yourcontentcreator - US, Israel Could Launch Major Military Operation Against Iran ‘Very Soon’: Report

 US, Israel Could Launch Major Military Operation Against Iran ‘Very Soon’: Report

Dateline: Washington / Tel Aviv / Tehran | February 18, 2026

The United States and Israel are weighing plans for what officials and media reports describe as a potentially large‑scale, weeks‑long military campaign against Iran, amid rising tensions over Tehran’s nuclear and missile programmes and a faltering diplomatic track.

The prospect of joint or closely coordinated action has triggered alerts across the Middle East, new military deployments by Washington, and explicit warnings from Iran that it would retaliate against US and Israeli targets as well as regional states hosting American forces.

Possible ‘Massive, Weeks‑Long’ Campaign

According to a report cited by the Times of India, which in turn draws on Axios and other US and Israeli sources, officials are discussing a campaign that would be “massive” and “weeks‑long,” significantly broader than recent limited strikes in the region.

Key elements reported include:

Scale and scope: The operation, if launched, would go far beyond previous pinpoint attacks, targeting elements of Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and potentially command‑and‑control nodes.

US–Israel role sharing: Israel is expected to be central to any kinetic campaign, with the US reportedly considering extensive support in areas such as intelligence, air defence, logistics and possibly aerial refuelling, while still debating the extent of direct US strike participation.

Timing: Officials quoted in multiple media reports speak of a window of “days or weeks”, though veteran analysts caution that large US operations tend to follow prolonged and often public signalling, including diplomacy and force build‑ups.

A senior Israeli security figure, former IDF military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, told the Times of Israel that confrontation is now a real possibility in the near term. He said he had recently hesitated about foreign travel, suggesting the risk of rapid escalation had grown, but also stressed that “a superpower does not go to war in a matter of days,” emphasising ongoing diplomatic efforts.

Large US Military Build‑Up in the Region

US force movements over recent weeks have reinforced perceptions in the region that Washington is preparing for potential high‑end conflict with Iran:

Naval power: Reports cited by Axios describe two US aircraft carrier strike groups and accompanying warships positioned within reach of Iran.

Air power: Hundreds of fighter jets, including advanced F‑35, F‑22 and F‑16 aircraft, as well as bombers and support aircraft, are reported to have either deployed to, or been placed on heightened readiness for, missions in the Middle East.

Logistics: Open‑source flight‑tracking, referenced in media coverage, indicates scores of cargo flights carrying munitions and equipment into regional hubs.

Air defence: Additional air and missile defence systems have reportedly been moved into position to defend US bases, allied states and Israel from possible Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks.

These deployments follow months of heightened tensions linked to Iran’s nuclear advances, long‑range missile testing, and a series of incidents across the region, including previous tit‑for‑tat missile and drone exchanges between Iran and Israel.

Diplomacy Under Strain but Not Abandoned

Even as military preparations advance, US officials continue to publicly frame diplomacy as the preferred path.

US advisers, including Jared Kushner and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, have held direct talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in European venues, attempting to hammer out a new framework to restrict Iran’s nuclear activities.

Both sides have described some meetings as having “made progress,” but US officials insist major gaps remain, particularly over the level of uranium enrichment Iran would be allowed and the scope of sanctions relief.

US Vice President JD Vance has said that while the administration remains open to a deal, diplomacy may be reaching its “natural end” if Tehran refuses to accept the president’s declared “red lines”.

In parallel, international watchdogs have issued increasingly stark assessments of Iran’s nuclear programme. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported Iran enriching uranium to near‑weapons grade levels (around 60% purity) and accumulating stockpiles sufficient, in theory, for multiple nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%. Iran continues to insist its programme is for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Concerns and Pressure for Action

For Israel, Iran’s combination of nuclear progress, long‑range missiles and regional proxy networks is described by officials as an existential threat.

Key Israeli concerns highlighted in recent reporting include:

Nuclear timeline: Israeli officials are alarmed by assessments that Iran’s “breakout time” to weapons‑grade uranium could be measured in weeks, not months or years, if it chose that path.

Missile arsenal: Iran’s large stockpile of ballistic missiles and armed drones—used in previous attacks on Israel and regional targets—is seen in Jerusalem as an increasingly urgent problem, particularly after major exchanges in 2024 and 2025.

Domestic pressure: After Iranian missile attacks that killed dozens in Israel and wounded thousands, public and political pressure has mounted on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the security establishment to ensure Iran’s capabilities are significantly degraded.

Israeli media and foreign outlets have reported that Israel has already conducted covert and overt operations against Iranian targets in recent years, including cyber operations, sabotage, and limited airstrikes on infrastructure linked to missiles and nuclear research.

Two Israeli officials quoted by Axios said Israel is preparing for the possibility of war “within days” and is exploring options that could include an operation aimed at deeply weakening, or even destabilising, the Iranian regime, though such an objective is controversial within Israeli and US policy circles and would carry significant risks.

US Debate Over Objectives and Risks

Within Washington, there appears to be no consensus yet on the end‑state of any military action:

The Pentagon is reported to be pressing for clear objectives, questioning what precisely a large‑scale campaign is meant to achieve beyond temporary damage to Iran’s programmes.

Some advisers are said to favour a limited mission narrowly focused on nuclear and missile sites, while others reportedly discuss the possibility of broader strikes against military and Revolutionary Guard infrastructure.

An unnamed Trump adviser told Axios there is a “90% chance” of some form of “kinetic action” in the coming weeks, while also acknowledging that some in the president’s circle strongly oppose a war with Iran.

Previous US assessments have noted that, even with heavy strikes, Iran could potentially rebuild key capabilities, especially its missile arsenal, over time. Analysts also warn that direct attacks on Iran risk regional war, drawing in proxies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and prompting attacks on US forces and partners across the Middle East.

Iran’s Warnings and Military Moves

Tehran has responded to reports of US–Israeli planning with a series of warnings coupled with visible military activity:

Senior Iranian officials have vowed a “harsh and discouraging” response to any US or Israeli assault, explicitly threatening to strike US bases in host countries and Israeli cities.

Iran has notified neighbouring states, according to some diplomatic reporting, that their territory and US facilities on their soil could become targets if they enable or support an attack.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has conducted military drills near the Strait of Hormuz, at times partially disrupting traffic through one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints.

Iran and Russia have announced joint naval exercises in the Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean, a move widely seen as both military coordination and strategic messaging.

Iran maintains that it does not seek war, but frames its stance as deterrence, insisting it will respond “on all fronts” if attacked.

Regional and International Fallout Fears

Regional governments and international organisations are increasingly vocal about the potential consequences of a US–Israeli strike on Iran:

Maritime risk advisories, including from the UK Maritime Trade Organization, have warned of possible escalation in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman, urging commercial vessels to exercise heightened caution.

Several states have begun reviewing contingency plans for possible disruptions to oil and gas exports, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, and large movements of refugees if conflict spreads.

European capitals, already involved in previous rounds of nuclear diplomacy with Tehran, are pushing for renewed negotiations to avoid what many describe as a “catastrophic regional war.”

Global energy markets remain highly sensitive to any sign of imminent conflict in the Gulf, with traders closely watching developments around shipping lanes and export terminals.

Evacuations, Warnings and Public Messaging

Reflecting concern about sudden escalation, the United States and several allies have taken precautionary steps:

The US State Department has ordered or authorised the departure of non‑essential personnel from certain embassies and consulates within Iran’s missile range, notably in Iraq and Gulf states.

US military commands have allowed family members of service personnel at selected bases in the region to depart voluntarily.

Western governments, including the United States, Poland and Italy, have advised their citizens to leave Iran and in some cases neighbouring countries, citing the risk of rapid deterioration in the security situation.

Officials stress that these moves do not constitute an admission that war is inevitable, but rather standard risk‑mitigation in an environment of heightened tension and uncertainty.

Outlook: High Tension, Limited Visibility

As of now, there is no official confirmation that a final decision has been taken in Washington or Jerusalem to launch a joint, large‑scale operation against Iran. However, converging indicators—military deployments, diplomatic deadlock, public statements by senior officials and media leaks—point to a period of unusually high risk.

Analysts note several key variables that may shape what happens next:

Diplomatic off‑ramps: Whether ongoing or renewed talks can produce at least a partial understanding on nuclear and missile limits, buying time and reducing pressure for immediate strikes.

Intelligence assessments: Any new evidence on Iran’s nuclear or missile activities could accelerate or delay military planning, depending on whether it is deemed to cross US or Israeli red lines.

Domestic politics: Political calculations in Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran, including leaders’ willingness to absorb casualties and economic costs, may prove decisive.

Third‑party mediation: Efforts by European states, Gulf monarchies or international organisations to broker informal understandings or de‑escalatory steps could still influence outcomes.

For now, officials and analysts across the region agree on one point: miscalculation—on any side—could be enough to trigger the very war that each capital, at least publicly, says it wishes to avoid.

🚀 Created with YourContentCreator

This content was generated by Hemen Parekh using YourContentCreator — a smart content generation platform where you simply choose a genre, articulation, and narrative to create powerful content instantly.

Unlike traditional AI chatbots, there's no need to type prompts — just select and generate.