On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a major joint airstrike campaign on Iran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a targeted strike in Tehran, along with senior leadership.
On the same day, a missile struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran, killing over 150–170 people, mostly schoolgirls. Iran attributes the school attack directly to the US-Israeli operation.
The US has said it does not deliberately target schools and is investigating, though reports suggest the site was near an IRGC military facility. The strikes targeted Iranian military, nuclear, and leadership assets.
As of late March 2026, indirect US-Iran talks on a potential ceasefire are ongoing. Former President Donald Trump publicly claimed the negotiations are “going well” while threatening further strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened.
Yet, strikes continue, and Iran publicly downplays or rejects them.
From Iran’s perspective, trust in the US—especially a Trump-led US—is effectively zero. Consider the historical record:
- 2015 JCPOA (Obama): Sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear limits and inspections.
- 2018 (Trump): Unilateral withdrawal and “maximum pressure” sanctions reimposed.
- Post-2021 (Biden): Attempts to revive the deal stalled over verification and Iran’s enrichment beyond JCPOA caps.
- February 2026: Leadership decapitated and civilian sites hit during ongoing diplomatic maneuvering.
Iran lost its supreme leader and innocent schoolgirls in the opening hours of an operation, during a period when negotiations were reportedly progressing well.
Hardliners in Tehran have long argued that the West respects only strength; this episode is an undeniable vindication of that worldview.
Economically isolated Iran sees its alliances with Russia, China, and North Korea as more reliable than Western promises. Short-term trust is functionally zero.
Global Implications of the Strikes
The February strikes have shifted strategic calculations in several ways:
- Erosion of “talk first” norms: Adversaries such as North Korea, Russia (Ukraine), and China (Taiwan) now see Western diplomacy as potentially a delay tactic rather than a reliable path to compromise.
- Nuclear proliferation incentives: States seeking nuclear capabilities may conclude that developing a bomb quickly is the only way to deter preemptive strikes, echoing lessons from Libya in 2011.
- Global South alignment: Iran can portray itself as a victim of Western bullying, bolstering anti-Western sentiment even among countries that privately disapprove of its regime.
- Domestic hardline empowerment: The IRGC and hardliners gain political leverage over pragmatists. Regime survival now depends on asymmetric retaliation and external alliances rather than concessions.
Diplomacy looks weaker when a stronger power demonstrates the unilateral use of force against a weaker negotiating partner. Legally, the strikes may be justified under Washington and Jerusalem’s self-defense logic—given Iran’s nuclear advancements, proxy wars (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis), and 2024 attacks on Israel—but they radically change incentives at the negotiating table.
Iran’s Likely Response
From Tehran’s ideological and strategic standpoint, this is a critical juncture. The regime has always framed conflict as existential resistance to “arrogant powers.” Losing the supreme leader and seeing schoolchildren killed strengthens that narrative. Expect:
- Missile and drone barrages targeting regional adversaries.
- Proxy attacks across the Middle East.
- Attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz or threaten Gulf shipping.
Iran’s military doctrine is asymmetric because it cannot win a conventional war. The strikes demonstrate that Israel and the US have both air superiority and intelligence penetration capable of hitting the very top of the regime.
Economically, sanctions already crippled Iran; further escalation risks the collapse of energy infrastructure. While regime change was not the stated goal, it is now openly discussed in some Western circles.
Pushing back militarily may rally the population in the short term, but historical precedent—see Iraq and Libya—shows it does not end determined external pressure.
The Human and Geopolitical Costs
Iran has every reason to distrust the negotiation table. The strikes prove that military options remain live even during talks. This sets a global precedent: diplomacy becomes optional if a state can be attacked before negotiations bear fruit. Whether Iran responds with all-out retaliation or grudging recalibration will determine whether this conflict ends in regime collapse, frozen conflict, or something worse.
The deaths of schoolgirls are a human tragedy, regardless of military proximity. Collateral damage does not become acceptable because it occurs near a military site. Geopolitics is brutal; ignoring that reality benefits no one.
Whoever “wins” this confrontation does not change one fact: the world will not be the same after this war.