On February 28, 2026, the U.S. military and the Israeli military jointly initiated a military operation against Iran code-named “Roaring Lion”, directly pushing the long-suppressed U.S.-Iran and Israel-Iran confrontations into the open, igniting Iran's ballistic missile retaliation and regional security chain reactions. Iran launched about 30 ballistic missiles at Israel (according to a single source), while Israel claimed its defense system successfully intercepted them. Behind the airstrikes on Horzum Port and Bushehr Port is the nerve of global energy shipping routes and nuclear facility safety. The current safety status of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant remains unclear, and this unresolved key variable brings the Middle East situation close to a new critical point under the pressures of military strikes, nuclear risk, and cyber warfare: on one side are the unbearable consequences that potential damage to nuclear facilities may entail, while on the other, the balance of regional power is forced to be rewritten under strong attacks.
Roaring Lion Raid: U.S.-Israel Cooperation
● Strike Rhythm and Range: The "Roaring Lion" operation, initiated on February 28, 2026, focused its air power against multiple strategic targets in Iran, with explicit airstrikes on Horzum Port and Bushehr Port. The former directly targets a vital global energy lifeline, while the latter resonates dangerously with nearby nuclear facilities. From the very beginning, this operation presented characteristics of cross-regional and cross-domain composite attacks, pushing the flames of war directly toward sensitive nodes of the Middle East's security structure.
● Political Bottom Line and Discourse Lock-in: The U.S. President reiterated during the operation that "Iran must never possess nuclear weapons," and this public statement tied military operations to a long-term non-proliferation strategy, shaping the strikes as a "necessary means" to prevent Iran from reaching the nuclear threshold. Within this narrative framework, any escalation against Iranian military and infrastructure is packaged as an extension to prevent nuclear proliferation, thereby preemptively building a political legitimacy space for high-intensity actions.
● Israel's Tough Stance: Alongside the airstrikes, it was confirmed that the Israeli Prime Minister called an emergency security meeting in an underground location, highlighting that war decisions had entered a "deep concealment, deep readiness" mode. Israel also issued an official statement signaling that "all Iranian senior officials are targets of the attack," targeting the highest command chain in Iran. This constitutes a psychological warfare and decapitation deterrence strategy, aimed at pressuring Iran’s internal power structure and attempting to shake its decision-making will on nuclear and regional policies.
● Dual Deterrence of Nuclear and Command Systems: From the choice to attack Bushehr Port to naming Iranian high-level officials, the operation began by locking in the nuclear facilities perimeter and high-level command system as core targets of deterrence. The real message conveyed is not merely one of retribution or lesson, but rather an alert to Tehran: once nuclear projects and regional expansion are deemed as crossing the line, the U.S. and Israel will choose to directly touch upon the bottom lines of regime security and nuclear infrastructure.
Iranian Missile Counterattack: Political Signal Behind Successful Interception
● Retaliatory Missile Strike: Following the "Roaring Lion" operation, Iran implemented a missile retaliation against Israel, with information from a single source indicating that Iran launched about 30 ballistic missiles at targets within Israel. This scale is insufficient to paralyze Israel's defense system in traditional terms but is enough to serve as a high-profile political show, indicating that Iran would not passively endure strikes in this round but would respond with national-level conventional capabilities.
● Interception Statement and Data Gap: The Israeli side rapidly claimed that its defense system successfully intercepted incoming missiles, but did not disclose precise success rates or hit details. Without specific data, this statement of "successful interception" is more a form of strategic communication, intending to consolidate the domestic security image of the "Iron Dome" and multi-layered air defense system while simultaneously conveying a psychological deterrence of "cannot hit, cannot penetrate" to adversaries, deliberately avoiding the disclosure of any details that could be technically analyzed to optimize Iran’s subsequent attack parameters.
● Uncertainty of Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant: Unlike the number of missiles and interception effects, the safety status of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant remains unclear as of now, and this "information black hole" is the real focus that creates tension in both regional and global markets. Should the nuclear facility suffer even limited damage, the consequences could far exceed a conventional missile standoff, as its radiation, leakage, and escalation misjudgment risks would shift the Middle East conflict from a regional military issue to a global security topic.
● Edge Deterrence Attribute of Missile War: At the current stage, battles between Iranian ballistic missiles and the Israeli defense system resemble edge deterrence and political declarations around nuclear facilities. Iran shows its willingness to strike by launching missiles without crossing the clear threshold of full-scale war; conversely, Israel maintains routine life and market confidence by claiming successful interceptions. Both sides are utilizing controlled conventional strikes to apply pressure around nuclear issues, deliberately keeping any actual attacks on nuclear facilities and large-scale destruction at "not yet engaged" levels.
Invisible Battlefield: Cyber Warfare Draining Iran
● Dramatic Drop in Network Availability: Alongside physical strikes, Iran's domestic network availability plummeted to a normal level of 54%, a specific figure that clearly reflects that cyber warfare has already begun. The "near half" availability signifies that it is not merely localized congestion or short-term interference, but involves continuous suppression of broad network infrastructure and international connections, marking this round of conflict as designed from the outset as a "physical strike + digital battlefield" three-dimensional offensive.
● Historical Hacker Attack Long Chain Background: This is not Iran's first encounter with cyber warfare impacts. Previously, the Islamic Republic News Agency was hacked, becoming a weak link in public opinion and information flow. Linking this drop in availability to past attacks targeting Iranian media and critical systems reveals a clear trajectory: information and cyber warfare against Iran has long been in a state of "low-intensity normalization," and this time merely utilizes the military conflict window to escalate from covert harassment to overt battlefield.
● Impact on Military, Political, and Economic Systems: A network availability reduced to 54% signifies not only that ordinary citizens face obstacles in internet access but may also directly impact military command communications and the operational capacity of financial and energy systems. When the military command chain is unstable due to data link disruptions, decision-making efficiency and situational awareness decline; if communication channels relied upon for financial settlements and cross-border payments experience blockage, market panic will amplify; if the monitoring and scheduling systems of energy facilities are affected, it may even trigger a chain of technical failures, making Iran more passive in the conflict.
● Mixed Warfare Effect Amplifying National Passiveness: When physical airstrikes and cyber attacks overlap, Iran's burden becomes not just the issue of "where was attacked," but rather the overall governance capability of the state is being pulled toward imbalance. Destruction of infrastructure, hindered information dissemination, and pressure on financial and energy systems create dual chaos both internally and externally. Externally, Iran struggles to present its narrative to the international community in a timely and credible manner; internally, public anxiety about information and supplies is amplified, making it even harder for the regime to maintain stable control in high-intensity conflicts.
Nuclear Facilities Become the Focus: The Fear of Safety Uncertainty
● Geopolitical Significance of Horzum Port and Nuclear Power Plant: Horzum Port itself is an important harbor in southern Iran, and together with the nearby Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, forms a highly sensitive combination of "port + nuclear facility." Once the port is attacked, it is natural for the outside world to extend its gaze to the nearby nuclear power plant: not only is it close to maritime energy channels, but it also symbolizes Iran's civilian nuclear project. Thus, in this round of strikes, Bushehr is both a military target and a strategically significant coordinate in terms of symbolism.
● Uncertainty and Spread of Nuclear Fear: As of now, there is no publicly clear conclusion regarding the damage to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, and this information vacuum alone is enough to trigger fears of nuclear leakage and escalation misjudgment in the region. Neighboring countries must evaluate the potential nuclear contamination risks in the absence of accurate information, while the market will magnify any minor disturbance into supply chain and investment risks; the military command layer is even more concerned: once one party misreads "the nuclear facility being attacked," it may be seen as a breach of red line behavior, triggering a chain escalation.
● Turning Point of Long-term Nuclear Game: The U.S.-Iran game around nuclear projects has lasted for many years, involving sanctions, negotiations, and repeated agreements. Now, with the actual military strikes by the U.S. and Israel on targets like Bushehr Port, this tug-of-war, originally mainly conducted at diplomatic and sanctions levels, has been pushed into hard collisions in physical space. The nuclear issue is no longer just a dispute over the clauses of documents and centrifuge numbers, but directly tied to aircraft flight paths and missile trajectories, indicating that the trend of "militarization of the nuclear issue" is rapidly intensifying.
● Military Red Lines and External Interventions: Once it is confirmed that nuclear facilities such as Bushehr are damaged, not only will Iran regard this as touching the bottom lines of national defense and sovereignty, neighboring countries and major powers may also consider the regional conflict has reached a stage of "uncontrollable nuclear risk." This will force more external forces to redefine their red lines: either escalating intervention under the guise of security guarantees, troop deployments, and protecting shipping lanes, or promoting mandatory nuclear safety arrangements through multilateral mechanisms, thereby forcing the military red line system in the Middle East to shift upward as a whole.
Red Lines Approaching: U.S.-Israel-Iran Triangular Game
● Non-proliferation and Survival Anxiety Overlay: The U.S. has long viewed non-proliferation as a cornerstone of its Middle East policy, considering preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities a strategic consensus; Israel, from the standpoint of its own survival security, regards any capability approaching the nuclear threshold as "an unacceptable threat." Together, they form a pressure resonance on the Iranian issue: the U.S. provides legitimacy and partial capability support, while Israel undertakes frontline strikes and risk probing, ultimately concentrating pressure on Tehran's nuclear and regional policies.
● Iran's Restraint and Toughness Coexist: Facing the U.S.-Israeli "Roaring Lion" operation, Iran exhibits toughness through approximately 30 ballistic missiles and cyber counterattacks, demonstrating that it will not passively endure strikes; meanwhile, it still displays a certain degree of deliberate control regarding the scale of attacks, target selection, and declared stances, in order to avoid directly triggering the threshold of full-scale war. This coexistence of restraint and toughness reflects that Iran wants to maintain its deterrent capability while also understanding that the costs of a head-on war with the U.S. and Israel are too great to bear.
● Redefining Alignments Among Neighboring Countries and Major Powers: In the context of Horzum and Bushehr being drawn into conflict, regional states and external powers will inevitably reassess their positions regarding energy routes and security commitments. Nations reliant on Gulf energy imports will pay more attention to the navigation security and insurance costs in the Strait of Hormuz; major powers capable of projecting force may strengthen their presence in the Middle East through escort formations, base negotiations, and arms cooperation. Consequently, the regional order will be forced to rearrange around the questions of "who ensures security, who guarantees energy."
● High Intensity and Low Control New Phase: This round of conflict combines conventional strikes, nuclear facility risks, and cyber warfare, forming a high intense but low controllable confrontation mode. All parties are attempting to shape the situation through limited wars and controllable escalations, yet lack clear red line definitions across both nuclear and cyber dimensions. If a misjudgment occurs at any point—such as a missile being interpreted as a substantive attack on nuclear facilities, or a cyber paralysis being read as a preparatory strike— the Middle East would likely plunge into a new normal of prolonged, repetitive, and hard-to-cool critical confrontation.
From Missiles to Data: The New Game Coordinates of Middle Eastern Order
This conflict, marked by the "Roaring Lion," merges military strikes, nuclear facility risks, and cyber warfare into a new normal scenario of Middle Eastern security: as missiles streak through the sky, data streams are cut or altered in the shadows, and nuclear plants become invisible variables in all calculations. Future discussions on regional security will no longer focus solely on how many missiles were launched but on which servers were compromised and which nuclear facilities are at risk.
The problem is that all parties have yet to draw clear and widely accepted red lines across the two key dimensions of nuclear and cyber: what level of cyber attack will be deemed as acts of war? What actions against nuclear facilities will be considered a complete boundary violation? Under the premise of vague answers, any misinterpretation can lead to an uncontrollable escalation path.
It is foreseeable that future negotiations and deterrents concerning Iran, and even the broader Middle East, will increasingly revolve around nuclear project transparency and cyber offensive-defensive boundaries: verification mechanisms, emergency communications, cyber attack attribution, and commitments not to be the first to strike could all become key bargaining chips in the new round of games. Whoever can establish stable mechanisms on the dual battlefield of missiles and data will have greater leverage in the emerging new order of the Middle East.
Join our community for discussion and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
