President Donald Trump’s announcement about the United States launching “major combat operations” against Iran signals a significant shift in the strategic dynamics of the Middle East. For years, the tensions between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran played out mostly behind the scenes—through sanctions, covert strikes, cyber warfare, and proxy battles that spanned the region. With Israel executing preemptive strikes in Tehran and the US confirming its involvement, the conflict now unfolding under the name Operation Epic Fury could turn out to be one of the most pivotal geopolitical events of the decade.

pic.twitter.com/BZuJDudLej — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2026

pic.twitter.com/BZuJDudLej

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2026

In an eight-minute video posted on Truth Social, President Trump outlined the rationale and goals of the operation:

Objective: “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime… We will ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Objective: “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime… We will ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Objective: “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime… We will ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Targets: Destruction of Iran’s missiles, missile industry, navy, and terrorist proxies. Reference to past attacks on U.S. interests.

Targets: Destruction of Iran’s missiles, missile industry, navy, and terrorist proxies. Reference to past attacks on U.S. interests.

Targets: Destruction of Iran’s missiles, missile industry, navy, and terrorist proxies. Reference to past attacks on U.S. interests.

Message to Iranian Forces: “Lay down your weapons and have complete immunity or… face certain death.”

Message to Iranian Forces: “Lay down your weapons and have complete immunity or… face certain death.”

Message to Iranian Forces: “Lay down your weapons and have complete immunity or… face certain death.”

Appeal to Iranian People: “The hour of your freedom is at hand… Take over your government.” Trump urged civilians to shelter in place amid dangers.

Appeal to Iranian People: “The hour of your freedom is at hand… Take over your government.” Trump urged civilians to shelter in place amid dangers.

Appeal to Iranian People: “The hour of your freedom is at hand… Take over your government.” Trump urged civilians to shelter in place amid dangers.

At the core of this conflict is Iran’s long-disputed nuclear program. The fallout from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which fell apart when Washington pulled out during Trump’s presidency, reignited a cycle of distrust and escalation. While the agreement once set strict boundaries on Iran’s nuclear activities, its collapse left diplomacy without a solid foundation. In the years that followed, Western intelligence consistently warned that Tehran was trying to rebuild and enhance key parts of its nuclear capabilities, even in the face of increasing sanctions and international pressure.

However, the current standoff is about much more than just nuclear policy. Iran’s regional strategy heavily depends on a web of allied militias and political movements that extend its influence throughout the Middle East. Groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have long been seen by Israel and the United States as crucial elements of Tehran’s regional strategy. Together with militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen, these groups create what Iranian leaders call an “Axis of Resistance,” a network that has influenced conflicts across the region for decades.

The strategic thinking behind Operation Epic Fury seems focused on taking down that network right at its roots. In his speech, President Trump mentioned that the campaign aims to obliterate Iran’s missile infrastructure and weaken its naval power—two key elements that allow Tehran to extend its influence beyond its borders. If these capabilities are significantly diminished, Iran’s ability to arm and support its regional allies could drop sharply, which might help reduce the cycle of proxy wars that has plagued the Middle East’s stability in recent years.

This kind of outcome would have significant consequences. Without the ongoing threat from Iranian-backed militias, Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates could explore deeper economic ties and regional unity. Initiatives like the Abraham Accords could see further expansion, leading to a more interconnected regional framework centered on trade, security collaboration, and technological sharing instead of ideological clashes.

Nevertheless, the most significant impacts of this conflict might actually unfold within Iran itself. For over forty years, the Islamic Republic has held onto power by blending security measures, economic strength from oil profits, and an ideological foundation rooted in the Iranian Revolution’s legacy. A prolonged military effort that undermines the state’s security forces while ramping up economic pressure could put an unprecedented strain on that system.

Long before the conflict erupted, Iran had already faced waves of public unrest driven by economic difficulties and political discontent. Many Iranians—particularly among the youth—have been vocal in their desire for a more secular and democratic political system. If the regime’s coercive apparatus starts to crumble under military and political pressure, those internal dynamics could shift rapidly.

Opposition figures abroad have already begun articulating possible pathways for political transition. Among the most prominent is Reza Pahlavi, who has proposed a transitional framework involving a provisional government, the release of political prisoners, and a national referendum that would allow Iranians to determine their future political system. His proposal emphasizes that the country’s next chapter must ultimately be decided by the Iranian people themselves.

For many Iranians, the aspiration is not merely political change but a restoration of the country’s interrupted trajectory toward modernization and openness. Prior to the upheaval of 1979, Iran under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi pursued rapid industrialization, educational expansion, and social reform. Initiatives such as the White Revolution introduced land reforms, expanded literacy, and granted women the right to vote. Though the monarchy’s political system was authoritarian, that era left behind a powerful memory of a secular and outward-looking Iran integrated with global markets.

The clerical regime’s survival has always depended on three pillars: coercive force (IRGC and Basij), oil revenue, and ideological control. The war is striking all three simultaneously.

Decapitation and demoralization: Strikes near Khamenei’s offices and IRGC headquarters, combined with Trump’s direct appeal to Iranian forces (“lay down your weapons and have complete immunity”), are designed to fracture loyalty. Reports already indicate Khamenei has been moved to a secure location.

Amplified domestic unrest: Iran entered 2026 amid nationwide protests and economic collapse. Surveys consistently show a majority of Iranians want regime change and a secular democracy. A sustained military campaign could tip the balance, encouraging mass defections and uprisings as the regime’s repressive apparatus is degraded.

Explicit US intent: Trump’s language (“take over your government”) signals that toppling the Islamic Republic is no longer taboo. Axios and Wikipedia entries on today’s operation explicitly list “fostering regime change” as an objective.

Unlike the 2003 Iraq model, this scenario relies less on US occupation and more on empowering Iranians themselves — a model opposition leaders have long advocated.

The 1979 Revolution replaced the Pahlavi monarchy’s secular modernization with theocratic rule. Today, many Iranians — especially the young, the diaspora, and protesters — explicitly call for returning to that trajectory, but with genuine democratic safeguards.

Reza Pahlavi’s vision: The exiled Crown Prince, widely viewed as the most prominent opposition figure, has outlined a clear transition plan: a provisional government, separation of religion and state, release of political prisoners, and a national referendum to choose between a democratic republic or constitutional monarchy. He repeatedly states that Iranians should decide their future, emphasizing human rights, free elections, and integration with the West.

Pre-1979 reality as inspiration: Under Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran experienced the White Revolution — land reform, women’s suffrage, rapid industrialization, and booming literacy and life expectancy. Tehran in the 1970s was a cosmopolitan hub; women attended university unveiled; the country was a US ally and regional stabilizer. While the Shah’s rule was authoritarian, it was secular and developmental. Today’s opposition often frames the goal as “returning Iran to its pre-1979 path of progress,” then evolving it into full liberal democracy.

Survey evidence: Multiple waves of polling (including Gamaan and others) show strong majorities reject the Islamic Republic and favor secular governance. Roughly one-third of Iranians strongly back Pahlavi as a transitional symbol; many others see him as a unifying figure who can prevent chaos.

Even so, the strategic moment surrounding Operation Epic Fury is unusual. Iran’s regional proxy network has already been weakened by years of confrontation. Economic pressure has strained the country’s domestic stability, and opposition voices inside and outside the country have become increasingly organized. Combined with a coordinated American-Israeli military effort, these dynamics have created conditions that some analysts believe could reshape the region’s political balance.

If the campaign succeeds in dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities while accelerating internal political change, the long-term implications could be transformative. A secular, democratic Iran—integrated with regional economies and cooperating with its neighbors—would fundamentally alter the strategic map of the Middle East.

It’s worth noting that this outcome isn’t guaranteed. Iran still has the capability to respond through asymmetric warfare, and the conflict could escalate in various ways. Energy markets, shipping routes in the Persian Gulf, and the already fragile political systems in the region might all experience the fallout.

That said, history sometimes surprises us, leading to rapid changes in established geopolitical patterns. Operation Epic Fury could be one of those significant moments. Whether it weakens a long-standing adversary or ushers in a dramatically different Middle East will depend on how the next few weeks unfold.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)