Tensions in the Middle East have exploded into open confrontation once again. In a dramatic escalation, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced on February 28 that the country has launched a "pre-emptive attack" against Iran, simultaneously declaring a "special and permanent state of emergency" across Israel in anticipation of retaliatory strikes.
The scale and intent of the assault are significant. According to initial reports, approximately 30 targets inside Iran have been struck, including the presidential palace and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Tehran.
It strikes, it aims
According to Li Shaoxian, Honorary Director of the China-Arab Research Institute at Ningxia University, the choice of targets reflects a clear strategic objective. "The U.S. and Israel have a clear purpose with this action—they are attempting to eliminate Iran's leadership core and paralyze the state," Li said.
Iranian media confirmed multiple explosions in the capital's public area. In response, Iran has closed its airspace, and sources indicate that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been relocated to a secure location outside Tehran.
Crucially, this is not a unilateral Israeli action. As reported, the attack was coordinated with the United States, marking a dangerous escalation in what was previously a shadow war conducted through proxies and cyber operations. The first phase of the assault is expected to last four days, with Israeli officials not ruling out the possibility of subsequent rounds targeting Khamenei himself—a threat that now appears credible given the sites already hit.
The timing of the assault was strategic. "The U.S. aircraft carrier strike group arrived at Haifa port yesterday, meaning Israel's air defense is now secure. So launching the attack today, on the Jewish Sabbath, carries an element of surprise," said Wang Jin, Director of the Israeli Studies Program at Northwest University. He views the strikes as a calibrated pressure tactic rather than the opening move of an all-out war. "Both the U.S. and Israel are actually dissatisfied—Iran has made few concessions. This strike is meant to pressure Tehran into concessions, not to trigger a scenario like Venezuela."
The attack comes as the United States has assembled a vast fleet of fighter jets and warships in the region—its largest deployment in recent years—to pressure Iran into a nuclear deal. This military build-up, Wang notes, effectively neutralized Iran's primary deterrent.
A stalled diplomatic process
The strikes come at a critical juncture in international efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear program, just days after talks between the U.S. and Iran ended without a breakthrough. According to Chen Dingding, Director of the Intellisia Institute, a prominent independent think tank, this attack is the logical outcome of a stalled diplomatic process and growing impatience in Washington.
"From the current situation, the several rounds of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have failed to achieve substantive breakthroughs on limiting nuclear technology or ballistic missiles," Dr. Chen explained. "The consensus between the two sides has not moved beyond the level of 'maintaining communication on key issues.' On this basis, the Trump administration has shown no willingness to compromise or make concessions. The likelihood of a major consensus in the next round of talks was always quite low."
This diplomatic stalemate set the stage for the current crisis. While Israel has long threatened unilateral action against Iran's nuclear facilities, the context for this latest strike is heavily influenced by American political dynamics. Dr. Chen points to a pattern of U.S. frustration driving the current escalation.
Highlighted Washington's woes
"The U.S. is now eager to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue primarily because the Trump administration has faced a series of recent setbacks in both domestic and foreign policy," Dr. Chen noted. He cited examples such as key tariff policies being ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, President Trump's declining approval ratings, and a lack of substantive breakthroughs in U.S.-Russia-Ukraine talks. "These circumstances have prompted Trump to seek significant moves on the Iranian nuclear issue to achieve so-called short-term results."
President Trump's own words on Friday reflect this impatience. He told reporters he is "not happy" with the situation and, while favoring diplomacy, reiterated that military force—including regime change—remains an option, accusing Iran of failing to "negotiate in good faith."
This shift in tone has been accompanied by the massive military build-up now positioned in the region. Dr. Chen assesses that the threshold for U.S. involvement has dramatically lowered. "The possibility of the U.S. launching a military strike on Iran has risen sharply. Given Trump's decision-making personality, the high cost of this large-scale deployment means he will have to act at some point, using actual military action to demonstrate American will."
With Israel now having acted—and with U.S. coordination confirmed—that moment has arrived. The question becomes whether this remains a calibrated strike or expands into broader conflict.
An uncertain trajectory
Dr. Chen cautions that the aftermath is far from predictable. "Whether the strike will evolve into a long-term conflict does not depend entirely on the U.S. We must observe the actual situation in the Middle East, including the extent of Iran's retaliation, Israel's subsequent actions, and the considerations of other U.S. allies in the region."
Li Shaoxian offers a more definitive view on what comes next. "Since Israel launched first, the U.S. will subsequently enter the conflict. Of course, U.S. involvement is certain, because Iranian retaliation is unavoidable," Li said. This assessment underscores the high probability of direct American military engagement in the days ahead, as Tehran vows to respond to strikes on its sovereign territory and leadership structures.
The situation is further complicated by contrasting signals from diplomatic channels. Just hours before the Israeli strike, Oman's Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, a key mediator in the U.S.-Iran talks, claimed that a "peace deal is within our reach." He stated that Iran had agreed to never seek nuclear weapons and would allow full IAEA access. This optimistic assessment now stands in stark contrast to the explosions rocking Tehran.
With a frustrated U.S. administration now demonstrating its willingness to use its massive military footprint, with Israeli strikes designed to paralyze Iran's leadership, and with American involvement now seemingly inevitable following certain Iranian retaliation, the coming days will determine whether this is a sharp, contained operation to force concessions—or the spark that ignites a broader and more devastating war.
Related news:
Live: Attacks launched on Iran
Joint Israeli-American attacks launched against Iran
Author: Guo Zedong
Reporter: Liu Xiaodi, Yuan Zixiang
Photo: Xinhua
