Operation Epic Fury: Why Trump’s New Campaign Against Iran Is Riskier and Different

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have launched what appears to be the opening phase of a large-scale military campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Epic Fury. The timing of the offensive, its stated objectives, and the plan for what comes after the strikes remain unclear.

In an eight-minute video posted on social media early Saturday, Mr. Trump announced the start of “major combat operations.” He described the campaign as aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, crippling its ballistic missile forces, and—most notably—toppling the Islamic Republic’s leadership. He urged ordinary Iranians to stay inside while bombs fell and then to “take over your government,” and he offered security forces immunity if they surrendered while warning those who resist would “face certain death.”

Why That Promise Strains Credulity

There is no obvious, organized civilian movement with the weapons, structure, or reach required to seize control in Tehran, nor is there evidence that U.S. or Israeli forces plan to occupy Iranian territory to facilitate a takeover. Even a full-scale ground invasion would not guarantee stability: the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, despite 150,000 deployed troops, produced a prolonged insurgency and years of civil strife.

Without a credible plan for post-strike stabilization, regime-change operations risk creating a power vacuum. In Iran, the most likely beneficiaries of such a vacuum would be officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—a large, well-armed, and deeply embedded force in Iran’s political, social, and economic life. The IRGC would likely resist civilian-led attempts to seize power.

Possible Outcomes

Even if the strikes remove senior leaders, the outcomes could include:

• A takeover by the IRGC or another authoritarian successor;
• Internecine fighting among rival armed groups and militias;
• Widespread chaos and instability, comparable to Libya after Muammar Gaddafi’s fall.

It is conceivable that intelligence services have contacted factional leaders inside Iran to explore toppled-regime scenarios, but covert contacts do not guarantee enough authority or cohesion to produce an orderly transition.

Iran’s Response

As Tehran warned it would, Iran has launched missile and drone strikes toward Israel and Arab states hosting U.S. bases, including Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Many incoming missiles were intercepted; footage shows some reached targets. The full damage from Iranian strikes—and from the U.S. and Israeli attacks inside Iran—remains unclear.

What We Know About the Nuclear Question

Mr. Trump condemned Iran’s leaders for sponsoring proxies and repressing dissent, and for actions blamed for U.S. casualties in the region. But public evidence that Iran posed an immediate, imminent nuclear threat was not presented in Mr. Trump’s address. Last summer’s strike—referred to by Mr. Trump as “obliterating” parts of Iran’s nuclear program—likely degraded elements of the program but did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity.

Update (Feb. 28, 3:15 p.m. ET): Israeli officials have claimed that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed and his body recovered from rubble following an Israeli strike. This report remains unverified. If confirmed, the death of the Supreme Leader could weaken or splinter Iran’s leadership—or it could mobilize devotees and harden resistance. The consequences are unpredictable.

How This Campaign Differs From Past Strikes

Previous strikes under Mr. Trump were usually one-off operations with narrow, tactical goals. In contrast, this campaign explicitly aims at regime change and dismantling deeply embedded institutions. That makes it a war of choice with substantial political and strategic risks—and with unclear end states.

Why This Matters

Beyond immediate battlefield outcomes, the campaign raises profound questions: the human cost (Mr. Trump acknowledged that Americans could die), the political fallout domestically and for allied governments, and long-term regional stability. The campaign may reshape how history judges current leaders and will have consequences for the Middle East and global security for years to come.