• U.S.-Israeli joint strikes target Iranian leadership and nuclear capabilities, with operations potentially extending beyond initial projections.
  • Political divides emerge in Congress over war powers and funding, as public opinion remains split on continuing military action.
  • Risks of Iranian retaliation and regional spillover heighten, with experts warning of broader security implications.

Joint U.S.-Israeli military operations, which commenced on February 28, 2026, have intensified the conflict with Iran, following the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top leaders. According to U.S. officials, these strikes are part of the largest U.S. military buildup since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, driven by concerns over Iran's nuclear program and recent protests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasized that the objective is not regime change but to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capabilities and prevent the rebuilding of its nuclear program, with Rubio warning that the "hardest hits" are yet to come.

Efforts to manage the conflict have hit a snag as congressional briefings reveal sharp partisan divides. Republicans largely support the action, with 81% approval, while Democrats question the imminent threat to the U.S. and demand clarity on costs and war powers. Without a deal on supplemental funding, the administration could face challenges in sustaining operations. A senior aide familiar with the matter noted, "The White House is navigating a delicate balance between military objectives and political pressures, with ongoing debates likely to shape future strategy."

In the broader context, the strikes follow Trump's restored "maximum pressure" policy from February 2025, which included sanctions on oil exports and collapsed nuclear talks mediated by Oman. Israel's push for action left Trump with a "very difficult decision" to avoid independent moves and potential Iranian retaliation against U.S. assets. As the conflict widens, Iranian-backed militias have joined the fight, contributing to U.S. losses including three service members killed and five wounded in Operation Epic Fury. NATO views the war as crucial for European security, but risks include Iranian retaliation via military, terrorism, or proxies, which could boost extremist recruitment.

Public polls show divided U.S. opinion, with more favoring halting strikes than continuing, reflecting societal impacts. Trump supporters, such as Texas voters, back the action as "America First" protection aligning with peace promises, but no mass uprising against Iran's theocracy has occurred despite U.S. calls. Looking ahead, short-term operations are set to continue "as long as it takes" to meet objectives, with potential congressional funding battles and heightened retaliation risks. Long-term aims focus on neutralizing missile and nuclear threats, though experts warn of depleted U.S. munitions and emboldened adversaries. Related developments include Iranian allies striking Israel and Gulf states, EU designating the IRGC as terrorists, and Saudi Arabia criticizing Israel's Gaza actions amid regional fallout.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the timeline of U.S. military buildup; it began in January 2026, not earlier.