US-Israel Launch Iran Strikes as Trump Signals Regime Change Goal

At dawn on February 28th, President Donald Trump announced that the US and Israel had launched attacks on Iran, aiming to eliminate an "imminent threat," "raze their missile industry to the ground," and "annihilate their navy." More provocatively, he urged Iranians to overthrow their government.

This isn't June's 12-day war redux. The military buildup suggests something far more extensive—and both sides appear dangerously confident they'll prevail.

The Largest US Military Presence Since 2003

Trump first threatened military action against Iran in January, when economic protests erupted across the country and were brutally suppressed. But at the time, with US forces tied up in Venezuela, America lacked sufficient regional assets to deter Iranian retaliation.

That calculation has fundamentally changed. The US has deployed two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region, each with three destroyer escorts, plus half a dozen other surface ships and undisclosed nuclear submarines. Dozens of aircraft—including F-22 and F-16 fighters—now dot the Middle East in the greatest concentration of airpower since the 2003 Iraq invasion buildup.

Analysts say this represents firepower for an engagement lasting multiple weeks, not days.

From Nuclear Talks to Regime Change

The original justification—responding to protester massacres—has evolved dramatically. While Iran's nuclear program remains a stated target (though Trump claimed it was "obliterated" in June), the administration now demands complete abandonment of uranium enrichment. Iran, insisting its program is peaceful, has shown willingness to dilute its near weapons-grade stockpile but refuses to abandon enrichment entirely.

The real flashpoint may be Iran's ballistic missile program. These missiles can reach Israel, making them a particular Israeli concern. But Iran views them as core to its defense strategy—a red line it's unlikely to cross.

Yet Trump's latest rhetoric suggests the goal isn't negotiation but elimination. He called regime change in Iran "the best thing that could happen" and explicitly urged Iranians to overthrow their government Saturday. The question is: what comes next?

A Different Kind of War

Americans might expect something like June's "Operation Midnight Hammer"—a relatively brief series of strikes that ended quickly. That's unlikely this time.

June was primarily an Israeli operation, with the US joining late to strike three nuclear facilities when Israeli success was already clear. Now America leads from day one, with Israel as junior partner.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump's options include "a campaign to kill scores of Iranian political and military leaders, with the goal of overthrowing the government" alongside more limited strikes on nuclear and missile facilities. Both could last weeks.

The difference matters. In June, Iranian retaliation against US forces was limited and telegraphed. This time, facing what they perceive as an existential threat, Iran's response could be far more aggressive.

Iran's Retaliatory Capabilities

While Iran's nuclear program may be crippled, the regime has worked diligently to reconstitute its ballistic missile deterrent. Retaliatory strikes against US bases, Israel, and Gulf allies are likely. Israel was reportedly running dangerously low on interceptors by the end of June's conflict—a longer war might have inflicted serious damage.

Iran also demonstrated last week it can temporarily shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 31% of global seaborne crude flows. That's not just a military threat—it's an economic weapon.

The wild card: Trump has grown more confident using military force, but Iran may calculate he has little tolerance for prolonged, messy conflicts with significant US casualties. In Trump's five-plus years as president, we haven't yet seen how he responds to substantial American losses.

Allies Show Reluctance

Israel participated in Saturday's strikes, despite January concerns about air defenses. For deeply unpopular Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing elections later this year, focusing public attention on destroying Iran's nuclear and missile programs beats answering questions about October 7th.

Other regional reactions are mixed. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, once maximally hawkish on Iran, now worry about retaliation and regional destabilization from regime collapse. Both have refused to allow US use of their airspace for attacks on Iran.

Even the UK is blocking US access to bases, including the strategically vital Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, prompting angry Trump outbursts this week.

The Legal Gray Zone

The administration won't seek congressional authorization or provide detailed legal rationale. With Iran's nuclear program, by the administration's own assessment, nowhere near producing weapons, and Iranian missiles unable to reach the US, claiming "imminent threat" becomes legally dubious.

Previous administrations have argued that limited operations don't constitute "war" requiring congressional approval. But if this becomes the expansive operation reportedly under discussion, that justification crumbles.

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) plan to force a vote requiring congressional authorization next week, but previous efforts under Trump have failed. Congressional oversight of presidential war powers is about to be further eroded.