1. Introduction
On February 28, 2026, U.S. military elements and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)
launched coordinated and joint missile and air strikes targeting Iranian political leaders,
nuclear facilities, military command structures, and military installations. In retaliation,
the Iranian armed forces responded with unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and missile at-
tacks against Israel and the Persian Gulf countries hosting U.S. military bases, including
the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. The scope of
these mutual strikes expanded over time to target economic infrastructure, energy-related
facilities, and commercial facilities. Finally, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, through whi-
ch around twenty per cent of the world’s daily oil shipments pass, to maritime traffic. Con-
sequently, the conflict evolved into a multi-dimensional and multi-front confrontation. The
mutual attacks lasted for 40 days, continuing until the ceasefire declared on April 8, 2026.
Iranian officials described the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes as an “unjust, illegal, and
illegitimate” attack and a “imposed war” against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in violation
of the United Nations (UN) Charter. These operations, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury”
by the Americans and “Operation Roaring Lion” by the Israelis, were defined by U.S.
and Israeli officials not as the start of a new war, but as a military operation conducted in
response to various direct and indirect attacks of the Islamic Republic of Iran had been
carried out against the U.S. and Israel for years, and as part of an ongoing armed conflict
(IDF, 2026a). According to Iran, the U.S. and Israeli attacks constituted a “flagrant viola-
tion” of Article 2/4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force, and represented it
an unlawful, illegitimate, and unjust war. The Iranians launched “Operation True Promise
IV” in response to the American-Israeli strikes. The Iranian side asserted that the military
actions within this operation were “necessary and proportionate defensive operations aga-
inst the bases and facilities of the aggressors in the region” as part of “its inherent part of
self-defense in accordance with Article 51” of the UN Charter (Iravani, 2026).
The clashes that emerged between the U.S./Israel and Iran have influenced regional
and global dynamics due to the nature of the parties involved, the scope of the clashes,
and their expansion across a vast area. The conflict involving the world’s greatest military
power, the U.S., and two regional powers, Iran and Israel, has shaken the security dyna-
mics of the Middle East. The involvement of non-state actors-who are Iran’s regional al-
lies-and the attacks by Iran on Persian Gulf countries known as U.S. allies have impacted
the entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. The concentration of
conflict around the Persian Gulf, home to the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, and the
closure of the Strait of Hormuz have profoundly affected the global economy and politics,
particularly in terms of energy security.
The purpose of this study is to provide an academic analysis of the conflict initiated
by the U.S./Israeli attacks against Iran and its subsequent effects. In this regard, firstly, the
background of the hostility between the parties and the causes of the U.S./Israel–Iran conf-
lict are discussed. The second part addresses the objectives of the parties and the course
of the conflict. Subsequently, the impacts of the conflict on Iran, the U.S., and Israel, as
well as its regional repercussions, are examined. The final part of the study discusses the
implications of these developments for Türkiye and evaluates the situation of Iran and the
Middle East in the post-conflict period.
2. A Brief History of the Hostility Between Iran, the United
States, and Israel
As clearly evidenced by how the parties characterize the clashes, the current war
must be evaluated as part of a long-standing hostility with roots extending deep into the
past. The special strategic relationship between the U.S. and Israel is widely recognized.
Sustained by political and cultural alignments, this special relationship positions Israel as
the most critical ally of the U.S. in the Middle East, where the interests of both nations
converge on numerous fronts. Their shared opposition to Iran is particularly evident at this
intersection.
In his first public press statement following the onset of the joint strikes, U.S. Secretary
of War Pete Hegseth remarked, “We did not start this war,” recalling pivotal milestones
in U.S.-Iran relations-which was deteriorated following the taking of diplomats and staff
hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979-and the “Death to America,
Death to Israel” slogans consistently chanted by the leaders of the Islamic Republic of
Iran for decades (Roth & Gedeon, 2026). Similarly, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio
stated that the Iranian regime “has been attacking Americans worldwide for 47 years
and has remained a threat for 47 years” (Rubio, 2026). Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu articulated the primary objective of the war as the eradication of
the existential threat posed to Israel by the Islamic Republic regime for the past 47 years.
Indeed, following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian leadership assumed the mantle
of the leading advocate of Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupationand kept
its animosity toward Israel perpetually active (Akgül, 2024). In this context, the Iranian
regime declared the last Friday of the month of Ramadan as “Quds Day” (Jerusalem Day)
in 1979. On every Quds Day, masses take to the streets to hold anti-American and anti-
Israeli demonstrations, chanting “Death to America, Death to Israel.” Iran’s hostile stance
toward Israel is frequently reflected in the rhetoric of Iranian leaders. For instance, former
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denying remarks and his assertion
that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” alongside Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei’s 2015 statement that “Israel will not live to see the next 25 years!” are
frequently recalled (Dolatabadi, 2025). Moreover, a countdown clock ticking down to the
destruction of Israel was installed in Palestine Square, Tehran, in 2017.
According to claims by U.S. and Israeli officials, Iran’s hostility eventually went
beyond verbal threats. For years, the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran conducted a
direct and indirect campaign of terrorism against Israel and the U.S. by directing terrorist
acts through its regional proxies and providing financial support to terrorist groups.
Consequently, Iran has been held responsible for numerous terrorist attacks that resulted
in the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Israelis. According to Israel, Iran has acted as
the architect and sponsor of terrorist organizations and criminal networks not only within
the region but globally, from Argentina to India. Likewise, the U.S. administration has
designated Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism” since 1984. In November 2020, Nathan
Sales, then-Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State, noted that
they held the Iranian regime “accountable for the blood they have spilled in various parts
of the world, including South America, Europe, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen” (Lane,
2023). The American stance has seen no significant shift since that time. During the 2018
Herzliya Conference, Israeli politician Naftali Bennett likened Iran to an octopus attacking
Israel from various directions with its multiple tentacles, arguing that operations should
target the head of the octopus rather than its tentacles (Keinon, 2020).
Conversely, the Iranian side traces the origin of its hostility with the U.S. further
back to August 19, 1953, when Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who pioneered
the nationalization of oil, was overthrown in a coup d’état orchestrated by the U.S. and
the United Kingdom. According to official Iranian rhetoric, U.S. imperialism opposes
Iran becoming a genuinely independent and powerful nation. Because the 1979 Islamic
Revolution dealt a severe blow to the regional ambitions of U.S. imperialism, successive
American administrations manufactured various conspiracies against the Islamic Republic
order. They imposed embargoes on Islamic Iran, supported its adversaries, and encouraged
Saddam Hussein to attack Iran. Since the Revolution, the hostage crisis, the freezing of
Iranian assets, and sanctions levied under the pretext of supporting terrorism or disputes
over the nuclear program have perpetuated the enmity between Iran and the U.S. In
Khamenei’s words, the slogan “Down with America” is a natural manifestation of the
Iranian people’s reaction against American conspiracies. To him, the U.S. issue with the
Islamic Republic is not merely a historical dispute but an “inherent incompatibility and
conflict of interest” (Khamenei, 2025). One of the foundational principles of the Islamic
Revolution is anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism. According to this view, an eternal
conflict persists between the mustakbirin (the imperialists/arrogant) and the mustad’afin
(the oppressed), and between truth (haqq) and falsehood (batil). In this struggle, while
the Islamic Republic represents truth and the oppressed, the U.S. and Zionism embody
falsehood and imperialism. Precisely, for this reason, the hostility of the U.S. and Zionism
toward the Islamic Republic has endured continuously (Sinkaya, 2015, pp. 63-68).
On April 1, 2026, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian shared an open letter
addressed to the American public via his account on the social media platform “X.” In
the letter, he pointed out that relations between the peoples of Iran and the U.S. were not
originally hostile. However, because the U.S. sought to prevent Iran from utilizing its own
natural resources through the 1953 coup and disrupted the democratization process by
reinstating a dictatorial regime, a deep-seated distrust toward American policies emerged
among Iranians. Pezeshkian stated that this Iranian distrust was further compounded by
U.S. support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed
war of the 1980s, the enforcement of the longest and most brutal sanctions in modern
history, and ultimately, unprovoked military attacks launched against Iran twice-on June
13, 2025, and February 28, 2026-while negotiations over the nuclear issue were ongoing
(Pezeshkian, 2026).
In conclusion, a struggle and rivalry whose history dates back to the Islamic
Revolution exists between the U.S./Israeli duo and Iran (Şen, 2016). Although this struggle
occasionally transformed into political and intelligence operations directed at one another,
it largely remained at a rhetorical level. However, over the past decade, the elevation of
Iran’s military capabilities and the expansion of its regional power have amplified the
potential for direct conflict between Iran, the U.S., and Israel. Following its eight-year war
with Iraq between 1980 and 1988, Iran initiated an intensive rearmament program in the
early 1990s. From 2006 onward, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) applied
various and progressively severe sanctions targeting Iran’s rearmament program (SIPRI,
2025). Nevertheless, through its cooperation with North Korea and China, Iran successfully
strengthened its domestic defense industry and military capabilities. The most conspicuous
element within Iran’s rearmament program is its missile development initiatives (Elleman,
2024). As early as the beginning of the 2000s, Iran succeeded in developing missiles with a
range of 1,500–2,000 km. Over the past decade, domestically developed and manufactured
missiles such as the Kheibar Shekan, Sejjil, and Fattah, along with inexpensive kamikaze
drones and UAVs like the Shahed-136, have been integrated into Iran’s military inventory.
The Russian military’s highly effective deployment of Shahed-136 drones during the
Russia-Ukraine war attracted global attention. Iran has also become one of the few
nations capable of designing, manufacturing, and launching satellites into orbit using
domestic resources. Starting in the mid-2000s, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC) initiated a space program for military purposes. The IRGC’s space program has
been interpreted as part of its long-range missile development endeavors (Krzyzaniak,
2022). Iran’s expanding conventional and novel military capabilities-characterized by
a continuous rise in the lethality, precision, and stockpiles of its domestically produced
missile and unmanned aerial vehicle systems-have been designated by the U.S. as a direct
threat to American forces and partners in the region (Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, 2025). Reports indicating that Iran has advanced its medium-range (1,000–
3,000 km) missiles to a level capable of carrying nuclear warheads have escalated the
perceived threat level emanating from Iran (Gettinger & Clayton Thomas, 2025). Indeed,
after waging a proxy war against Israel since 1979, the Iranian regime’s direct military
targeting of Israel for the first time in April 2024 with cruise and ballistic missile strikes
demonstrated the shifting magnitude of the Iranian threat (IDF, 2025a).
In addition to its growing military capabilities, Iran has emerged as a regional power
following the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Rubin, 2006). The emergence and rise of resistance
groups linked to Iran in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine have enhanced Iran’s regional
influence. Although Iran’s regional power was tested following the Arab Spring, the
Assad regime’s gradual alignment with Iran in Syria, the transformation of the Popular
Mobilization Forces (PMF/Hashd al-Shaabi) organization-formed to combat ISIS in Iraq-
into a proxy force for Iran, and the Houthis’(Ansar Allah) seizure of power in Yemen,
linked to Iran, have strengthened Iran’s image as a regional power (Sinkaya, 2022).
The development of Iran’s military capabilities, coupled with its status as a regional
power and the rise of resistance movements, has led to growing security concerns in Israel.
One of the key developments intensifying the security concerns of both Israel and the
U.S. is Iran’s nuclear program. Despite countervailing assertions by Iranian officials, the
U.S. and Israel have maintained from the outset that Iran’s nuclear program is geared
toward weapons manufacturing, viewing it as a regional and international security crisis.
Following Iran’s successful uranium enrichment using domestically manufactured
centrifuges in the 2010s, the U.S. and Israel mobilized the international community to
escalate pressure on Tehran, successfully steering consecutive, heavy sanction resolutions
through the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Ultimately, the 2015 Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) established an agreement to lift UN, U.S., and
EU sanctions in exchange for placing specific, time-bound restrictions on Iran’s nuclear
program. The JCPOA was formally endorsed via UNSC Resolution 2231 (Resolution
2231, 2015). Nonetheless, certain regional states, including Israel, alongside American
neoconservatives (neo-cons) and a segment of the Republicans, opposed this agreement
on the grounds that it failed to halt Iran’s regional activities, allowed its missile program
to persist, and permitted the continuation of the nuclear program despite the restrictions.
Consequently, the administration of Donald J. Trump, which assumed power in the U.S.
in 2017, unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018 and initiated a “maximum
pressure” policy to compel Iran into a “better” new agreement (Azizi et al., 2020). In
response, Iran incrementally breached the nuclear restrictions mandated by the JCPOA,
elevating its uranium enrichment levels up to 60 percent. As efforts to revive the JCPOA
proved futile and the U.S. failed to force Iran into a new agreement, or in other words,
as Tehran resisted entering a deal on the American administration’s termsnon-diplomatic
alternatives increasingly came to the forefront.
Ever since the nuclear program escalated into an international standoff, the scenario
of Israel launching a potential air strike against Iran’s nuclear installations has remained
a constant fixture on the agenda. Indeed, Israel had previously executed targeted strikes
against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. It is alleged that between 2009
and 2012, the Israeli government placed a potential strike on Iran on its agenda at least
three times, but the operational plans were suspended due to internal policy divergences,
the relatively limited capabilities of the military at the time, and Iran’s capacity for
deterrence. Instead, the Israeli government sought to influence American administrations
to ensure that a potential strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities would be led by the
U.S. (Maher, 2020, p. 235). Accordingly, during periods of heightened friction over the
nuclear program, various U.S. administrations kept the prospect of a military strike viable
by declaring that “no option is off the table” against Iran.
The intermittent American military threats voiced since the early 2000s prompted the
Iranian leadership to intensify domestic security measures on one hand, and to formulate
diverse military strategies to prepare for an inevitable final showdown with the U.S. on the
other (Wehrey et al., 2009). Within this framework, the Iranadopted an asymmetric warfare
doctrine designed to counterbalance the conventional military superiority of the U.S. and establish deterrence against its adversaries. The primary component of this doctrine is the
“forward defense” (forward outpost) strategy. This strategy relies on training, arming, and
cultivating tighter military and political cooperation with groups operating alongside Iran
within the region. Through this mechanism, the objective was to forge a deterrent capability
against U.S. military bases in the region and against Israel. As the second component of
its asymmetric warfare doctrine, emphasis was placed on advancing the precision, range,
and destructive capacity of its missiles, while investing in inexpensive, rapid unmanned
aerial and naval vehicles rather than heavy weaponry. As the third component of the
asymmetric warfare doctrine, a “mosaic defense” strategy-which decentralizes authority to
local commanders in the event that deterrent measures fail, the country faces invasion, or
command-and-control mechanisms are disrupted-was adopted.
for the rest of the article see: https://tuba.gov.tr/files/yayinlar/raporlar/TUBA-978-625-6110-82-3-en.pdf
