In late February 2026, the Middle East experienced a major escalation when the United States and Israel launched a coordinated military campaign against Iran, marking the largest American military operation in the region in two decades. What began as diplomatic negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and regional proxy networks quickly evolved into a broader military confrontation involving airstrikes, regional retaliation, and reports of proxy ground operations.
The campaign appears to have unfolded in three stages. First came a period of diplomacy combined with strategic preparation. Second was a sustained air campaign targeting Iranian leadership and military infrastructure. A third stage has now emerged involving reports that Kurdish opposition groups may be launching or preparing ground operations inside Iran. Together, these developments illustrate how modern conflicts increasingly combine diplomacy, military force, and proxy actors.
Stage one: Diplomacy and strategic preparation
Before the outbreak of hostilities, the Trump administration pursued a dual-track strategy: negotiations with Tehran alongside quiet military planning. While US diplomats engaged Iranian representatives in talks in Geneva and Oman, American and Israeli military planners were reportedly preparing what would later be described as Operation Epic Fury. According to media reports, the decision to launch strikes had already been made weeks before the conflict began.
The negotiations focused on three main demands from Washington and Jerusalem.
The first concerned Iran’s nuclear program. The United States insisted that Iran dismantle its nuclear infrastructure entirely. This position went far beyond the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had limited and monitored Iran’s nuclear activities rather than eliminating them outright.
Second was Iran’s ballistic missile program. US officials argued that Iran’s missile capabilities posed a serious threat to Israel and to American allies across the Gulf. As a result, Washington demanded the destruction of Iran’s missile stockpiles and its ability to produce new ones.
The third demand focused on Iran’s network of regional proxy forces, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militia groups in Iraq. The United States sought to end Iran’s financial and military support for these organizations.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a central role in shaping this strategy. Following Donald Trump’s return to office in 2025, Netanyahu reportedly held multiple meetings with the president and consistently emphasized the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. According to reports, he also urged Washington to shift its strategic focus away from Israel’s war in Gaza and toward confronting Iran more directly.
Their final pre-war meeting occurred on February 11, 2026. The following day, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford departed for the Mediterranean, a move widely interpreted as a signal that military action was approaching.
Stage two: The air campaign
The second stage began on February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched large-scale airstrikes on Iranian targets. The opening attacks reportedly killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, dramatically raising the stakes of the conflict.
In the immediate aftermath, President Trump appeared to frame the campaign in terms that hinted at regime change. He called on the Iranian people to “take back your country,” suggesting that military pressure might create conditions for an internal uprising against the government.
Within days, however, the administration presented a more limited set of official objectives. During a White House appearance on March 2, Trump outlined four goals: destroying Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, crippling the Iranian navy, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and halting Tehran’s support for proxy militias across the region.
Despite this clarification, messaging from Washington remained inconsistent. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the operation was “not a regime change war,” but added that “the regime sure did change.” Such statements reflected the administration’s ambiguous position: pursuing outcomes that might weaken or destabilize the Iranian leadership while avoiding an explicit commitment to overthrowing it.