Washington, DC — Officials have rattled off multiple goals for the US-Israeli campaign against Iran: destroy regional military power, remove leaders, push Iran into internal unrest, and eliminate its nuclear program. Three weeks into the conflict, the pattern of military targets shows which of those goals are actually being pursued, and where the two allies might be pulling in different directions.

How the strikes have been organized so far

Analysts see the fighting unfolding in roughly three phases. Each phase reveals what the coalition has prioritized, and also what it has made harder to unwind.

Phase 1: Shock and leadership strikes

The opening days looked like a classic attempt to decapitate Iran's command structure. Strikes hit political and military leadership centers, and Iran reported the killing of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei and a number of senior IRGC officials within hours of the initial attacks. Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies summed it up: the range of declared US goals gives Washington flexibility to stop when it wants, but it cannot control how Iran responds.

Phase 2: Gutting internal security

Next came broad targeting of institutions that keep the domestic order running. Attacks hit IRGC headquarters, Basij paramilitary facilities, and police commands. Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, says the logic is clear: degrade internal security so unrest or armed resistance becomes more likely.

Western border airstrikes have also intensified, which some analysts interpret as an effort to help Kurdish or other armed groups operate across the Iraq border.

Phase 3: Hitting infrastructure and services

Recent strikes on the South Pars gas field mark a shift toward disrupting basic services like electricity and gas. That kind of targeting increases pressure on civilians and can push daily life toward a breaking point. Israel carried out the gasfield attack, and President Trump publicly criticized Israel, saying the United States knew nothing about that particular strike. Iran immediately retaliated with strikes targeting a gas facility in Qatar and an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia.

What the target choices tell us

  • Missile, drone, and naval systems have been a strong focus. Coalition strikes have aimed at ballistic missiles, drones, naval vessels, and related communications and mobile launchers.
  • Local security infrastructure also drew substantial attention. About 30 percent of strikes targeted local military and security sites used to control populations, according to Clionadh Raleigh of the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.
  • Nuclear sites have been among the least frequently attacked targets so far.

ACLED data show 1,434 coalition "strike events" inside Iran compared with 835 Iranian retaliatory strike events. The US administration counts more than 7,800 individual targets struck since February 28 and reports over 8,000 combat missions flown. Officials have also said roughly 120 Iranian naval vessels were damaged or destroyed.

The White House has described "massive results," claiming Iran's ballistic missile capability is "functionally destroyed" and that the coalition controls the air. Experts agree there has been heavy damage to conventional forces, but they also stress Iran's resilience. Tehran has used a decentralized, so-called mosaic approach to keep systems functioning and leaders replaceable, which helps it continue a war of attrition.

How hard is a military 'victory'?

Analysts warn the campaign looks increasingly incremental and escalatory. Jason Campbell of the Middle East Institute notes the pressure to keep one-upping each side. Recent moves show that escalation can keep climbing: the US deployed GBU-72/B bunker-buster bombs against hardened coastal missile sites, and transferred 2,000 marines from the Asia Pacific region, prompting speculation about attempts to seize Kharg Island, which controls access to the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's effective partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a critical complication. If Iran ends up controlling access to the strait, that would be a major strategic setback for the United States, experts warn. Seizing and holding coastal terrain reliably would likely require far larger ground forces than the current deployments, and would still leave the underlying threat in place without a diplomatic solution.

The nuclear question

Destroying Iran's nuclear program from the air looks unlikely. There have been some limited strikes on nuclear sites, but much of the most serious damage to enrichment infrastructure occurred during strikes last year. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate committee that Iran's enrichment program was largely obliterated by last year's strikes and that Tehran had not made concerted efforts to rebuild it since then.

Still, nuclear experts say completely eliminating a dispersed, decades-long program by airpower alone is unrealistic. Rafael Grossi of the UN nuclear watchdog has warned of the dangers of strikes on nuclear facilities and stressed that the program is extensive and spread across a large country. Andreas Krieg of King's College London noted that airpower can damage and delay the program, but cannot easily remove the underlying knowledge, fuel stocks, and hidden capacities without additional measures.

Are US and Israel aiming for the same end?

Target choices hint at a split. Both partners agree on degrading Iran's missile forces, air defenses, certain command nodes, and parts of its nuclear infrastructure. Beyond that, their aims appear to diverge. Analysts say Israel seems to seek deeper systemic transformation or lasting incapacitation of Iran, including leadership-targeted killings. Recent assassinations included the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and the intelligence minister, figures who could have played roles in negotiations.

Israel has also focused many strikes on Basij units, which would align with a strategy to stoke internal dissent. The South Pars gasfield attack and the public US rebuke of that strike highlight the potential for tactical mismatches between Washington and Tel Aviv.

As Jon Alterman noted, Washington can choose to stop bombing, but it cannot control Iran's response. That reality, plus the differing emphases in targeting, suggests the war could extend into a protracted contest with unpredictable outcomes.

Bottom line: After three weeks, the coalition has clearly degraded Iran's conventional strike capability and struck at leadership and internal security organs. But the campaign has not closed the door on prolonged fighting, and some critical aims, especially total elimination of nuclear capacity or secure control of the Strait of Hormuz, remain out of reach without far larger and riskier commitments.