Battle Lines – Trump attacks Iran with 'major combat operations' to oust regime: What next?

Podcast: Battle Lines (The Telegraph)
Date: February 28, 2026
Hosts: Roland Oliphant, Venetia Rainey
Key Guests: Henry Bodkin (Israel Correspondent), Jonathan Hackett (USMC Veteran & Intelligence Expert)

Episode Overview

This urgent episode of Battle Lines responds to a watershed moment in world affairs: the launch of major US and Israeli military operations against Iran, with the openly stated objective of bringing down the Islamic Republic. The hosts break down the lead-up, execution, and immediate fallout of the attacks, assess the rationale and planning behind such a dramatic initiative, and—drawing on expert views—consider the best- and worst-case scenarios for Iran, the region, and global security in the days to come.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Shock Launch of US-Israeli Strikes on Iran

• What happened:
  • The US and Israel launched a coordinated, large-scale missile assault across Iran (03:55), targeting military leadership and key infrastructure, including Tehran, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Kharg Island (oil terminal), and other cities.
  • The explicit aim: regime change.
  • The US operation is codenamed Epic Fury; Israel calls theirs Lion’s Roar; Iran’s retaliatory actions are known as True Promise 4 (09:30).
• The lead-up:
  • Despite active diplomacy (Omani Foreign Minister's last-ditch talks, apparent Iranian nuclear concessions), Roland Oliphant asserts, “The Americans have made a decision to use force instead. I don’t think you can fairly say that it’s because diplomacy failed. The diplomacy was ongoing.” (02:37–03:47)

2. Trump’s Statement and the Unprecedented American Objective

• Key quote:

  "The United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime ... Lay down your weapons and have complete immunity, or in the alternative, face certain death ... This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass." — Donald Trump, Truth Social (05:22)

• Implications:
  • Unlike previous US actions (e.g., Venezuela, last year’s targeted strikes), Trump openly admits that American troops might die, signalling a potential for protracted and costly conflict. (12:06)
  • Trump’s messaging directly encourages the Iranian population to rise up and “take over your government” once the bombing ends.

3. Immediate Iranian and Regional Responses

• Military reaction:
  • Iran responded rapidly, launching missile salvos at Israel (multiple waves by 8:49 UK time), and reportedly striking US bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Bahrain.
  • Iranian Security Council urges citizens to leave targeted cities, confirming expectations of ongoing bombardment and civil strife. (09:49)
• Operational surprise:
  • Iran was not caught off guard; IRGC ground troops had been positioned in anticipation—a contrast to last year’s 12-Day War. (09:49)
• Air defense failures:
  • Tehran’s skies left exposed due to Russia’s inability/unwillingness to supply advanced air defenses, partly because of Russia’s own preoccupation with Ukraine. (08:03–09:30)

4. On-the-Ground Perspective from Israel

• First-hand account:

  “Another year in Israel, another war. I’ve just come up from the bomb shelter where I’ve spent most of the last two and a half hours sheltering from wave after wave of incoming ballistic missiles from Iran ... Israel is at war again. There’s been a mass call up of reservists. ... And this time it’s not just about the nuclear program. It’s full fat regime change, toppling the Ayatollah, ending the Islamic Republic after nearly 50 years.”
  — Henry Bodkin, Israel Correspondent (12:36–15:04)

• Public sentiment:
  • General understanding within Israel that this operation will be longer, bloodier, and riskier than previous campaigns.

5. Strategic Analysis: Was This Always the Plan?

• Guest expert: Jonathan Hackett, former US Marine and intelligence specialist
• Key insights:
  • This operation wasn’t impulsive—it’s been in military planning for “at least six months,” using a playbook reminiscent of the Venezuela intervention but with a greater degree of deliberate military planning. (24:01–25:22)
  • Hackett discloses there was a secret offer to allow senior Iranian regime figures, including the Supreme Leader, safe passage into exile in Moscow—an option refused by Khamenei. (25:22–26:06)
  • US options: regime decapitation (removal of leadership) is not seen as a reliable path due to the entrenched IRGC. “What would be necessary is probably a revolution from below … a referendum, just like there was in 1979 and 1980, where the people feel as though they've got control over the country.” (26:51–29:03)

6. The Might—and Limits—of Military Power

• US Objectives and Realities:
  • The “maximalist” US intention is to “bring down the regime,” but there are enormous risks.
  • Regime-change air campaigns historically take time and vast resources (100 days in Iraq in 1991, long weeks in Serbia 1999), far more than the current stocks of munitions in-theater (the US may have “14 days total of munitions in the Middle East before dramatic resupply is required”). (15:16, 45:07–46:44)
• Quote:

  “Regime change from the air seldom works. … They’ve got quite a narrow window in which to achieve this very ambitious objective. And if they run out of bombs and the regime is still standing after this, then they're going to look pretty silly.”
  — Roland Oliphant (15:16–19:24)

7. Risks of Occupation and State Collapse

• Possible aftermath:
  • Even if the regime falls, the absence of robust alternative leadership raises specters of Balkanization, separatist violence, and a “Libya or Syria scenario”—widespread chaos rather than stability. (34:05–36:31)
• Notable quote:

  “The problem is you have a lot of weapons and you have a lot of trained military forces that will be kind of de-BAFFIFIED just like 2003 in Iraq, and those weapons will find their way somewhere else.”
  — Jonathan Hackett (36:00)

8. Military Realities: Iran's Forces

• IRGC vs Artesh:
  • The IRGC is ideologically loyal, while the Artesh (regular army) defends the soil and is less ideologically committed. US planners may seek to encourage the Artesh to stand down or defect. (41:25–45:07)
• Combat effectiveness:
  • The IRGC has not seen true combat since the 1980s, except for limited deployment in Syria since 2016. “Fighting jihadists is a lot different than fighting the United States.” (39:26–41:25)

9. The Global Picture: Geopolitical Risks

• Strategic knock-ons:
  • With US forces and carriers committed in the Middle East, China and Russia may see new opportunities—particularly if China contemplates action against Taiwan. (46:44–47:36)
• Quote:

  “We’re about to take away 80% of China’s oil from outside of China if we do this in Iran. ... If I was Xi Jinping, this would be a great opportunity to be looking at taking Taiwan.” — Jonathan Hackett (46:44–47:36)

Memorable Quotes

• Donald Trump, US President:
  “This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass. … When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.” (05:22–07:24)
• Roland Oliphant:
  “The Americans have made a decision to use force instead. I don’t think you can fairly say that it’s because diplomacy failed. The diplomacy was ongoing.” (03:47)
• Henry Bodkin (Israel):
  “And this time it’s not just about the nuclear program. It’s full fat regime change, toppling the Ayatollah, ending the Islamic Republic after nearly 50 years … There is a real feeling of people knuckling down here that this could be a far longer campaign than last June.” (12:36–15:04)
• Jonathan Hackett (USMC):
  “If we do a decapitation strike, you’re going to have the IRGC take over the country and it’s going to be even worse than it was with the ayatollah, because now you’re just going to remove religion and keep the grip.” (26:51–29:03)
  “The after effects have not been thoroughly considered, probably.” (38:35)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 01:15–02:37 — Initial summary/context on US-Israel attack, failed diplomacy, and large scope of strikes
• 05:15–07:24 — President Trump’s statement and messaging to Iran’s leadership/citizenry
• 09:49–12:06 — Iran’s rapid counterattacks; regional escalation
• 12:36–15:04 — Henry Bodkin’s on-the-ground audio dispatch from Israel
• 15:16–19:24 — Roland and Venetia discuss US objectives, risks, and historical lessons
• 22:04–38:35 — Interview with Jonathan Hackett on US planning, regime change prospects, and operational risks
• 41:25–46:44 — Analysis of Iranian military forces, potential for mutinies/defections, and campaign duration/resource limits
• 46:44–47:36 — The China/Russia dimension: wider strategic implications

Final Takeaways

• This is a seismic shift: the United States, joined by Israel, has abandoned all pretense of limited action and is attempting total regime change in Iran—despite immense risks and uncertain payoffs.
• Iran is responding with full force, launching missiles at Israel and US bases across the Gulf, and readying for a potentially existential internal fight.
• The US relies on its overwhelming air power, but military stockpiles and logistical constraints may limit its operational window to a matter of days or weeks.
• The risk of catastrophic state failure in Iran, spreading violence, and global instability—especially vis-à-vis China and Russia—is immense.
• As Roland Oliphant cautions, “Regime change from the air seldom works… huge levels of risk for Iran and its people.”

For continuing coverage and analysis, subscribe to Battle Lines and watch for the next episode on Monday.