Why did US and Israel attack Iran and how long could the war last?
In the early hours of February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes on Iran, marking the beginning of a major conflict codenamed Operation Epic Fury by the U.S. and Operation Roaring Lion by Israel. This operation targeted key Iranian officials, military facilities, and infrastructure, resulting in the reported death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking figures. The strikes followed weeks of heightened tensions, failed diplomatic negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, and accusations of Iran's support for regional militias. President Donald Trump announced the campaign in a video on Truth Social, emphasizing the need to eliminate threats from Iran's nuclear ambitions and missile capabilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed these sentiments, viewing Iran as Israel's primary existential threat. The conflict has since expanded, with Iran retaliating through missile strikes on U.S. bases and Israeli territory, drawing in allies like Hezbollah in Lebanon. This escalation has raised global concerns about oil prices, regional stability, and the potential for a prolonged war. 
The roots of this conflict trace back to decades of animosity between Iran, the U.S., and Israel, intensified by the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran has long been accused by the West of sponsoring terrorism, including groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and pursuing nuclear weapons despite denials from Tehran. Tensions boiled over in June 2025 when Israel conducted strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, with brief U.S. involvement, claiming to have obliterated key facilities. However, by early 2026, U.S. and Israeli intelligence suggested Iran was rebuilding its capabilities, prompting renewed fears. Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, described the February strikes as pre-emptive, aimed at preventing an imminent Iranian attack and curbing its ballistic missile program. Netanyahu highlighted Iran's role in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks as a lingering justification, framing the operation as retribution and prevention. The U.S. also cited Iran's rejection of diplomatic overtures, including talks mediated by Oman, where Iran reportedly came close to agreeing to limits on nuclear material but ultimately backed away.
A key driver for the U.S. involvement was the perceived threat to American interests. Trump stated that Iran's missile advancements could soon reach Europe, U.S. troops overseas, and potentially the American homeland. This echoed concerns raised in his February 24, 2026, State of the Union address, where he labeled Iran the "world's number one sponsor of terror." The administration pointed to Iran's nuclear enrichment activities and ballistic missile tests as evidence of escalating dangers. Critics, including former U.S. officials, have questioned the timing, suggesting Israeli pressure played a role, with Netanyahu reportedly pushing for action for years. Some analysts argue the strikes were also influenced by domestic politics, including Trump's desire to project strength amid economic pressures from rising oil prices. Iran's internal unrest, including protests in late 2025 suppressed with lethal force, may have been seen as an opportunity to encourage regime change, as Trump urged Iranians to "take over your government" post-strikes.
Israel's motivations are deeply tied to security concerns. Netanyahu has consistently portrayed Iran as Israel's most dangerous foe, citing its calls for Israel's elimination and support for proxy groups. The strikes targeted not only nuclear and missile sites but also leadership compounds, aiming for decapitation of the regime. Israeli officials described the operation as removing "existential threats," including the Axis of Resistance network. The June 2025 conflict, which lasted 12 days, was seen as incomplete, with Israel unhappy about its abrupt end. By 2026, with Iran's proxies weakened by ongoing regional conflicts, Israel viewed the moment as opportune to exploit vulnerabilities. The attacks also responded to Iran's ballistic missile program, which Israel fears could deliver nuclear payloads, despite international denials from Iran.
Broader geopolitical factors contributed to the decision. The U.S. sought to destroy Iran's missile industry, navy, and regional influence, aligning with goals to secure allies like Saudi Arabia and curb China's energy access through Iranian oil. Some experts suggest the strikes were a high-risk gamble to reshape Middle East dynamics, opening corridors like India-Middle East-Europe and weakening Russia. Iran's defiance, including vows of retaliation and preparation for a long war, has fueled the cycle. Iranian leaders, such as Ali Larijani, denounced the attacks as "delusional" and pledged to impose high costs on the U.S. and Israel. The conflict's legality remains controversial, with no congressional approval in the U.S., raising questions about adherence to international law under the UN Charter.
As the war enters its second week, predictions about its duration vary widely. Trump initially projected four to five weeks, emphasizing the U.S.'s capability for longer if needed, but stressed it would not become a "forever war" like Afghanistan or Iraq. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced this, rejecting endless conflict notions. However, U.S. and Israeli officials privately doubt a quick resolution, suggesting months may be required to dismantle Iran's capabilities and achieve regime change. Analysts note diminishing returns from airstrikes, with Iran's defiance indicating readiness for prolonged resistance. Iranian strategies focus on survival, imposing economic and political costs on the U.S., potentially leveraging global pressures to force a withdrawal.
Expert scenarios outline possible outcomes. A swift transition could see Iran's regime collapse under internal pressure, leading to a compromise government. However, remnants might endure, encouraged by Trump's timeline, prolonging the fight. Israel's plan, initially two weeks, has accelerated but faces sustainability issues amid fatigue from prior conflicts. For the U.S., economic burdens like soaring oil prices—now at $90 per barrel—and daily costs of $1 billion could limit endurance. Some reports suggest military preparations extend to September, evoking speculative prophecies like Nostradamus's "seven-month war," though experts dismiss such links as vague.
Israel's capacity for a long war is questioned, given economic strains from Gaza and Lebanon engagements. Public support remains high, but doubts over long-term viability persist. U.S. missile stocks and regional alliances could strain under extended bombardment. Iranian retaliation, broadening to Gulf states, risks wider involvement, potentially forcing diplomatic interventions. Analysts like Richard Haass argue for weeks or months at most, citing rising domestic costs for the U.S. Trump's open-ended stance—"whatever it takes"—suggests flexibility, but global reactions, including embassy closures and stranded travelers, pressure for resolution.
The war's length hinges on military successes, such as degrading Iran's navy and missiles, and political shifts like regime change. Optimists predict a short, targeted campaign, with kinetic phases ending in days, followed by settlements. Pessimists warn of months-long attrition, given Iran's preparation and the limits of airpower alone. Broader implications include economic disruptions, with oil spikes hurting global markets, and humanitarian concerns in Iran. World leaders' reactions vary, with some condemning the strikes' legality. As bombardments intensify, the path to victory remains unclear, balancing destruction with sustainable peace.
Public discourse on social media reflects divided opinions. Some support the strikes as necessary to counter Iran's threats, while others criticize U.S. involvement as unnecessary, advocating for Israel to handle it alone. Discussions highlight fairness in warfare, with debates over tactics like submarine attacks. Speculation ties the conflict to prophecies, but experts urge focus on facts. As the war progresses, monitoring developments will clarify its trajectory.
In conclusion, the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran stems from longstanding fears over nuclear and missile programs, terrorism sponsorship, and regional dominance. Duration estimates range from weeks to months, influenced by military, economic, and diplomatic factors. Achieving objectives without escalation remains challenging, underscoring the need for careful strategy.
The roots of this conflict trace back to decades of animosity between Iran, the U.S., and Israel, intensified by the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran has long been accused by the West of sponsoring terrorism, including groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and pursuing nuclear weapons despite denials from Tehran. Tensions boiled over in June 2025 when Israel conducted strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, with brief U.S. involvement, claiming to have obliterated key facilities. However, by early 2026, U.S. and Israeli intelligence suggested Iran was rebuilding its capabilities, prompting renewed fears. Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, described the February strikes as pre-emptive, aimed at preventing an imminent Iranian attack and curbing its ballistic missile program. Netanyahu highlighted Iran's role in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks as a lingering justification, framing the operation as retribution and prevention. The U.S. also cited Iran's rejection of diplomatic overtures, including talks mediated by Oman, where Iran reportedly came close to agreeing to limits on nuclear material but ultimately backed away.
A key driver for the U.S. involvement was the perceived threat to American interests. Trump stated that Iran's missile advancements could soon reach Europe, U.S. troops overseas, and potentially the American homeland. This echoed concerns raised in his February 24, 2026, State of the Union address, where he labeled Iran the "world's number one sponsor of terror." The administration pointed to Iran's nuclear enrichment activities and ballistic missile tests as evidence of escalating dangers. Critics, including former U.S. officials, have questioned the timing, suggesting Israeli pressure played a role, with Netanyahu reportedly pushing for action for years. Some analysts argue the strikes were also influenced by domestic politics, including Trump's desire to project strength amid economic pressures from rising oil prices. Iran's internal unrest, including protests in late 2025 suppressed with lethal force, may have been seen as an opportunity to encourage regime change, as Trump urged Iranians to "take over your government" post-strikes.
Israel's motivations are deeply tied to security concerns. Netanyahu has consistently portrayed Iran as Israel's most dangerous foe, citing its calls for Israel's elimination and support for proxy groups. The strikes targeted not only nuclear and missile sites but also leadership compounds, aiming for decapitation of the regime. Israeli officials described the operation as removing "existential threats," including the Axis of Resistance network. The June 2025 conflict, which lasted 12 days, was seen as incomplete, with Israel unhappy about its abrupt end. By 2026, with Iran's proxies weakened by ongoing regional conflicts, Israel viewed the moment as opportune to exploit vulnerabilities. The attacks also responded to Iran's ballistic missile program, which Israel fears could deliver nuclear payloads, despite international denials from Iran.
Broader geopolitical factors contributed to the decision. The U.S. sought to destroy Iran's missile industry, navy, and regional influence, aligning with goals to secure allies like Saudi Arabia and curb China's energy access through Iranian oil. Some experts suggest the strikes were a high-risk gamble to reshape Middle East dynamics, opening corridors like India-Middle East-Europe and weakening Russia. Iran's defiance, including vows of retaliation and preparation for a long war, has fueled the cycle. Iranian leaders, such as Ali Larijani, denounced the attacks as "delusional" and pledged to impose high costs on the U.S. and Israel. The conflict's legality remains controversial, with no congressional approval in the U.S., raising questions about adherence to international law under the UN Charter.
As the war enters its second week, predictions about its duration vary widely. Trump initially projected four to five weeks, emphasizing the U.S.'s capability for longer if needed, but stressed it would not become a "forever war" like Afghanistan or Iraq. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced this, rejecting endless conflict notions. However, U.S. and Israeli officials privately doubt a quick resolution, suggesting months may be required to dismantle Iran's capabilities and achieve regime change. Analysts note diminishing returns from airstrikes, with Iran's defiance indicating readiness for prolonged resistance. Iranian strategies focus on survival, imposing economic and political costs on the U.S., potentially leveraging global pressures to force a withdrawal.
Expert scenarios outline possible outcomes. A swift transition could see Iran's regime collapse under internal pressure, leading to a compromise government. However, remnants might endure, encouraged by Trump's timeline, prolonging the fight. Israel's plan, initially two weeks, has accelerated but faces sustainability issues amid fatigue from prior conflicts. For the U.S., economic burdens like soaring oil prices—now at $90 per barrel—and daily costs of $1 billion could limit endurance. Some reports suggest military preparations extend to September, evoking speculative prophecies like Nostradamus's "seven-month war," though experts dismiss such links as vague.
Israel's capacity for a long war is questioned, given economic strains from Gaza and Lebanon engagements. Public support remains high, but doubts over long-term viability persist. U.S. missile stocks and regional alliances could strain under extended bombardment. Iranian retaliation, broadening to Gulf states, risks wider involvement, potentially forcing diplomatic interventions. Analysts like Richard Haass argue for weeks or months at most, citing rising domestic costs for the U.S. Trump's open-ended stance—"whatever it takes"—suggests flexibility, but global reactions, including embassy closures and stranded travelers, pressure for resolution.
The war's length hinges on military successes, such as degrading Iran's navy and missiles, and political shifts like regime change. Optimists predict a short, targeted campaign, with kinetic phases ending in days, followed by settlements. Pessimists warn of months-long attrition, given Iran's preparation and the limits of airpower alone. Broader implications include economic disruptions, with oil spikes hurting global markets, and humanitarian concerns in Iran. World leaders' reactions vary, with some condemning the strikes' legality. As bombardments intensify, the path to victory remains unclear, balancing destruction with sustainable peace.
Public discourse on social media reflects divided opinions. Some support the strikes as necessary to counter Iran's threats, while others criticize U.S. involvement as unnecessary, advocating for Israel to handle it alone. Discussions highlight fairness in warfare, with debates over tactics like submarine attacks. Speculation ties the conflict to prophecies, but experts urge focus on facts. As the war progresses, monitoring developments will clarify its trajectory.
In conclusion, the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran stems from longstanding fears over nuclear and missile programs, terrorism sponsorship, and regional dominance. Duration estimates range from weeks to months, influenced by military, economic, and diplomatic factors. Achieving objectives without escalation remains challenging, underscoring the need for careful strategy.
Comments