kelly

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

All right, staying with the Iran news, we wanted to get a military perspective on today's events. And for that, we have called Robert Harward, retired vice admiral, former U.S. Navy Seal, also former deputy CENTCOM commander - U.S. Central Command. He's now a member of the Iran Policy Project at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. Admiral Harward, thank you for joining us.

ROBERT HARWARD: Good to be with you, Mary Louise.

KELLY: Now, we have reached you tonight in Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE. Iran launched a retaliatory strike there earlier today. The UAE says at least one person was killed by shrapnel. So let me begin by asking, were you able to see anything, hear anything where you are?

The Regional Reverberations of the U.S. and Israeli Strikes on Iran | CSIS

In “The Regional Reverberations of the U.S. and Israeli Strikes on Iran” (CSIS, March 2026), the Director and Senior Advisor of CSIS’s Middle East Program, Mona Yacoubian, examines the immediate and long-term consequences of joint U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. The critical questions posed by Yacoubian explore the “prospects for a wider regional conflict with global reverberations.”

Q1: What are the regional repercussions of the strikes on Iran?

Soon after the joint strikes, Iran launched a series of retaliatory missile and drone strikes across the region… Iran also opted to go after U.S. military and Gulf civilian targets across several countries including Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar… Jordan and Iraq also reported intercepting Iranian missiles, and Oman’s port at Duqm was hit by an Iranian drone strike…

U.S.-Israel Strikes on Iran: Preliminary Assessment

Christopher Zambakari

The joint U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran announced Saturday, February 28, 2026, represent a dangerous escalation in Middle Eastern tensions—one rooted in strategic miscalculation and contradicted by America’s own intelligence assessments. The military campaign aims to topple Iran’s ruling leadership, dismantle its missile and naval capabilities, and encourage popular uprising following the strikes.

Initial reports from regional and international media indicate sharp escalation following the coordinated strikes. Iranian retaliation has reportedly targeted U.S. interests and allied positions across the Middle East. A representative from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reported Saturday that ships in the region are receiving radio communications declaring a prohibition on all maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil passes.

President Trump framed these “major combat operations” as necessary to counter an imminent Iranian missile threat to the American homeland. Yet according to multiple sources familiar with classified intelligence, this claim lacks evidentiary support. A 2025 unclassified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment states that Iran could develop a “militarily-viable” intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035—and only “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.” Current intelligence indicates no active Iranian ICBM program targeting the United States.

The US Must Clarify Its Strategy in Iran

Jesse Ramsdell

Joint US and Israeli military strikes in Iran Saturday morning marked the start of a conflict with no clear offramp or end in sight. At the onset of the attack, Trump released a video on Truth Social declaring the strikes were to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. He then called on Iranian citizens to “take over” the government, indicating he is instead seeking regime change. Statements from President Trump and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, over the last few days have mentioned concerns with Iran’s ballistic missile program with President Trump claiming Iran was rapidly developing missiles that could hit the US, although this claim has not been verified. With varying statements clouding the reasoning behind US intervention and broader US ambitions in Iran, for the US to obtain any semblance of success it must clarify its strategic goals, communicate those goals to the American and Iranian people, and commit to seeing them through. The US has pulled the trigger on war and there will be no easy path to deescalation.

In recent days, US rhetoric on preemptive action against Iran has included everything from Iran’s ballistic missile program and nuclear program to regime change. Now is not the time for strategic ambiguity. These murky statements will make it nearly impossible for the US to achieve its goals in Iran. Previously, when the US has made such expansive claims, most glaringly with Iraq in 2003, it has not turned out well. If the US truly wants regime change, as is becoming clearer with each hour, the President needs to make this case to the American and Iranian people with a defined strategy and exit plan in place. The US cannot afford to pull back or fail in its promises to the Iranian people. Doing so will undermine US credibility.

Killing Khamenei was easy — toppling Iran’s regime is not

Rishab Rathi

The latest Israeli and US war on Iran began with strategic airstrikes on the home and offices of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was reportedly meeting with advisors at the time and has been confirmed dead from the surprise attack.

The apparent US-Israeli assumption behind the targeted strikes was that Khamenei’s sudden removal would fatally weaken Iran’s Islamic regime. The logic resembled the collapses seen in Libya after Muammar al-Qaddafi and in Syria after Bashar al-Assad, where the state unraveled once those central figures were removed. In those cases, political order was deeply personal and closely tied to a single ruler.

Iran, however, is structured much differently. Few contemporary states place as much visible authority in one leader as Iran does in the supreme leader. Religious legitimacy, command of the armed forces and final political arbitration converge in the office, which sits atop a dense institutional network designed not merely to serve the leader but to constrain, supervise and, if necessary, outlast him.

First Thoughts on the Attack on Iran

George Friedman

At about 9:30 a.m. local time on Saturday, the United States and Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran. It did not seem to be a surprise to Iran, which was able to carry out drone and missile attacks on U.S. bases in eight Middle Eastern nations (Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar). In fact, it should not have been a surprise to anyone. Both the U.S. and Israel have insisted that Iran abandon its nuclear development program. Israel cannot accept the existential threat posed by a nuclear-capable Iran. Nor, as I have written before, could the United States. After extended negotiations, it became clear to both that Iran was not going to abandon that program. Whether Tehran believed it needed a nuclear weapon, or whether it simply couldn’t afford to back down from Washington is unclear and ultimately irrelevant. Tehran has said its program was meant only for civilian purposes, but given the ideology of the Iranian government, nuclear capability was unacceptable in any case. It can reasonably said that the U.S. and Israel did not believe the Iranian government.

Trump and Netanyahu go for Iran’s jugular

Emile Hokayem

Too many have mistakenly believed or chosen to believe that President Donald Trump is averse to war or was conducting subtle coercive diplomacy to obtain limited concessions from Tehran. If Trump cares deeply about a few things (think tariffs, Greenland, building the wall), on most other issues he is a vessel for others to steer with promises of swift victory and glory. Iran is one of these issues. His hawkish advisers and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have manoeuvred skilfully to get him to a place where war was inevitable.

Soon after bombs began dropping, Trump unambiguously called for regime change. Once he decapitates the regime, he suggested, it will be up to the Iranian people to seize the gift. He also claimed, without evidence, that the campaign will ‘defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.’ Israel’s foreign minister echoed this logic, calling the strikes ‘preemptive’. Not many believe these arguments, but this doesn’t matter.

Trump and Netanyahu are now going for the jugular. US and Israeli aircraft and cruise missiles have attacked Iran’s leadership sites, command structures and missile facilities. Iran’s supreme leader, its president and its senior security commanders remain invisible at present. The damage to Iran’s decision-making and military structures is likely to be massive. Iranian authorities have called on residents to leave the capital.

Iran attack on giant Saudi refinery pushes up oil prices

Ben Geman

A Saudi oil refinery — one of the world's largest — suffered "limited" damage overnight from an Iranian attack, per the kingdom's press agency and multiple news reports.

Why it matters: "The attack on Saudi Arabia's Ras Tanura refinery marks a significant escalation, with Gulf energy infrastructure now squarely in Iran's sights," Torbjorn Soltvedt, a top analyst with risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft, said in a note.

The overall conflict — which included new strikes in Qatar — will push up U.S. gasoline prices, though the amount and duration depends on how high oil prices climb and for how long.

Trump’s Way of War

Richard Fontaine

When bombs began falling on Iran this weekend, most Americans were as surprised as the rest of the world. The U.S. force posture in the Middle East had been building in the preceding weeks, but negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still underway. Even as the U.S. military readied for an attack, the Trump administration obscured the exact objective. There was remarkably little national debate, scant discussion with U.S. allies, and no vote in Congress about the desirability of conflict. Two days into the war, administration officials have yet to articulate a specific vision for how it will end. Instead of employing decisive force, U.S. President Donald Trump is prioritizing flexibility. This stance reflects a new way of war—visible across multiple Trump interventions, from the Red Sea to Venezuela—that inverts traditional thinking on the use of force.

Indeed, in many ways, Trump’s use of force is the anti–Powell Doctrine. Developed during the Gulf War (1990–91) by General Colin Powell, who later served as secretary of state, the Powell Doctrine held that force should be employed only as a last resort, after all nonviolent means have been exhausted. If war is necessary, however, it should proceed in pursuit of a clear objective, with a clear exit strategy, and with public support. It should employ overwhelming, decisive force to defeat the enemy, using every resource—military, economic, political, social—available. Derived from the lessons of Vietnam, the approach was designed to avoid protracted conflicts, high death tolls, financial losses, and domestic divisions. As Powell later wrote, military leaders could not “quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support.”

U.S. And Israeli Military Operations Against Iran: Issues For Congress

Christopher M. Blanchard, Jeremy M. Sharp, Clayton Thomas, and Jim Zanotti

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched military operations against targets in Iran. The United States and Iran had been engaged in talks over Iran’s nuclear program, amid broader U.S. concerns over Iran’s missile arsenal, terrorism, and support to armed groups. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Iranian citizens directly in their public remarks, encouraging Iranians to use any opportunities created by the strikes to overthrow the Islamic Republic government, which has ruled Iran since 1979. International reactions have varied, with Russia and China condemning U.S. and Israeli actions, and some European and Arab governments denouncing Iran’s counterattacks.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian security leaders have been killed. Iranian officials have announced transitional leadership and continue retaliatory missile and drone attacks on Israel, bases in the region hosting U.S. forces, and targets in Arab Gulf countries and adjacent waters. As of March 1, civilians reportedly had been killed in Iran, Israel, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Syria, and some U.S. service members had been killed or wounded. The State Department has advised U.S. citizens worldwide to exercise caution and “follow the guidance in the latest [embassy] security alerts.” Strikes by Iran have damaged airports and ports in the region, and regional airspace closures have caused global disruptions. Apparent Iranian strikes on ships near the Strait of Hormuz highlight threats to that critical chokepoint for transnational shipments of oil and natural gas.

Israel’s ‘Iron Beam’: why laser weapons are no longer science fiction

James Dwyer

As conflict escalates following the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, and Iran’s subsequent retaliatory strikes, reports have emerged that Israel may have used laser weapons to shoot down rockets fired by Hezbollah from Lebanon.

While the reports are unconfirmed, video circulating on social media appears to show rockets being destroyed within moments of launching without visible intervention – consistent with the effect of a “directed energy weapon” such as a laser.

It wouldn’t be the first time Israel has used its cutting-edge Iron Beam laser air defence system, but the incident offers a glimpse into a changing landscape where high-tech militaries are scrambling to keep up with barrages of small rockets and cheap, increasingly capable drones.

The U.S. Army in an Increasingly Borderless War

Lt. Col. Felipe Galvão Franco Honorato

Africa’s strategic centrality has evolved from a peripheral concern to a core consideration in U.S. national security strategy. The continent, projected to surpass 2.5 billion people by 2050, holds a wealth of critical minerals, including cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements, that are essential to emerging defense technologies and digital systems.1 Its economic growth and demographic expansion make it a central battleground in global competition. From a military standpoint, Africa’s geography offers strategic advantages that few regions can match. Ports, maritime corridors, and forward operating sites across the Gulf of Guinea, the Red Sea, and East Africa directly impact U.S. global mobility and force projection. China’s first overseas military base in Djibouti, situated adjacent to the United States’ Camp Lemonnier, enhances Beijing’s regional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and power projection. The 2022 National Defense Strategy identified the protection of strategic access as essential to integrated deterrence, particularly in regions where Chinese and U.S. interests intersect.

A Simplified Framework for Assessing China's Four Warfares and the Need for Institutional Economic Statecraft in a Hybrid Era

Michael DiBernardo

One of the reasons that the United States and its allies have had difficulty mobilizing resources against China’s hybrid warfare activities is that they often do not align with our definition of war. Our institutions are designed to manage state capabilities through the familiar DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic) framework, not against hybrid threats. The result is a growing mismatch between how we think about these challenges and vulnerabilities.

In 2003, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) commissioned the “Political Work Guidelines of the People’s Liberation Army,” wherein they expressed their intent to wage “three warfares” (psychological, media, and legal) and outlined their intent to undermine global norms via “war by other means” (Office of Net Assessment). In addition to the three warfares, China quietly expanded its economic spheres of influence and now leverages their capabilities for economic warfare (Cha). Over the past twenty years they have earned market share in varying domains of power through coordinated activities. Approaching them in silos is ineffective.

Beyond Metrics: Integrating Command Culture with Operational Readiness

David Shayeson

Command Culture dictates how a command meets its objectives and establishes command through its values, beliefs, and behaviors. It is interdependence between material readiness and the human factors used to complete an assigned mission effectively and sustainably. Material readiness is just the starting point, not the finish line. Fighting adversaries and meeting operational objectives requires a mutual relationship between culture and readiness. As culture improves, so does readiness; culture is a critical factor in expeditionary logistics.

The Importance of Culture in Expeditionary Environments

Strategy is something often associated with military planning; culture is something that exerts great influence on how units execute strategy at the deck plate level. It shapes how people behave under pressure, communicate, and how they stay aligned despite unclear guidance. Expeditionary operations are often conducted in the most challenging environments. If a cultural model succeeds in complex and resource-constrained environments, it is applicable anywhere. Trust and resourcefulness, combined with the freedom to solve problems, helps to determine whether a team succeeds or stalls under pressure. The demands associated with supporting deployable forces in permissive, austere, and even hostile environments require maximum adaptability under stress, degraded communications, and limited resources. When things go wrong, culture – manifested as trust, resourcefulness, and decentralized problem-solving – breeds success. It can be the difference between success and failure in the most unpredictable environments. Culture applies to all naval operations, including those with lower risks. Over-reliance on metrics generates a checklist mentality and a risk-averse atmosphere that suppresses honest reporting, stifles innovation, and drives messaging that doesn’t mesh with reality.

Shock and Awe, 2026 Iran Edition: The New War Model Is Precision, Pressure, and Regime Collapse

Jack Buckby

In the early hours of February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched Operation Lion’s Roar and Operation Epic Fury—coordinated strikes across Iran aimed at missile infrastructure, air defenses, naval assets, IRGC nodes, and elements of Tehran’s nuclear program.

-President Trump framed the campaign as major combat operations driven by an imminent threat, urging Iranian civilians to shelter and calling on the public to seize the moment to take control from the regime.

-Iran’s response has included missiles and drones aimed at Israel and U.S. facilities across the region.

-The campaign is presented as a contained, multi-day pressure operation designed to neutralize Iran’s strategic leverage and enable internal political change.

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)