Why Did US And Israel Attack Iran? What’s Driving the 2026 Escalation

The United States and Israel attacked Iran on Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026 (ET), launching coordinated strikes across multiple Iranian cities in the sharpest direct escalation in years. The operation followed weeks of mounting warnings, failed backchannel diplomacy, and claims in Washington and Jerusalem that Iran’s military capabilities and nuclear trajectory had reached an unacceptable risk level.

Iran responded within hours with missile and drone attacks aimed at U.S.-linked facilities across the Gulf and at Israeli targets, pushing the crisis from a one-night strike package into a fast-moving regional confrontation.

Why Did US And Israel Attack Iran?

U.S. and Israeli leaders have offered a layered rationale: degrade Iran’s ability to strike, pressure its nuclear and ballistic programs, and force strategic change in Tehran. In public remarks, President Donald Trump framed the campaign as a sustained operation to destroy Iranian missiles and weaken maritime forces that could threaten shipping and regional bases. Israeli leadership has long argued that Iran’s weapons development and regional posture pose an existential danger.

A political message also accompanied the military one. Trump urged Iranians to challenge their leaders once the campaign achieves its objectives. That rhetoric has intensified debate over whether the mission is strictly limited to military capabilities or also seeks to fracture Iran’s governing structure.

The Military Case: Missiles, Drones, and Naval Power

The immediate operational focus has centered on Iran’s strike systems—missiles, drones, air defenses, and command nodes—plus naval assets that can pressure the Persian Gulf’s shipping lanes. U.S. planners have consistently treated Iran’s missile inventory and drone production capacity as the most direct threats to American forces stationed across the region and to partners who host U.S. facilities.

Maritime risk is a major part of the calculus. Even the perception of danger around key transit routes can raise insurance costs, reroute shipping, and shake energy markets. For the U.S. and Israel, curbing Iran’s ability to threaten tankers or bases is framed as deterrence: reducing Iran’s confidence that it can retaliate at scale without severe consequences.

The Nuclear and Ballistic Program Pressure Point

The second pillar is Iran’s nuclear trajectory and ballistic missile development. Washington argues that Iran’s progress, combined with delivery systems, shortens warning time and increases the risk of a regional arms race. Israel has repeatedly warned that it will not accept a scenario in which Iran reaches a nuclear weapons threshold.

Diplomatic efforts earlier this year did not produce a deal that satisfied U.S. demands for curbs on enrichment and missile activity. After talks failed, the attack effectively turned military power into leverage—intended to impose costs and force concessions that negotiations could not secure.

Iran’s position remains that its program is defensive and sovereign, and that the strikes represent unlawful aggression. That gap in narratives is one reason de-escalation is difficult: each side sees its actions as preventive and the other side’s as provocations that must be punished.

Alliance Dynamics: Why Israel Joined and Why That Matters

Israel’s role matters because it widens the battlefield and raises the stakes. A joint or closely coordinated campaign signals unity, improves operational reach, and compounds pressure on Iranian defenses. It also increases Tehran’s incentives to respond broadly—targeting Israel directly while striking U.S. assets in the region to demonstrate that the costs will be shared.

The early pattern of retaliation—missile and drone launches across multiple countries—illustrates how quickly the conflict can engulf states that host U.S. forces. Governments in those countries now face a dual challenge: protecting their own populations and infrastructure while managing domestic pressure over becoming targets.

Retaliation and Risk: Why This Could Become a Wider War

Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Feb. 28 (ET) represent the clearest pathway to a wider war. Once U.S. personnel or major facilities are hit, Washington faces strong incentives to escalate to reassert deterrence. Meanwhile, Iran’s leadership faces internal pressure not to appear weak in the face of strikes on its territory and leadership circle.

The conflict could intensify through several channels: expanded target sets, attacks on energy infrastructure, disruption of airspace and commercial routes, or broader activation of aligned armed groups across the region. Even without a formal declaration of war, repeated exchanges can create a de facto war environment.

What Comes Next for the U.S., Israel, and Iran

The next phase will be shaped by how far each side goes—and what off-ramps remain. The following factors are likely to determine whether this stays a limited campaign or becomes a prolonged war:

For many people asking why the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, the clearest answer is a convergence of goals: degrade Iran’s strike capacity, pressure its nuclear and missile trajectory, and reassert deterrence after diplomacy collapsed. Whether that strategy produces negotiations or a broader war will depend on choices made in the coming hours and days—especially after retaliation has already begun.