As the war triggered by U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran enters its first week, AJP examines how the conflict began and evolved, the emerging power vacuum in Tehran and its implications for Iran and the Gulf states, and the broader impact on global energy routes, financial markets and the international order.
SEOUL, March 06 (AJP) — Residents of Tehran did not immediately grasp what had happened.
Shortly before 10 a.m. local time on Feb. 28, explosions ripped across the Iranian capital as coordinated strikes by U.S. and Israeli forces targeted the country’s military leadership and strategic infrastructure.
Air-raid sirens sounded only after the first wave had already struck.
Within less than an hour, the opening phase of what Washington called Operation Epic Fury had achieved its primary objective: crippling Iran’s command structure and striking key missile and nuclear facilities.
The operation had been authorized by U.S. President Donald Trump the previous afternoon — Feb. 27 at 3:38 p.m. EST — following intelligence assessments that Washington said pointed to accelerating Iranian nuclear development and renewed proxy attacks on Israel.
Tehran denies those accusations, and Washington has not publicly presented detailed evidence.
The first strikes began at 1:35 a.m. EST (9:05 a.m. Tehran time) as U.S. Central Command bombers and Israeli aircraft hit targets across Tehran and other strategic sites. Reports soon emerged that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had been killed in a bunker strike roughly ten minutes later.
The campaign widened almost immediately.
Iran responded at 4:05 a.m. EST with Operation True Promise IV, launching more than 170 missiles and hundreds of drones toward Israel and U.S. military installations across the Gulf. Interceptions prevented large-scale damage in many areas, but the attack reverberated across the region.
Missiles and drones struck or were intercepted near Bahrain’s Fifth Fleet headquarters, Qatar’s Al Udeid air base and Kuwait’s Al Salem base. Dubai International Airport temporarily suspended operations after debris fell near flight corridors.
The first day alone signaled that the conflict would not remain contained.
A week of rapid escalation
Over the following days, the war expanded across multiple fronts.
By March 1, U.S. and Israeli forces had intensified strikes on Iranian command centers, missile bases and nuclear facilities. Iranian retaliation extended to ports and energy infrastructure across the Gulf, including shipping hubs in the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Hezbollah joined the confrontation with rocket barrages from Lebanon, while U.S. forces targeted militia infrastructure across the region.
On March 2, American B-2 bombers reportedly struck the headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, while Iranian missiles targeted U.S. diplomatic facilities in Kuwait and bases in Qatar.
The escalation continued through the week.
Strikes damaged or destroyed several Iranian nuclear facilities and naval assets, including warships in the Persian Gulf. By the end of the first week, more than 1,000 people were reported killed in Iran, while missile exchanges and proxy attacks continued across the region.
Shipping lanes near the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil trade passes, were also threatened by mines and naval activity.
With no ceasefire in sight, the conflict had already expanded beyond a limited strike into a regional war.
Echoes of Iraq — but a different war
The opening of the conflict immediately drew comparisons to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was also justified partly on fears of weapons of mass destruction.
Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration of President George W. Bush adopted a doctrine of preemptive strikes against states suspected of developing WMD or supporting terrorism.
The Iraq war later became controversial after such weapons were never found.
The current campaign against Iran has been framed differently — as an effort to contain Tehran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities before they mature into a direct strategic threat.
Yet analysts say the motivations behind Operation Epic Fury are likely more complex.
Many see a convergence of political opportunity, regional rivalry and strategic calculation.
“Having completed or even ongoing military operations would benefit Trump politically,” said Annette Freyberg-Inan, a professor at the University of Amsterdam.
“Trump likes to present himself as a global strongman and peacemaker who fixes problems,” she said.
For Israel, she added, the confrontation offered “an opportunity to punish and perhaps even remove the Iranian regime while improving Israeli security with U.S. backing.”
Domestic political pressures may also have played a role.
“Netanyahu’s political survival relies heavily on war, and Iran has always been the primary target,” said Robert Huish, a professor at Dalhousie University.
A moment of perceived weakness
Iran’s internal turmoil may also have shaped the timing of the operation.
In January, large anti-government protests erupted across several Iranian cities before being suppressed by security forces.
According to Dov Levin, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, those events may have signaled vulnerability to Washington.
“The protests created what could be seen as a ‘blood in the water’ moment,” Levin said.
“They may have convinced U.S. decision-makers that Iran was in a particularly weak position and could potentially be coerced into concessions or even defeated quickly in a conflict.”
Others believe strategic concerns over nuclear proliferation were decisive.
Lee Haneol , a professor of political science and diplomacy at Pusan National University, said Washington and Jerusalem may have concluded that delaying action risked allowing Iran to cross a nuclear threshold.
“In that sense, the operation may have been less about democratizing Iran and more about preventing the emergence of another nuclear-armed state similar to North Korea,” Lee said.
Warfare in the AI age
Beyond geopolitics, the conflict has also revealed how rapidly modern warfare is being reshaped by advanced technologies.
The opening strikes showcased AI-assisted intelligence analysis, precision-guided weapons and integrated missile-defense networks capable of identifying and destroying targets within minutes.
But experts caution that artificial intelligence remains a complex tool in military decision-making.
Hans Liwång, a researcher at the Swedish Defence University, said many widely known AI systems — including large language models — are poorly suited to battlefield analysis.
“A particular challenge with AI-based systems is that they are opaque and their reasoning can be difficult to explain,” he said.
“Such systems on their own may create bad advice in very convincing language.”
Military-grade AI therefore relies on specialized data and tightly controlled operational systems developed within defense agencies or contractors.
Still, technology is rapidly changing the battlefield.
Yang Woo-jin, a senior researcher at the Security Management Institute, said the first week of the war demonstrated how advanced weapons systems and real-time intelligence networks are increasingly integrated into combat operations.
“Israel operates layered missile-defense systems such as Arrow-2, Arrow-3 and Iron Dome, with interception rates estimated at around 90 percent,” Yang said.
“The United States maintains a technological advantage in precision-strike platforms and battlefield intelligence.”
But the future of warfare may depend less on raw firepower than on speed.
“In technology-driven conflicts, the key factor is often who can detect threats faster, make decisions more quickly and allocate resources more efficiently,” Yang said.
Iran, he noted, may attempt to counter that advantage through asymmetric strategies, including drone swarms, proxy militias and underground missile systems.
As the conflict enters its second week, the implications are expanding far beyond Iran and Israel.
Energy markets, shipping routes and financial markets are already reacting to disruptions near the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint.
But the deeper significance may lie elsewhere.
The war is unfolding at a moment when AI, drones and precision weapons are transforming how conflicts begin, escalate and spread.
Operation Epic Fury may therefore be remembered not only for how it began — but for what it revealed about the next generation of warfare.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.