I can’t find one expert who’s expressed surprise at the development of this war.
The first day of Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, has provided a perfect Rorschach test for the established foreign policy establishment, with each camp viewing the initial strikes as a validation of their existing theories.
The Regime Change Optimists
For analysts like Matthew Kroenig and Nate Swanson at the Atlantic Council, the day’s events confirm the logic of maximum pressure. They view the reported strike on Ayatollah Khamenei’s compound and the degradation of the Iranian navy as the necessary catalyst for a domestic uprising. To them, the “interplay” between precise military force and the pre-existing protest movement is the only way to break the regional stalemate. They argue that the Iranian regime’s rapid retaliation—striking U.S. bases and Israeli territory—is not a sign of strength but a desperate act by a leadership that knows its “existential” crisis has arrived.
The Institutional Skeptics
Conversely, the “priors” of the Middle East Institute and International Crisis Group are also being reinforced. Ali Vaez argues that the first day’s chaos proves his long-held thesis: that bombs do not manufacture organized political alternatives. He views the civilian casualties, including the reported strike on a school in southern Iran, as a gift to the regime’s propaganda machine. For these experts, the immediate regional conflagration—missiles hitting the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia—confirms that a “war of choice” inevitably spirals beyond the control of its architects. They see the lack of a “coalition of the willing” as a strategic failure that leaves the U.S. and Israel isolated.
The Realist Middle Ground
Strategic analysts like Jonathan Panikoff see their warnings about “IRGCistan” coming to life. As the central clerical leadership appears decapitated, the IRGC has moved to consolidate power and maintain internal security through internet blackouts and brute force. This group argues that the war confirms that the alternative to the Islamic Republic is not necessarily a liberal democracy, but a more aggressive military junta. They point to the “symmetry” of the IRGC’s response as evidence that the military wing of the regime was prepared for this specific “state of exception” and may even benefit from the removal of the aging clerical class.
The Readiness Hawks
For organizations like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and FPRI, the first day highlights the systemic strain on U.S. military hardware. They argue that the high mission-capable rates required for the F-35s and the extension of the USS Ford’s deployment confirm that the U.S. industrial base is not currently equipped for a protracted high-intensity conflict. They view the tactical success of the strikes as proof of American capability, but the low munition stockpiles as a warning that the “logic” of the war requires a massive domestic reinvestment in defense production.
