US Iran Conflict Escalates After Major Air Strikes

The decision by the United States and Israel to step into open conflict with Iran has created a highly perilous moment with unpredictable consequences. The situation became even more volatile after long-time Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed on the first day of the joint strikes by the US and Israel. This has pushed the US Iran crisis into a new and more intense phase.

Israel described its actions as “pre-emptive” and justified the attack as a necessary response to danger. The Israel Defense Forces said it was the largest air operation in its history. But real evidence suggests this was not just about responding to an imminent threat. It looked more like a choice to strike rather than a forced reaction to one.

Leaders in both countries appear to believe that Iran was vulnerable. The country has been dealing with serious economic strain, protests, and internal unrest. Its military defences were weakened during last summer’s war. From the perspective of Washington and Tel Aviv, this moment may have seemed like an opportunity not to be missed.

The move has also struck a blow to international law, which struggles to keep pace with rapid escalations in conflict.

In statements, both former President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran posed a real danger to their nations. Trump went further, calling it a global threat. The Islamic Republic has long been an adversary of both. However, it is hard to argue that the legal justification of self-defence clearly applies when one side holds overwhelming power compared with the other.

War Is a Political Act

The US Iran conflict is inherently unpredictable once it begins. Leaders must have clear goals, but that is not always the case.

Netanyahu has viewed Iran as a central threat for decades. For him, this was a chance to inflict as much damage as possible on Tehran and its military. Israel has a long record of carrying out pre-emptive operations against perceived enemies. In the last two years, it has targeted leaders in Hamas and Hezbollah, killing many top figures.

Trump’s objectives have shifted over time. In January, he hinted at supporting Iranian protesters. At that time, many US forces were tied up elsewhere with limited military options. Later, the US deployed aircraft carriers and significant firepower to the region, while Trump spoke publicly about Iran’s nuclear ambitions — even though he had previously claimed those programmes had been “obliterated.”

Iran has always denied wanting nuclear weapons. But it has increased uranium enrichment to levels with no peaceful civilian use. The possibility that it wanted the option to build a bomb has alarmed many. Yet neither the US nor Israel has shown clear evidence that Iran was on the verge of producing one.

In recent messages to the Iranian people, Trump said this was “the hour of freedom,” and Netanyahu suggested the conflict might empower Iranians to overthrow their regime. There is no historical example where air strikes alone triggered peaceful political change in a nation with such deep institutional control.

Regime Change Is Hard

Saddam Hussein in Iraq was overthrown only after a full invasion by US-led forces in 2003. Libya’s Gaddafi fell in 2011 after rebels, supported by international air power, rose against him. Both cases led to state collapse and prolonged violence. Libya remains unstable, and Iraq still wrestles with its aftermath.

Even if this US Iran conflict marks the first instance of air strikes significantly weakening a regime, Iran will not automatically become a liberal democracy. There is no clear alternative government ready to take its place.

Over nearly fifty years, Iran’s system has become deeply rooted in ideology, internal power networks, and coercive force. In January, security forces proved willing to use deadly violence against protesters. The state still has loyal and organised security forces capable of suppressing dissent.

Targeting Leadership and What Happens Next

The US and Israel wanted to remove Iran’s supreme leader. Israel believes in precise strikes against key figures as a strategy. Over recent years, it eliminated leaders in militant groups. But Iran is not a militia. It is a state with complex political structures.

If a supreme leader is killed, another is likely to be chosen, often with backing from powerful groups like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which guards the regime’s interests at home and abroad. Trump reportedly offered safety in exchange for surrender, but ideology and martyrdom are powerful forces within Iran’s leadership circles.

Trump’s mindset often views global affairs as transactions — the art of the deal — but dealing with a state shaped by ideology and belief is far more complicated.

As this US Iran crisis intensified, signs showed that Iran’s leaders saw conflict as inevitable. Talks had taken place even as tensions rose, reflecting deep mistrust between Tehran, Washington, and Jerusalem.

The US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, further eroded trust. Iran has been reluctant to re-enter similar agreements when demands include restricting its missile capabilities and regional alliances. From Tehran’s view, giving up those strategic assets might make it more vulnerable to outside change than the possibility of war itself.

Uncertain Future

Iran’s leaders are now focused on survival. How to manage the war, protect the regime, and maintain order are urgent questions. Neighbouring states, especially those in the Gulf, are alarmed at what could happen next. Many have voiced concern over expanding conflict into places they did not want to see violence.

Given how quickly tensions have escalated, the region’s instability has global implications. Energy markets, trade routes, and diplomatic relations could all be affected.

When the US Iran conflict erupted, it was not just another military strike. It was a turning point that may reshape the Middle East and beyond. Opportunity and danger now sit side by side, and the world watches with fear and uncertainty as events continue to unfold.

The Analysis Desk at ThirdPol analyses political and economic developments in Iran and their wider impact on West Asian geopolitics.