A joint US-Israeli military operation against Iran on Saturday has opened a new and volatile phase in the Middle East, with Tehran responding by firing missiles at Israel and at locations across the Gulf where US forces are present.
The scale of the confrontation, and the speed with which it spread beyond Iran and Israel, has raised fears that a conflict which many governments had hoped to contain could now draw in a wider regional coalition.
Israel said it had launched a pre-emptive strike against Iran, while an Israeli defence official told Reuters the operation had been coordinated with the United States and had been planned for months. Explosions were reported in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran, while sirens sounded across Israel and authorities shut schools, workplaces and airspace. Operation followed renewed warnings from Washington and Jerusalem that military action could follow if Iran continued with its nuclear and missile programmes.
The opening phase appears to have focused on weakening Iran’s ability to respond. Israeli forces said they had completed a broad strike on Iranian defence systems, and reports from the ground suggested that Iranian air defences were either degraded or overwhelmed in the first wave. That fits a now familiar pattern in modern air campaigns: suppress radar and missile batteries first, then move against command targets, missile facilities and leadership infrastructure.
One of the most important unanswered questions concerns Iran’s leadership. Earlier on Saturday, Reuters reported that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been moved to a secure location, and Iranian state television said he would address the nation. Other Reuters reporting said both Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian had been targeted, but that the outcome of those strikes was not yet clear. That leaves a significant gap between what is confirmed and what is circulating in commentary and social media. As of Saturday evening, there was no authoritative confirmation that Khamenei had been killed.
Reuters reported separately that Iran’s defence minister and the commander of the Revolutionary Guards had been killed in the Israeli attacks, according to three sources. If confirmed in full, that would suggest the operation was aimed not only at degrading Iran’s military capabilities but also at disrupting the regime’s command structure at the outset of the campaign. That approach would mirror the logic behind Israel’s earlier operations against senior Iranian and proxy commanders, in which speed and surprise were treated as decisive assets.
Iran’s retaliation was broader than a simple exchange with Israel. Missiles were launched towards Israel and towards Gulf states hosting US military assets, including Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and Jordan. Most were intercepted, but Reuters reported one death in Abu Dhabi and a fire on Dubai’s Palm Islands. In Syria, a separate Reuters report said four people were killed when an Iranian missile hit a building in Sweida. The effect was immediate: a conflict centred on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes became, within hours, a regional security crisis.
The Gulf attacks may prove a strategic miscalculation by Tehran. Saudi Arabia and the UAE called for de-escalation, but Gulf governments also reacted as states whose own territory had come under fire. If Iran continues attacking bases, airports or energy infrastructure across the region, it risks strengthening support for a broader anti-Iran alignment rather than deterring it. That prospect is especially significant because the United States already has extensive military infrastructure across the Gulf, and maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz is now under added pressure.
The energy dimension is already becoming visible. Reuters reported that several oil majors, tanker owners and traders had suspended shipments through Hormuz after the attacks, while Iranian Revolutionary Guards were said to have warned that no ship should pass. Another Reuters analysis noted that the strait handles roughly a fifth of global oil flows, meaning any sustained disruption would have consequences well beyond the region. Even before any formal closure, shipping hesitation alone was enough to shake markets.
Politically, the operation amounts to President Donald Trump’s largest foreign policy gamble of his current term. Reuters reported that Trump described the strikes as an action that would end a security threat and give Iranians a chance to topple their rulers. That language suggests Washington’s objectives may extend beyond deterrence and into regime pressure, if not outright regime change. Whether that proves achievable is another matter. Iran has shown in past crises that it can absorb severe blows while still mobilising internal repression and asymmetric retaliation.
What happens next will depend on three variables: whether Iran can sustain a meaningful missile response; whether its regional proxies choose to intervene; and whether Washington and Jerusalem treat this as a short operation or the start of a longer campaign. For now, what is beyond dispute is that the military action has already altered the strategic map of the Middle East. The surprise strike has become a regional war scare in a single day, and the consequences are unlikely to be confined to the battlefield.
