4 March 2026

On Saturday morning local time, the United States and Israel began a series of strikes on Iran that have set off broader fighting across the region, sending the Middle East into significant upheaval. As of writing, 6 US troops have died and it is estimated more than 200 Iranians have been killed. While there was growing expectation the United States would attack Iran as it amassed its military force in the region, The method and nature of the attack stunned many. Key surprises about Operation Epic Fury include:

The scale of the attack | Unlike in Venezuela, where the United States conducted a short, sharp, highly-targeted mission to remove President Maduro, the United States has bombed 13 sites across Iran. Ahead of the attack, the explicit goals were not clear, but President Trump has now indicated four aims: destroying ballistic missile stocks and production capacity; “annihilating” the Iranian Navy; preventing Iran from producing a nuclear weapon; and blocking Iran from supporting proxy militant groups. These aims are broader than just focusing on nuclear proliferation and require targeting more and different kinds of sites.

Taking out Ayatollah Ali Khamenei so quickly | It was unclear ahead of the attacks whether the United States would attempt to take down Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. However, by striking in the morning in Iran, before any additional attacks began, and tapping into advanced intelligence, they were able to kill Khamenei and many of Iran’s top leadership at one time.

Not building consensus first | Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration spoke with the congressional Group of Eight ahead of the attacks, but, unlike prior administrations on the cusp of war, they made little attempt to appeal to the American people or the international community for support ahead of the attack.

Committing to a longer timeframe | So far, the military actions of the Trump administration have been short interventions to achieve a specific outcome. President Trump famously campaigned on the promise of “no new wars”. However, in his press conference yesterday, when he outlined the four objectives he also said the war in Iran is projected for four to five weeks, while flagging it could “go far longer than that.” He also told the New York Post that “boots on the ground” were not off the table “if they were necessary.”

On the Iranian side, the extent of their retaliatory strikes has spread to 11 countries in the region. Hezbollah in Lebanon has joined the fighting, vowing to “confront aggression.”

Leaders around the world are split on supporting or condemning the US actions. The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to pledge support for the Iraq war in 2003, but Prime Minister Keir Starmer said they would not join the US strikes saying they do not support, “regime change from the skies.” However, Australia – another country that was quick to back the Iraq war – released a joint statement from the Prime Minister, Defence Minister and Foreign Minister on Saturday saying they, “support the United States.”

As the conflict continues, it remains to be seen where the tide of international support goes, and whether this makes a difference to the Trump administration.

Mari Koeck
Director, Engagement and Impact

Lead photo by Drew Angerer via Getty.

"It was my opinion that they were
going to attack first."

President Trump speaking to reporters in the Oval Office | 3 March 2026

Recent content from us

REPORT

Grey-zone games: Lessons from the 2025 Australia-Japan-United States simulation

In September 2025, the USSC convened its annual strategy simulation, bringing together senior experts from Australia, Japan, and the United States (AJUS) to navigate a hypothetical PRC grey-zone campaign in the Indo-Pacific. The outcomes of the exercise are shared in a new report, authored by USSC CEO Dr Michael J. Green, USSC Senior Defence Adviser Prof. Peter J. Dean, Sasakawa Peace Foundation Executive Director Prof. Nobukatsu Kanehara and others.

Read the report

COMMENTARY

Donald Trump campaigned against ‘endless wars’. So why is he risking another one in Iran?

In this article for The Conversation, Director of Research Jared Mondschein analyses why President Trump ordered the attack on Iran when he opposed longer wars in the past and limiting factors moving forward.

Read the article

In the news

AFR | Australia in a "new phase" with the US, says Sinodinos

Speaking at the Australian Financial Review Business Summit USSC Chairman Arthur Sinodinos addressed Australia's ties with the United States amid global tensions and said Australia is in a "new phase where we have to grow up, look after ourselves, be more self-reliant, and develop other alliances and partnerships, and while not forsaking the American alliance, not be feeling as if we are totally dependent."

Read here

The Australian | Clock ticking as Mid-East embassy staff leave

As Australian Embassy staff were ordered to leave Israel and Lebanon, USSC Dr Michael Green spoke with The Australian about the impending US strike on Iran saying, "It appears that the preparations are for a much more sustained bombing campaign, probably beginning with the elimination of Iran’s remaining air defences and Iran’s ballistic missiles, because Iran has threatened to retaliate against Israel, the Gulf states, potentially US forces in the region."

Read here

SBS | 'War of choice': Even if he wins against Iran, will Donald Trump lose?

Non-Resident Senior Fellow Bruce Wolpe spoke with SBS about the political implications of the war with Iran, noting its unpopularity amongst Americans saying, "I think there's a burden on Trump, and he has to do a lot to get a better outcome as far as the standing with the American people."

Read here

The Nightly | Iran war: Richard Marles says Aussie troop base hit in Iran drone strikes ‘all safe’

After an Iranian strike hit a UAE base where Australian troops are stationed, Defence Minister Marles confirmed no Australian troops were hurt. Associate Professor David Smith was quoted in an AAP article, published by The Nightly, and said it was unlikely the United States would expect Australia to get involved if he wants a "limited military action."