International

The Morning That Broke the Middle East: Operation Epic Fury and Operation Lion’s Roar Against the Islamic Republic of IranReading Mode

Written by marionwatch-investigates

On the morning of February 28, 2026, at roughly 08:15 local time, a coordinated U.S.–Israeli offensive shattered decades of restrained strategy and plunged the region into a new, high‑intensity phase of warfare. The operation—called Epic Fury by Washington and Lion’s Roar by the Israel Defense Forces—was not a limited raid. It was a daylight, multi‑vector campaign aimed at Iran’s nuclear program, missile infrastructure, and the nerve centers of its command apparatus.

“At approximately 08:15 local time, the United States and Israel transitioned from a decades-long policy of containment and ‘gray zone’ maneuvering to a high-intensity, daylight offensive against the sovereign territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”


“This coordinated action, designated ‘Operation Epic Fury’ by the United States Department of War and ‘Operation Lion’s Roar’ by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), involves a multi-vector strike campaign targeting the core of Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile infrastructure, and central command-and-control nodes.”

Endgame in Iran & The Unfolding Storm: A Historical Investigation into the US Bombing of Iran’s Nuclear Sites
The tranquil geopolitical landscape shattered on June 21, 2025, as the United States launched “massive precision strikes” against key Iranian nuclear facilities. This unprecedented dire…
Read More
news.marionwatch.com

How we got here: a chain of failures and calculations

The strikes were the end point of a year-long spiral. After the June 2025 “12‑Day War,” limited strikes had already damaged Iranian nuclear sites and reportedly killed senior IRGC figures and scientists. Tehran rebuilt quickly, expanding missile ranges and restoring enrichment capacity. Diplomatic efforts—most notably indirect Geneva talks mediated by Oman—collapsed in late February 2026. U.S. officials concluded the negotiations were a cover for further nuclear progress and, citing an “imminent threat,” moved a carrier armada into the Persian Gulf. Those moves set the stage for a decision to strike openly and decisively.

The calculus was explicit: degrade Iran’s ability to project strategic force, signal deterrence to regional rivals, and exploit a moment of domestic weakness inside Iran. That domestic crisis—mass protests, a collapsing currency, and a brutal state crackdown—was central to the timing. International observers reported thousands killed in the repression, and U.S. leaders publicly urged Iranians to seize the moment. The strikes were therefore both military and political, intended to reshape Tehran’s internal and external options.

What was hit and why it matters

The campaign struck across Iran, from Tehran to the southern coast. In the capital, the government quarter around Pasteur Street and the Shemiran district—home to the Supreme Leader’s compound and central command nodes—suffered heavy damage. Seven missiles struck the high‑security zone; communications were severed by a near‑total internet blackout that isolated leadership and complicated any coordinated response. Outside Tehran, Fordow near Qom, Isfahan, Karaj, Kermanshah, Bushehr and Tabriz were all struck—sites tied to enrichment, missile R&D, naval facilities, and regional IRGC command. The pattern was clear: remove Iran’s strategic depth and its ability to coordinate a sustained, centralized retaliation.

The operational picture matters because it changes the nature of the threat Iran can pose. Destroying or degrading deeply buried enrichment facilities and missile production lines reduces immediate nuclear and long‑range strike risks, but it does not eliminate decentralized capabilities. The IRGC’s dispersed networks, hardened caches, and proxy partners remain a persistent danger—especially for regional energy infrastructure and maritime traffic.

Iran’s response: the “First Wave” and the risk of escalation

Within hours, Iran activated a regional retaliatory doctrine. The IRGC launched drones and ballistic missiles at Israeli territory and U.S. bases across the Gulf. Attacks struck near the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and Al‑Udeid in Qatar; Abu Dhabi reported a missile strike that caused at least one fatality. Proxy groups in Iraq and Yemen signaled or began retaliatory actions, and air defenses across the region were put on continuous alert. The initial salvo demonstrated that, even after crippling central nodes, Iran retains the capacity to inflict damage and to draw in non‑state actors as force multipliers.

That dynamic creates a dangerous ladder: each retaliatory move invites further counter‑strikes, and the involvement of proxies and third‑party states raises the odds of miscalculation. The coalition’s aim to avoid a full‑scale ground invasion may limit some options, but it also risks a prolonged campaign of attrition that could spread across the Levant, the Gulf, and maritime chokepoints.

The human toll and the propaganda battle

The civilian cost was immediate and stark. Reports from southern Iran described a strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab with dozens of children killed—an event Tehran used to frame the operation as an assault on civilians and to rally domestic and international outrage. In Israel and Gulf states, emergency measures and shelter orders underscored the psychological and social impact of the strikes. Beyond the battlefield, the narrative war—over who bears responsibility and whether the strikes were lawful—has already hardened international positions.

The humanitarian consequences will shape diplomatic options. Images and reports of civilian casualties will complicate efforts by coalition partners to sustain political support, while Iran will use those incidents to mobilize regional sympathy and to justify asymmetric retaliation.

Markets, logistics, and the global ripple effects

The economic shock was immediate. Brent crude jumped to the low $70s per barrel as traders priced in supply risk and the possibility of a Strait of Hormuz closure. Global equities fell sharply while safe‑haven assets surged. Airspace closures across the region disrupted flights and supply chains, stranding passengers and interrupting cargo routes between Europe and Asia. The short‑term market reaction is only the first layer; a prolonged conflict that targets oil infrastructure or maritime traffic would force a structural reassessment of energy security and accelerate investments in diversification and renewables.

For businesses and governments, the key variables are duration and geographic spread. A short, decisive campaign that avoids sustained attacks on neighboring oil producers could see markets stabilize. A protracted conflict, however, risks persistent price shocks, supply chain reconfiguration, and long‑term shifts in investment patterns.

Diplomacy, law, and the fracture lines in the international system

The strikes split the world. Russia and China condemned the operation as a violation of international law and called for emergency UN action. European responses were mixed—public caution and calls for restraint alongside private concerns about Iran’s nuclear trajectory. Several U.S. allies offered qualified support, but the coalition’s legal footing is contested: Tehran has invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter to claim self‑defense, while critics argue the strikes breach Article 2(4) on the use of force. Those legal arguments will shape Security Council debates and the broader legitimacy contest.

The diplomatic fallout will not be resolved quickly. Sanctions, arms sales, and regional alignments are all likely to shift as states reassess risk and opportunity. The UN and other multilateral institutions will be pressured to mediate, but their ability to produce binding outcomes is constrained by great‑power divisions.

Strategic outlook: three plausible paths forward

The immediate future can be sketched in three broad scenarios:

  1. Short decisive campaign — Coalition achieves its military objectives, Iran’s centralized capabilities are neutralized, and a fragile stabilization follows. Markets recover; regional violence subsides but political instability in Iran persists.
  2. Protracted asymmetric conflict — Iran leans on proxies and decentralized strikes, targeting energy infrastructure and shipping lanes. The result is sustained economic disruption, higher energy prices, and a drawn‑out security burden for coalition forces.
  3. Wider regional conflagration — Miscalculation or escalation draws in additional state actors, producing a broader war that threatens global energy supplies and forces major powers into direct confrontation.

Each path carries tradeoffs. A short campaign risks leaving residual capabilities intact; a protracted conflict imposes heavy economic and humanitarian costs; a wider war risks catastrophic global consequences. The coalition’s challenge is to calibrate military pressure while preserving political space for a negotiated outcome—an outcome that, given the strikes’ explicit aim to dismantle Iran’s strategic posture, may be difficult to achieve without regime change or a major internal political shift in Tehran.

What to watch next

  • Iran’s operational choices: Will Tehran prioritize limited, deniable proxy attacks or escalate with direct strikes on critical infrastructure?
  • Strait of Hormuz and maritime security: Any disruption to shipping will amplify economic pain and force international naval responses.
  • International legal and diplomatic moves: Security Council debates, emergency sessions, and third‑party mediation efforts will indicate whether a political off‑ramp is possible.
  • Humanitarian indicators: Refugee flows, civilian casualty reports, and access for aid organizations will shape global public opinion and pressure policymakers.

Works Cited (Click Here)

2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid ‘Criminal Aggression’ by US, Israel

  • Date: February 28, 2026
  • Relevance: Details the official diplomatic response from the Iranian Foreign Ministry, including its appeal to the UN Security Council and allegations of violations of the UN Charter regarding the use of force.
  • URL: https://www.commondreams.org/news/iran-un-security-council

Iran-Israel-USA conflict strikes attack West Asia US Trump live updates

Live updates: Israel-Iran February 28 2026

PM: Strikes meant to end ‘existential threat’; time for Iranians to cast off yoke of tyranny

US and Israel attack Iran, with Trump confirming ‘major combat operations’ Live

US Israel Launch Major Attack on Iran Triggers Oil Price Surge

US, Israel attack Iran, triggering Iranian response against US bases in the Gulf

US, Israel launch strikes on Iran, begin major combat operations

Why are gold and silver prices increasing now, and will gold touch $6,000 and silver $200 soon?

Report

Harassment or bullying behavior
Contains mature or sensitive content
Contains misleading or false information
Contains abusive or derogatory content
Contains spam, fake content or potential malware

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

  • See blocked member's posts
  • Mention this member in posts
  • Message this member
  • Add this member as a connection

Please note: This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin. Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Report

You have already reported this .
0