In the early hours of Saturday, February 28, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the commencement of a joint military operation with Israel against Iran. According to the American leader, the strikes aim to eliminate an "imminent threat," achieve the total destruction of the Islamic Republic's missile industry and navy, and issue a call to the Iranian people to overthrow their government.

As reported by Hvylya, this information was published by Vox.

This bombardment marks the culmination of a weeks-long buildup of forces in the region. Preliminary data suggests that this new campaign will be significantly larger and more prolonged than the clashes seen last summer. Experts warn that both sides are demonstrating a dangerous level of overconfidence in their ability to secure victory—a scenario for which the American public may be entirely unprepared.

Unprecedented Concentration of U.S. Military Might

Washington began threatening Iran with renewed military action as early as January, following the Iranian regime's brutal suppression of economic protests. At the time, Trump promised that "help is on the way" but ultimately refrained from striking. The delay was attributed to persuasion from regional allies and advisors; at that moment, U.S. forces were heavily committed to operations around Venezuela, and the Persian Gulf lacked sufficient resources to deter potential counterstrikes from Tehran.

Today, the situation is fundamentally different. The Pentagon has deployed massive forces to the Middle East:

  • Two carrier strike groups, each accompanied by three destroyers.
  • More than half a dozen surface ships and nuclear submarines, whose exact locations remain classified.
  • Dozens of military aircraft, including fifth-generation F-22 and F-16 fighters, along with reconnaissance aviation.
  • Replenished air defense batteries, which had been depleted during the defense against Iranian drone and missile attacks during the June "12-Day War."

Analysts estimate this to be the largest concentration of U.S. airpower in the region since the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. These resources are deemed sufficient to sustain high-intensity combat operations for many weeks.

True Objectives: From the Nuclear Program to Regime Change

Washington's demands on Tehran have shifted continuously. While January's threats were a reaction to the killing of protesters, the focus ahead of Saturday's attack turned toward Iran's nuclear program.

Although American airstrikes in June severely damaged nuclear infrastructure—which Trump claimed was "destroyed"—the U.S. is now demanding a total and final cessation of uranium enrichment. Tehran insists on the peaceful nature of its program and its right to enrich, despite previously hinting at a willingness to make concessions, such as diluting existing stockpiles of near-weapons-grade uranium.

However, the U.S. has gone further, demanding that Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for regional proxies (Hezbollah and the Houthis) be included in negotiations. For Israel, Iranian missiles represent the primary threat, while Tehran views them as the cornerstone of its national defense.

Trump's latest statements leave little doubt: the U.S. is no longer seeking a compromise with the Islamic Republic. The goal is the elimination of the regime itself. Trump has openly called on Iranians to overthrow the government, though he has not specified what kind of administration Washington envisions in its place.

What Will This War Look Like?

Americans may mistakenly believe this new war will resemble June's "Midnight Hammer"—a short and rapidly concluded series of strikes. The June campaign was predominantly an Israeli operation, which the U.S. joined only after a week, targeting three nuclear sites once Israeli success was evident and Iran's response was limited.

This time, the U.S. is playing the lead role from the start. According to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal, military officials presented Trump with several options:

  • A surgical campaign: Limited airstrikes on nuclear and missile facilities.
  • A large-scale campaign: The physical elimination of dozens of Iranian political and military leaders to decapitate and overthrow the government.

Both scenarios anticipate weeks of combat. However, reality could prove unpredictable; as seen with U.S. intervention in Venezuela, Washington might limit itself to capturing the country's leader while leaving the regime's infrastructure functional.

How Might Tehran Respond?

In June, Iran responded to attacks in a limited and predictable manner. Now, facing an existential threat of total destruction, the Iranian leadership will almost certainly react with maximum force.

Since the summer, Tehran has been actively rebuilding its missile arsenal. Massive strikes against U.S. bases, Israeli territory, and Persian Gulf allies are expected. The question remains how devastating this response will be. It is known that by the end of the "12-Day War," Israel's stockpiles of interceptor missiles for its missile defense systems were critically low.

Another card in Iran's hand is economic blackmail. Last week, Tehran conducted exercises in which it temporarily blocked the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery through which 31% of the world's seaborne oil passes.

The ultimate wildcard is Donald Trump's own reaction. In his five combined years as president, the world has yet to see how he responds to a conflict involving high American military casualties. Iran may be betting that Trump will not tolerate a long and bloody war.

Split Among U.S. Allies

The international community's position is far from unified:

  • Israel: An active participant in the attacks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing falling approval ratings ahead of autumn elections, is keen to shift public focus from criticisms of his handling of the October 7 events toward victories over Iran.
  • Gulf States: While Saudi Arabia and the UAE previously held a hardline anti-Iran stance, they now fear a major war. They have refused to grant the U.S. use of their airspace for strikes, fearing Iranian retaliation and regional destabilization should the regime in Tehran collapse.
  • United Kingdom: London has also barred the U.S. from using its airbases, including the strategically vital Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, sparking an angry reaction from Trump earlier this week.
  • Russia: Despite recent joint naval exercises with Iran, experts doubt Moscow will take real steps to save Tehran.

Legal Vacuum

The Trump administration is almost certain not to seek formal Congressional authorization for the use of military force. Justifying the attack as an "imminent threat" will be difficult; by the U.S.'s own estimates, Iran is not close to producing a nuclear bomb, and American territory remains out of reach for Iranian missiles.

The White House previously argued that limited strikes (as in "Midnight Hammer") do not constitute "war" in the constitutional sense and thus do not require approval. However, the scale of the current campaign undermines that argument. In Congress, Representatives Ro Khanna (D) and Thomas Massie (R) plan to initiate a vote to compel the president to seek legislative sanction, though similar past attempts have failed. It is likely that Congressional oversight of Trump's war powers will be weakened even further.

Pride Before a Fall

In fairness, in previous military episodes—starting with the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani during his first term—Trump managed to confound critics who warned of catastrophic consequences. However, current plans to overthrow an entire state suggest he has attained a level of self-assurance where he is ready to engage in exactly the kind of protracted war for which he previously criticized his predecessors.

Today, both sides are frighteningly confident. The U.S. believes it can destroy Iran with impunity. Iran believes that, despite severe political and economic exhaustion over the past year, it can inflict a strategic defeat on the U.S. by making the war unbearably painful.

This mutual overconfidence could cost an immense number of lives.

Ukraine's Reaction

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha stated during a briefing that Ukraine's position on Iran is consistent and regional. The Iranian regime "terrorizes the region, supports and finances terrorist groups," bringing destabilization to other countries.

"We are always on the side of the Iranian people, specifically the people," the minister emphasized.

According to him, the Ukrainian ministry has issued the "necessary warnings" for Ukrainian citizens to leave the territory of Iran and other countries where their lives and safety may be at risk.

Statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

The ministry noted that the position of the Ukrainian authorities remains unchanged. Kyiv supports the Iranian people, who have been "tormented for decades" by the Iranian regime. Specifically, the regime has deployed a large-scale policy of violence against its own citizens and supported militants and the aggressor state, the Russian Federation, in the war against Ukraine.

"We remember and will never forget the strikes of thousands of 'Shaheds' on our peaceful cities and people. Such cooperation between the regimes in Moscow and Tehran is a gross violation of international law and undermines global efforts to restore peace and stability," the statement read.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the regime in Tehran spent colossal resources "on violence, murder, and chaos, rather than on providing for its own people, whose economic situation continued to deteriorate every year."

"The cause of current events is precisely the violence and lawlessness of the Iranian regime, particularly the murders and repressions against peaceful protesters, which have reached particularly large scales in recent months," the ministry stressed.