The US-Israeli military campaign in Iran shows troubling similarities to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, with both conflicts marked by shifting justifications, dubious legal claims, and initial expectations of quick victories that failed to materialize. As the operation enters its second week, experts warn that escalating goals could trap the United States in a prolonged war of attrition.
Parallel Patterns in Modern Warfare
The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, with approximately 900 strikes in 12 hours targeting Iranian missile infrastructure, air defenses, and leadership. The initial wave killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and dozens of officials. Iran’s Red Crescent reports 787 people died in the opening strikes, with the total death toll surpassing 1,000 as the conflict continues.
Shifting Goals Raise Questions
Early US statements framed the strikes as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Officials emphasized degrading Iran’s missile capabilities and weakening infrastructure supporting regional proxy networks. President Trump initially claimed Iran was one month away from having a nuclear weapon, though international experts contradicted this assessment. Secretary of State Rubio offered a different trigger, citing Israeli pressure rather than an imminent nuclear threat.
The objectives have grown increasingly ambitious. Trump now demands Iran’s unconditional surrender and has suggested regime change, stating that Iran’s leadership should be replaced. This escalation mirrors Vladimir Putin’s approach in Ukraine, where the Kremlin repeatedly shifted its stated objectives from demilitarization and denazification to protecting Russian speakers and securing annexed territories.
Defensive Claims Under Scrutiny
Both campaigns portray their actions as defensive responses to imminent threats. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted last week that the US did not start the war but is finishing it. Putin used strikingly similar language throughout Russia’s invasion, claiming Russia was trying to finish a conflict it did not start.
Legal scholars say the justification for both operations is nonexistent or highly questionable. The defensive framing relies on claims experts consider dubious at best. Neither conflict involved a direct attack on the aggressor nation’s territory that would clearly justify self defense under international law.
Military Realities and Expectations
Trump entered the Iran confrontation buoyed by the apparent success of an earlier US operation that captured Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro. He appeared to expect a swift campaign similar to that operation. Putin likewise believed his invasion of Ukraine would last mere weeks, repeating the quick seizure of Crimea in 2014.
Limited Operation or Full Scale War
Both leaders avoided calling their campaigns wars, suggesting expectations of brief conflicts. Putin still refuses to use the term war four years into the Ukraine invasion, insisting on calling it a special military operation. Russia enforces this language through strict censorship laws that have imprisoned critics.
Some American officials show similar reluctance. When asked if US actions constitute war, House Speaker Mike Johnson replied that he considers it a limited operation. The New Yorker quickly mocked this framing, posting an image of Tolstoy’s War and Peace with the title changed to Limited Combat Operation and Peace. Russians made identical jokes four years ago.
Current Military Status
By March 6, US and Israeli forces had struck Iranian ballistic missile infrastructure in Qom, Tehran, and Fars provinces. The campaign reduced Iran’s missile launch frequency, though retaliation continues. Iran has fired over 2,000 missiles and drones since late February, targeting US bases, Israel, and Gulf states including hitting Dubai’s consulate in the United Arab Emirates.
The IDF estimates Iran retains 100 to 200 missile launchers after more than 400 targets were hit. Israeli forces targeted Ali Asar Hejazi, a senior advisor to the late Supreme Leader, disrupting retaliation planning. Iran’s Assembly of Experts named Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader on March 9 amid significant leadership losses.
Regional Escalation and Humanitarian Crisis
The conflict has spread across nine countries, with Iranian attacks hitting oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Iran backed groups including Hezbollah, the IRGC, and Iraqi militias continue attacks on Israel, US forces, and Jordan. The IDF has struck their sites in Lebanon and Iraq in response.
Mounting Casualties and Displacement
The US reports three service members killed and five wounded. Cluster munitions used in Israel killed civilians, with nine impact sites recorded on March 9. Strikes hit leadership meetings as Iran selected Khamenei’s successor. A particularly tragic incident involved over 160 casualties at a girls’ school near Minab naval base, which the US is investigating for potential involvement.
Hundreds of thousands of people are stranded across the region. The US has chartered evacuation flights from 14 countries as commercial airlines cancel routes. Israelis in Dubai and other Gulf cities await rescue flights. The humanitarian toll continues mounting as the conflict enters its second week.
Naval and Proxy Operations
US forces sank nine Iranian naval vessels and hit militia headquarters in Mosul. The joint campaign focuses on missile and drone production facilities, including the Shouhieh and Estegal industrial sites. Israeli forces struck an air defense center in Shiraz on March 6 as part of efforts to achieve air dominance.
Iranian retaliation through proxy forces creates political pressure on Israel, with some calling for evacuations in northern regions. Trump has stated openness to talks with interim Iranian leaders but vows the operation will continue for weeks.
Political Reactions and International Response
The Russian diplomatic community quickly noticed the parallels. Vladimir Frolov, a retired Russian diplomat, responded drily to warnings about ambitious goals sliding into wars of attrition with a simple observation that it sounds familiar.
Elite Responses Mirror Earlier Patterns
Much of Russia’s establishment initially recoiled at the Ukraine invasion but ultimately fell behind Putin’s war effort. Figures in Russia’s exiled anti war movement noted similar patterns among US commentators. Critics of Russia’s invasion who maintained clear moral stances struggled with consistency when their own country went to war.
Former US Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul wrote that once presidents make decisions to go to war, even when he disagrees with the decision and process, he still wants US armed forces to win. His statement illustrated the difficulty of maintaining principled opposition when national identity becomes entangled with military action.
Allied Divisions Emerge
The United Kingdom allows limited US base use for missile strikes only, showing reluctance for deeper involvement. Oman has urged de escalation. Saudi Arabia threatens retaliation over attacks on its oil infrastructure. These divisions among traditional allies echo the careful positioning nations adopted during the early months of Russia’s Ukraine invasion.
Trump rejects regime change as an explicit goal despite the killing of Iran’s top leadership. The contradiction between stated aims and actual operations creates confusion about endgame scenarios. International experts continue questioning the nuclear weapon timeline that initially justified the strikes.
Warnings From Strategic Analysts
Danny Citrinowicz, a non resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, cautioned on Friday that military campaigns can gradually slide into wars of attrition when strategic goals become too ambitious or unrealistic. Clear and measurable objectives provide essential endpoints for campaigns.
The Risks of Mission Creep
Trump recently raised the possibility of sending elite troops into Iran to secure stockpiles of enriched uranium. This potential escalation carries echoes of Russia’s early Ukraine strategy. In the opening days of its invasion, Russia deployed elite airborne forces to seize a key airport near Kyiv in a risky operation that ended in heavy losses.
The question now centers on whether the US can avoid the pitfalls that ensnared Russia in Ukraine. Military success in degrading Iran’s immediate capabilities does not necessarily translate to achieving broader political objectives. History suggests that conflicts justified by shifting rationales rarely conclude as quickly as initial optimism suggests.
Long Term Implications
The conflict has already lasted longer than initial expectations implied. Iran retains significant retaliatory capacity through proxy networks across the Middle East. The Assembly of Experts’ rapid selection of a new Supreme Leader demonstrates institutional resilience despite leadership decapitation efforts.
As the operation extends beyond two weeks, comparison to Russia’s now four year war in Ukraine becomes increasingly relevant. Both conflicts began with assumptions of quick resolution. Both featured legal justifications that international scholars rejected. Both saw goals expand as initial military success failed to produce desired political outcomes.
The parallel raises uncomfortable questions about whether global powers are repeating disastrous patterns. The international community watches to see if the US Israeli campaign can achieve a clear endpoint or whether it follows Russia’s path into prolonged conflict. The answer could reshape geopolitical calculations for years to come.
Sources and References
