Trump’s Iran attack a high-risk gamble with uncertain outcome – SkyNews Editor

*No indication that Iran’s security establishment is fracturing or preparing to turn against the regime – US Editor

*As Trump incitement of Iran insiders to start civil war is viewed as failure of Washington 

By KEMI KASUMU with Agencies

Iran retains the capacity to inflict serious damage on Israel and on US forces stationed across the region. Its missile launches in response to the opening phase of US strikes indicate that it is prepared to retaliate and escalate if necessary.

The decision by United States President Donald Trump to launch what he described as “major combat operations” against the Islamic Republic of Iran marks one of the most significant strategic gambles by a US president since George Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.

Deborah Haynes, Sky news Defence Editor, made this known in an analysis reported by the US based broadcasting media organisation on Saturday February 28, 2026.

According to her, Mr Trump, who entered office positioning himself as an opponent of America’s so-called “forever wars”, has now set out sweeping objectives for military action against the Islamic Republic. He says the campaign is designed to stop what he called a “wicked, radical dictatorship” from threatening the United States.

However, she said, while the US has initiated the offensive, the trajectory of the conflict is no longer fully within Washington’s control.

The president is betting that overwhelming US airpower — rather than deploying large numbers of ground troops — will be sufficient to cripple Iran’s leadership and military capability. Although Tehran’s forces have been weakened by previous US and Israeli strikes, there are no signs of collapse.

Iran retains the capacity to inflict serious damage on Israel and on US forces stationed across the region. Its missile launches in response to the opening phase of US strikes indicate that it is prepared to retaliate and escalate if necessary.

The intensity and duration of Iran’s counterattacks — and the ability of US and Israeli defences to withstand them — will be critical measures of how the conflict develops.

In a video address, Mr Trump warned Americans that US service personnel could be killed, stating: “We may have casualties. That happens in war.” He has signalled that potential losses are a price worth paying to neutralise what he views as the Iranian threat.

The president has clearly outlined his war aims. Chief among them is preventing Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons. He has also pledged to dismantle Iran’s missile arsenal and “annihilate” its navy.

In a dramatic escalation of rhetoric, Mr Trump issued an ultimatum to members of Iran’s armed forces and security services — from the Revolutionary Guard to the police — urging them to lay down their weapons or “face certain death”.

There is, however, no indication that Iran’s security establishment is fracturing or preparing to turn against the regime.

Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against Israel suggest that Tehran has not been deterred by the initial US assault. Instead, it appears ready for sustained confrontation.

Even if US operations were to succeed in toppling the regime, significant uncertainty would remain about what follows. Mr Trump has called on the Iranian people to “take over your government”, but Washington has limited influence over how any internal transition might unfold.

Past conflicts in the Middle East have repeatedly demonstrated that initial military plans can quickly unravel once full-scale hostilities begin. As the situation develops, the ultimate outcome of this latest US intervention remains deeply uncertain.

In her words, the US based SkyNews defence editor, Deborah Haynes, said, in the analysis titled “Trump’s Iran attack is a gamble – and its outcome is unclear” that, “Donald Trump’s decision to launch “major combat operations” in Iran is the biggest gamble by any American president since George Bush invaded Iraq more than two decades ago.

“The US commander in chief – who came to power as an arch opponent of the US’s so-called “forever wars” – has set out ambitious and extensive goals for his attack against the Islamic Republic, saying he plans to prevent this “wicked, radical dictatorship” from threatening the United States.

“But he is not in complete control of events.

“Mr Trump is gambling that overwhelming US military firepower from the air – rather than boots on the ground – will be enough to destroy the Iranian regime. Tehran’s military may have been degraded by previous US and Israeli strikes, but they are showing no sign of rolling over.

“It retains the ability to inflict significant harm against Israel as well as US forces in the region – and is already fighting back.

“The scale of that retaliation and how much the US and Israel can withstand the counterattacks will be a fundamental indicator to track.

“Mr Trump has prepared his country for the potential for American service men and women to be killed, saying in his video address “we may have casualties. That happens in war”.

“He has calculated that any pain the US side suffers is worthwhile to end the threat posed by Iran.

“And he spelt out these objectives – a move that could come back to haunt him if they are not achieved.

“Chief among these war goals is a vow to prevent Iran from ever having nuclear weapons. But the US president has also pledged to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and to “annihilate” its navy.

“He issued an ultimatum to all members of the Iranian armed forces and security services from the Republican Guard to the police, telling them to lay down their weapons “or face certain death”.

“There is no indication that the Iranian security forces are about to betray the regime.

“The fact that Iran is now retaliating by launching missiles against Israel is a clear sign that Tehran has not been cowed by Mr Trump’s opening salvo and is ready to fight.

“Even if the regime is toppled, the next moment of peril is what comes next.

“The US president made clear that he wants the Iranian people to step up and “take over your government”.

“But, again, he does not have the ability to control what that would look like and whether what comes next is better than what he seeks to destroy.

“The history of wars in the Middle East shows that no plan by either side survives first contact with the enemy.”