Key Aspects of the U.S. Military Intervention in Iran | February 28, 2026

DOCUMENT NO. 1 ATHENALAB | Monitoring the Evolution of the Conflict

I. BACKGROUND: WHAT WE KNOW

1. In the early hours of February 28, 2026, the United States—collaborating with Israel—launched a military offensive against the Iranian regime. These actions were carried out through airstrikes and missile attacks on Tehran, which subsequently extended to other cities such as Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah.

2. The United States has indicated that the offensive operation, named “Epic Fury”, and “Lion’s Roar” by Israel, reflects the coordinated nature of the military action between both actors. These operations aim to achieve, among other objectives:

a. To destroy Iran’s military capabilities, which could be interpreted as an effort aimed at initially neutralizing its strategic air defense systems, as well as continuing to degrade its already affected nuclear capacity and weakening military command levels by neutralizing its leadership.

b. To create favorable conditions for a potential regime change in Iran, under circumstances that enable an internal uprising leading to the fall of the current authorities. This objective would simultaneously involve neutralizing the response and control capabilities of internal security agencies, limiting their ability to repress potential popular mobilizations.

3. For its part, Iran reacted militarily by launching missiles and airstrikes against targets in Israel and against U.S. military bases deployed in the Persian Gulf area, including facilities located in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, as well as U.S. naval units present in that theater of operations.

4. This attack represents a new escalation of the conflict, despite the discussions held between the United States and Iran in the weeks prior. The military action has resulted, among other immediate consequences, in the closure of airspace in the region and an increase in fears regarding a potential expansion of the conflict on a regional scale.

---

II. STRATEGIC KEYS TO OBSERVE IN THE COMING HOURS

1. Resilience of the Iranian Regime

It is essential to assess the current Iranian regime’s capacity to withstand the political and military effects of this offensive. While the regime shows signs of weakening, it remains in power. In this regard, observing its political and military reaction in the coming days will be a key indicator for any prospective analysis.

2. Effectiveness of Limited Military Force as an Instrument of Political Change

It will be relevant to analyze the effectiveness of limited military operations as a mechanism to induce regime changes, particularly in the absence of favorable internal conditions that alter the domestic balance of power. In this context, the decisive factor lies in the Iranian population as a central actor in any potential political change.

From this perspective, the use of military force would aim to weaken the regime’s power structures, creating conditions that allow internal actors to realize that objective. Strategically, this aligns with the classic logic of employing military force as a tool in service of a higher political objective.

3. Reaction of Key Regional Actors

It will also be important to evaluate the positioning of key regional actors in response to this crisis. In particular, it is of interest to determine whether a potential weakening or collapse of the Iranian regime is perceived as an opportunity to reconfigure the regional geopolitical balance.

Furthermore, these reactions will help gauge the risk of regional escalation, especially if certain actors attempt to exploit the situation to promote their own strategic interests.

4. Position of International Organizations

The reaction of major international organizations, particularly the United Nations, will be a relevant element in assessing the international legitimacy of the operation and the associated political and diplomatic costs of using force.

In this sense, the level of involvement and the nature of these reactions will also help to gauge the effective capacity of these organizations to influence the dynamics of the conflict.

5. Coherence Between Declared Objectives and Actual Development of Operations

Finally, the analysis should focus on evaluating the coherence between the declared political and military intentions and the actual development of operations, considering, among other factors:

a. The magnitude, scale, and duration of military operations, in order to determine whether this is a limited action or the beginning of a prolonged campaign.

b. The actual response capacity of Iran, both externally and internally, including its potential ability to activate or coordinate actions with allied non-state actors (proxies) in neighboring countries, which could contribute to the expansion of the conflict.

c. The internal economic impact of the offensive and its effects on the Iranian population, particularly in terms of its potential to create conditions conducive to an internal uprising.

d. The reaction of relevant actors in the international system, such as China, Russia, India, and Turkey, whose positions could significantly influence the evolution of the conflict.

---

III. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

AthenaLab will continue to monitor the development of this conflict, with the aim of providing timely information and contributing to the analysis of the main strategic factors at play, as well as their implications for regional stability and the international system.