Operation Epic Fury and the Remnants of Iran’s Nuclear Program

Critical Questions by Joseph Rodgers and Bailey Schiff

Published February 28, 2026

At approximately 7:00 AM local time, the United States and Israel began conducting extensive strikes against a wide range of targets in Iran. The strikes have been dubbed Operation Epic Fury by the United States and Operation Roaring Lion by Israel. The outset of the conflict was communicated unconventionally: President Trump announced the attacks in a TruthSocial post at 2:00 AM EST. There was no address to the media or public briefing to Congress beyond a notification to the Gang of Eight shortly before strikes commenced. The eight-minute-long video concluded with a direct message from President Trump to Iranians, stating "the hour of your freedom is at hand."

The strikes in Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion differ drastically from Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, which consisted of limited strikes against key nuclear targets. In contrast, the February 28 strikes targeted leadership, military installations, missile production sites, and the remnants of Iran's nuclear program. The strikes appear to be an initial salvo of a longer conflict aimed at the systematic degradation of the Iranian government.

Q1: What are the objectives of Operation Epic Fury?

A1: President Trump's TruthSocial address outlined four military objectives in Operation Epic Fury-(1) preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, (2) destroying its missile arsenal and production sites, (3) degrading its proxy networks, and (4) annihilating its navy-alongside a desired political outcome of regime change from within. Trump framed the strikes as a counterproliferation operation and direct consequence of Iran's refusal to renounce nuclear ambitions despite three rounds of negotiations:

Iran refused, just as it has for decades and decades. They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message. For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests

U.S. and Israeli official statements reveal distinct target priorities for the February 28 operations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address appears to claim responsibility for the leadership decapitation strikes while acting "together with the U.S. military" on ballistic missile sites. Trump's statement, by contrast, explicitly claims no responsibility for targeting Iranian leadership, instead issuing a direct ultimatum to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) personnel to surrender or "face certain death." This doesn't necessarily mean the two countries have differing objectives but is consistent with an operational division of labor based on comparative advantage, with Israel targeting Iran's leadership and the United States engaging in large-scale capability degradation.

Q2: What nuclear targets has the United States struck so far?

A2: Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025 dealt a significant blow to Iran's nuclear program, leaving few high-value targets for further U.S. attacks. The strikes decimated Iran's enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz and destroyed Iran's metallurgy facilities at Isfahan. Iran has not made significant efforts to rehabilitate these key nuclear sites since June 2025, which once formed the core of Iran's capacity to build a nuclear bomb.

Despite the relative absence of high-value nuclear targets, the current wave of U.S. and Israeli strikes indicates a shift toward neutralizing Iran's peripheral nuclear capabilities, both civilian and military. Initial reports suggest that targets have included administrative hubs and dual-use scientific research facilities. There are unconfirmed reports that the United States has struck the Iran Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Tehran and the explosive research testing facility at Parchin, as well as conducted further strikes at the Isfahan nuclear complex.

The most acute escalatory risk at nuclear sites centers around the Bushehr reactor, which Iran operates with the help of the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom. Rosatom evacuated nearly 100 staff from Iran today, though personnel, primarily Russian, remain on-site to keep the reactor running. Any strikes on the reactor would pose significant radiological risks and diplomatic ones if there are any Russian casualties. While there are some reports of explosions in the port city of Bushehr, there are no confirmed reports of direct strikes against the reactor. It is unclear whether dismantling the reactor is a priority for either the United States or Israel, but there are ways of forcing the reactor to shut down without directly striking the reactor and its containment vessel.

Q3: What happened during the negotiations?

A3: Three rounds of negotiations took place throughout the month of February, but talks ultimately stalled without clear consensus on their scope. The core elements of disagreement included whether Iran's ballistic missile programs and proxies should be included and whether Iran would be able to continue enriching uranium.

The first round of talks took place February 6, in Muscat, Oman, with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner representing the United States and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi representing Iran. Notably, the United States also included U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander Admiral Brad Cooper, a visual reminder that the USS Lincoln was offshore. Araghchi drew a hard line on the scope of negotiations, insisting the topic of talks should consist of "solely the nuclear issue," while President Trump maintained any deal must cover "no nuclear weapons, no missiles, no this, no that." Days later, Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, publicly floated diluting Iran's 400-kilogram stockpile of 60 percent highly enriched uranium and restoring International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to bombed sites in exchange for full sanctions relief, while noting that transferring the stockpile to countries outside of Iran had not been discussed.

The second round of talks occurred on February 17 in Geneva and concluded with both sides agreeing to draft deals. Reports indicate that the United States set a deadline to receive a final proposal from Iran by the end of the month. Araghchi claimed on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" that the U.S. side did not ask Iran to agree to "zero enrichment" during the Geneva talks and that its final proposal would be ready in two to three days, pending Iranian leadership approval. Days later, Witkoff stated that Iran crossed Trump's "zero-enrichment" red line.

The third round of talks convened on February 26, again in Geneva, and combined indirect Omani negotiations in the morning with an afternoon of direct talks. Oman claimed Iran agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium, calling it a "a major breakthrough that has never been achieved," but adequate compliance on stockpiling almost certainly means different things to each party. Iranian representatives previously proposed only to dilute its highly enriched uranium in-country, while the United States' view required that all enriched uranium be transferred abroad. There was also likely disagreement on enrichment. Trump said on February 27, "I say no enrichment. Not 20 percent, 30 percent," while Araghchi earlier in the week had emphasized that Iran has "every right to enjoy a peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment" and that it was "not going to give it up." Oman claims both sides agreed to send technical teams to the IAEA's headquarters the following Monday before strikes commenced on Saturday.

Q4: How has Iran responded?

A4: Iranian retaliation-designated Operation True Promise 4-hit Israel along with several U.S. military targets across the Middle East hours after the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes. Explosions were reported in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. Iranian retaliation could draw the region into a broader conflict, and targeting U.S. bases in neighboring states may very well backfire. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which had previously committed only to intercepting Iranian salvos while denying offensive use of their airspace and basing, issued statements signaling a willingness to respond directly. Saudi Arabia stated that it "will take all necessary measures to defend its security and protect its territory, citizens and residents, including with the option of responding to the aggression." The UAE similarly noted a willingness to respond, particularly due to civilian casualties from Iran's retaliatory strikes.

Further Iranian responses will almost certainly involve cyber operations and terrorist attacks on U.S. and Israeli forces across the Middle East. Initial reports indicate that Iranian internet connectivity is down by at least 46 percent, suggesting that massive cyber operations are currently underway. Iran has used limited cyberattacks in the past to attempt to limit escalation spirals in conflicts. Given the systematic nature of the current strikes against Iran, it is difficult to see room for the de-escalation options that characterized previous U.S.-Iran military exchanges.

Conclusion

Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion are likely the start of a prolonged conflict with Iran. The U.S.-Israel coalition has moved beyond proliferation targets and is seeking to destroy the Iranian government entirely. This conflict has already spread across the Middle East, involving strikes in more than half a dozen countries within the first few hours.

U.S. and Israeli strikes may have significantly reduced the risk of short-term Iranian proliferation, but kinetic strikes may introduce new types of proliferation risks. Iran still possesses 400 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, and the exact location of that nuclear material remains unknown. Further, Iran's cadre of specialized nuclear and missile scientists may be scattered by the conflict. If the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran collapses, Iranian nuclear scientists could pose proliferation risks to non-state actors or outside countries interested in proliferation. Ultimately, U.S. engagements in Iran may transform into a broader and more diffused conflict that could prove difficult to manage.

Joseph Rodgers is deputy director and fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Bailey Schiff is a program coordinator and research assistant with PONI at CSIS.

Programs & Projects

Commentary by Joseph Rodgers and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. - October 27, 2025

Commentary by Joseph Rodgers, Heather Williams, and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. - August 6, 2025

Critical Questions by Joseph Rodgers - June 23, 2025