The second round of military action has commenced, with the United States and Israel launching a coordinated attack on Iran, citing concerns about Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. Explosions have been reported in Tehran and other cities, and Iranian airspace has been violated. Iran’s supreme leader has been moved to a secure location, and the country has already launched anti-missile systems, promising to retaliate against U.S. military bases if assaults continue.
This operation, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” marks the most significant U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran since last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer.
It has never been a question of whether the U.S. could strike, but rather what the repercussions would be.
Last June, Operation Midnight Hammer involved the deployment of seven B-2 stealth bombers and a guided missile submarine to key Iranian sites. This operation used fourteen large bunker-buster bombs and over twenty Tomahawk cruise missiles in the first half-hour. President Trump described it as total destruction, but the reality was more nuanced. Though the damage was extensive, subsequent intelligence suggested that Iran’s nuclear program was delayed by months rather than years.
Iran had reportedly begun moving its enriched uranium stockpile before these strikes. The International Atomic Energy Agency has now indicated that by the end of 2025, it will struggle to adequately monitor Iran’s nuclear supplies due to restrictions placed on inspectors.
While the military destroyed critical facilities, the broader knowledge and intent behind the nuclear ambitions remained intact. Tehran seems to have learned from this.
Now it’s crucial for Washington to reflect on its own lessons.
Iran has begun its response, following a pattern of coordinated escalation.
Attacks via proxies, cyber operations, missile communication, and maritime intimidation are anticipated. The Strait of Hormuz is still Iran’s key economic asset, controlling a significant portion of the world’s oil supply. After the initial attack, Iran’s parliament briefly voted to close the strait, only to reverse that decision. The current geopolitical tension may not mirror previous encounters.
If Iran directly assaults large numbers of U.S. troops, the situation could escalate quickly, stepping beyond just retaliatory strikes. The line between a simple punitive strike and a full-blown military operation can be thin — sometimes influenced by just one additional missile.
For those hopeful of an imminent collapse within Iran’s regime, it’s wise to temper expectations. Protests erupted in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar on December 28, 2025, leading to mass casualties, yet the government remained intact.
Security forces held firm, and defections among senior officials did not occur. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is 86 years old, and while a successor is on the horizon, Karim Sadjadpour describes this period as uncertain yet stable. The Council on Foreign Relations outlines three potential futures for Iran post-Khamenei: continuity, a stronger influence from the Revolutionary Guards, or fragmentation of authority, with no guarantee of moderation.
Even as clerical influence weakens, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps holds a strong organizational structure.
External attacks could threaten the regime’s stability but might also strengthen hard-liner positions.
There are some who see hope in Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, noting his recognition and support from the diaspora. However, leadership and effective governance are distinct. He lacks an organized internal network capable of managing a nation of over 92 million.
Others point to the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) and the NCRI, which have established external networks and garnered U.S. legislative support for a democratic and nuclear-free Iran. The MEK has reportedly conducted coordinated operations against regime locations, but operational ability does not necessarily equate to legitimacy. Their historical ties with Saddam Hussein cast a shadow on their credibility domestically. While they can challenge the regime, ensuring stability afterward requires widespread public approval.
There is currently no clear roadmap for what comes next, which feels even more pressing now than in the past.
China and Russia have criticized earlier attacks but have stayed clear of direct engagement. Their restraint doesn’t imply inaction. China remains a top buyer of Iranian oil, while Russia has undertaken joint military exercises with Iran. Their involvement can influence the situation without the need for an outright military presence. Weapons sales, intelligence sharing, and cyber support provide significant backing for Tehran.
The conflict is likely to remain localized, but tensions among major powers loom in the background.
The true challenge is just beginning.
The recent strike has happened.
The military display is done.
Now, a much tougher phase lies ahead.
Has Washington prepared for the potential escalation in Hormuz? Is there a plan for the IRGC’s involvement? How ready are we for the uncertainties of leadership transitions? Have clear objectives been laid out beyond simple deterrence? What are the exit strategies?
Iran has taken lessons from previous experiences, adapting its strategies. The U.S. must also demonstrate that it has learned.
Military power can damage critical infrastructure, but whether that leads to significant behavioral changes or merely resets the timeline is determined by strategy.
The world watches the unfolding situation closely. History will determine what happens next.
