What is the purpose to attack Iran

 

What is the purpose to attack Iran – Regime change?

The current situation as of February 28, 2026, involves a major escalation: The United States and Israel have launched joint military strikes on Iran, described by President Donald Trump as "major combat operations" under what appears to be named Operation Epic Fury or similar. Trump announced this in a video statement, framing the action as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, eliminate threats from its regime, neutralize its missile and naval capabilities, and counter its support for terrorist proxies. He explicitly called on Iranians to rise up, "take over your government," and seize their "freedom," while echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's view that this creates conditions for regime change by removing the "yoke of tyranny."

This aligns closely with the Trump ideology of strong alignment with Israel (evident in joint planning and execution), "America First" through decisive force against perceived threats, and rejection of prior multilateral deals like the JCPOA (which Trump withdrew from in his first term). The strikes target high-value assets, including reportedly Iran's top leaders (e.g., Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, president, and armed forces head in some reports), nuclear/missile sites (building on 2025's "Operation Midnight Hammer" that Trump claimed "obliterated" Iran's program), and proxy-related infrastructure.

Key drivers match the outline:

• Denuclearization: Trump repeatedly states the goal is ensuring Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon, citing alleged rebuilding efforts post-2025 strikes despite his prior claims of total destruction.
• Proxy neutralization: Operations aim to degrade Iran's support for groups like Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, and Iraqi militias, seen as threats to U.S. forces and allies.
• Regional hegemony counter: This counters Iran's destabilizing influence in the Middle East, with Trump invoking decades of grievances (e.g., 1979 embassy seizure) and positioning the action as ending a 47-year adversarial relationship.

Risk level: Extreme, as assessed. Immediate escalation risks include Iranian retaliation (already reported: missiles targeting Israel and U.S. bases in Bahrain, with threats to all U.S./Israeli interests regionally). Potential for wider proxy warfare (via Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.), disruptions to global oil markets (Gulf producers on edge, Strait of Hormuz vulnerabilities), and broader conflict drawing in allies/adversaries. U.S. forces face complex challenges despite overwhelming superiority, per analyses.

Diplomatic alternative: Prior to strikes, negotiations (via Oman/Qatar mediators, Geneva talks) sought a JCPOA successor—indefinite terms, zero enrichment or token levels, missile curbs, proxy disarmament. Trump set deadlines (e.g., 60 days) and pursued "maximum pressure 2.0" (sanctions, carrier deployments like USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford). Talks collapsed without agreement, leading to military action.

Consensus: No—deeply divided. The U.S. foreign policy establishment shows fractures: critics (e.g., some senators calling it "illegal/unconstitutional" without congressional approval, echoing no mandate/legal basis concerns) decry risks of wider war and regime-change overreach. Supporters align with Trump/Israel hawks viewing it as necessary preventive action. Public/analyst splits evident in media (Guardian/Reuters critical; others framing as bold), with isolationist voices questioning U.S. involvement.

This marks a high-stakes gamble by Trump, blending his ideological commitment to Israel-aligned strength, anti-Iran maximalism, and calls for Iranian liberation, but with profound escalation dangers. Real-time developments (Iranian responses, market reactions, proxy activations) will determine scope and outcomes.

What is certain? -  future’s uncertainty!