ISLAMABAD: US President Donald Trump has concluded that the Iranian regime will not collapse in the immediate aftermath of recent military strikes, and is now seeking a prompt termination of the ongoing operation, according to prominent Israeli commentator Nahum Barnea in an analysis published by Ynetnews.
The assessment follows a series of high-impact decapitation strikes that eliminated Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with key figures including the defense minister, chief of staff, and commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Barnea described these eliminations as an extraordinary intelligence and operational achievement, comparable in Israeli military history to landmark operations such as the destruction of the Egyptian Air Force in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Despite the severe blow to leadership, the Iranian regime has demonstrated notable resilience. A council of senior officials has assumed temporary control, ensuring continuity of governance and command structures.
This development has prompted a recalibration in Washington. Prior to initiating the strikes—codenamed Operation Epic Fury by the US and Roaring Lion by Israel—American officials anticipated a limited campaign lasting four to five days, designed to sufficiently weaken Tehran and compel its return to nuclear negotiations.
An even more accelerated diplomatic channel was pursued. Through a mediator, reportedly Italy, a US official proposed an immediate ceasefire, potentially effective within the next day or two.
Tehran rejected the proposal outright, signaling its determination to continue resistance despite the leadership vacuum.
Barnea interpreted these moves as evidence of Trump’s preference for a swift exit strategy. The US President appears focused on concluding the military phase soon, allowing claims of strategic success without prolonged entanglement.
Possible pathways to declared victory include delivering devastating blows that undermine the regime’s internal cohesion and external influence, even if full regime change remains elusive in the short term.
The strikes, launched on February 28, 2026, targeted military installations, ballistic missile facilities, and naval assets across Iran. US B-2 stealth bombers deployed 2,000-pound munitions against missile sites, while naval engagements reportedly resulted in the destruction and sinking of nine Iranian warships.
Iran has responded with retaliatory missile barrages toward Israel and strikes across the Persian Gulf region, escalating the conflict regionally.
Casualties have mounted on multiple fronts. The US Central Command confirmed three American service members killed in action and five seriously wounded, marking the first reported US losses in the operation.
Iranian sources reported over 200 deaths and hundreds injured from the initial strikes, though independent verification remains limited.
The operation stems from longstanding tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and support for proxy groups. Trump had issued ultimatums demanding concessions, with military buildup in the Middle East preceding the assault.
International reactions vary. Russia condemned the killing of Khamenei as a violation of norms, while Gulf states and Israel have aligned with the US position.
Tehran has declared 40 days of mourning and vowed legitimate revenge, with its transitional leadership emphasizing continuity in defiance.
Barnea’s commentary highlights the regime’s historical capacity to endure leadership losses, prioritizing institutional survival over individual figures.
This resilience complicates expectations of rapid internal upheaval or popular uprising, despite Trump’s public calls for Iranians to rise against their government.
The rejection of the ceasefire overture underscores Tehran’s unwillingness to concede under current pressure, potentially prolonging the campaign beyond initial projections.
Trump has described operations as ahead of schedule in public statements, while indicating openness to eventual talks with new Iranian leadership.
Analysts note that the US seeks to degrade Iran’s military capabilities significantly before any de-escalation, aiming to prevent nuclear breakout and reduce threats to regional allies.
The conflict’s trajectory remains uncertain, with risks of broader involvement from proxies or other actors in the Middle East.
As military actions continue, diplomatic backchannels may yet emerge, though current indications point to sustained pressure rather than immediate resolution.
The episode represents one of the most direct US confrontations with Iran in recent decades, with profound implications for regional stability and global non-proliferation efforts.