The United States and Israel conducted strikes on Iran in late February 2026, targeting energy sites, military bases, and civilian areas and damaging regime infrastructure, which led to significant increases in oil prices

For: US and Israel both expected bombing would spark mass protests

• Israel accelerated war initiation to take advantage of heightened US interest following January 2026 Iranian protests, prioritizing strategic opportunity over defensive preparation. Israel accelerating operations after January 2026 protests to exploit a protest-favorable moment directly supports the hypothesis that Israel expected bombing to trigger mass mobilization. 1 source, editorial
• US-Israeli coordination involved synchronized political destabilization and military operations designed to catalyse regime change in Iran through both covert arms supply and bombing campaign starting February 28, 2026. Synchronized political destabilization alongside military operations explicitly confirms both nations coordinated to catalyze regime change via unrest—the core of the shared protest-expectation hypothesis. 1 source, analysis
• Widespread targeting of police stations in Iran alongside industrial factories and military sites represents a strategy to make Iran ungovernable for the existing regime or whatever comes after. Police-station targeting alongside infrastructure destruction directly reflects a strategy to make the country ungovernable—a destabilization goal that presupposes expectations of protest and social upheaval. 1 source, named source
• The United States and Israel sought to mobilise armed groups among Iran's ethnic minorities, including Arabs from south-west Iran and Baloch from south-east Iran, at the beginning of the conflict in January 2026. Mobilizing ethnic-minority armed groups as part of destabilization strategy directly confirms both nations pursued regime-change through instigating internal unrest—presupposes belief in protest/uprising potential. 1 source, analysis
• The United States and Israel exploited a protest movement in Iran that occurred earlier in 2026. Explicit exploitation of a January 2026 protest movement proves both nations recognized protest potential and sought to leverage it—core to shared protest-expectation strategy. 1 source, editorial

For: US officials doubted bombing would spark Iranian protests

• Northeastern Iran has remained relatively untouched by airstrikes during the 2026 US-Israel conflict, yet alleged intelligence gathering operations were detected there. US sparing northeastern Iran from bombing while conducting intelligence operations there suggests US restraint from the very escalation Israel might have wanted—diagnostic of US skepticism about bombing effectiveness. 1 source, named source
• Multiple senior US officials and American military intelligence analysts disputed Israel's plan for mass rebellion in Iran and predicted Iranians would not protest while being bombed. US officials explicitly predicted Iranians would not protest while being bombed, directly matching the hypothesis that US officials doubted bombing would spark protests. 1 source, unnamed officials

For: Civilian sites were deliberately targeted alongside military ones

• The United States and Israel deliberately targeted Iran's educational and scientific infrastructure with the primary objective of destroying the country's scientific foundation and cultural heritage. Deliberate targeting of educational and scientific sites with stated aim of destroying cultural foundation is direct evidence for deliberate civilian targeting alongside military operations. 2 sources, multiple independent
• Widespread targeting of police stations in Iran alongside industrial factories and military sites represents a strategy to make Iran ungovernable for the existing regime or whatever comes after. Police stations targeted alongside factories and military sites for governance destruction directly shows deliberate mixing of civilian control infrastructure with military targets. 1 source, named source
• The United States and Israel have conducted strikes on Iran targeting energy sites, military bases, and civilian areas. Explicit reporting of strikes on civilian areas directly confirms the hypothesis of deliberate civilian-site targeting. 2 sources, multiple independent
• Israeli-US military strikes have damaged or destroyed more than 87,000 non-military units across Iran since the war began in 2026. 87,000 non-military units damaged directly shows deliberate civilian-area targeting occurred alongside military strikes. 1 source, named source
• US-Israeli coordination involved synchronized political destabilization and military operations designed to catalyse regime change in Iran through both covert arms supply and bombing campaign starting February 28, 2026. Political destabilization as explicit coordination objective proves civilian targeting was integral to strategy, not collateral to military operations. 1 source, analysis

For: Most targets were military or weapons-related facilities

No strong supporting evidence

For: Coordination held despite different war aims

• The gap between United States stated objectives (military only) and Israel's broader strategic goals creates significant risk of operational coordination failures and strategic divergence during the ongoing military campaign. The gap between stated military-only and unstated broader goals creates future-divergence risk. This account explicitly endorses this framing—the gap is real and acknowledged as a managed hazard. 6 sources, analysis
• Israel supported the United States approach by encouraging resistance against the Iranian government. Israel supporting US approach to resistance fits operational coordination despite aims divergence. Both partners publicly endorsed anti-regime messaging while privately disagreeing on destabilization depth. 3 sources, named source
• The United States and Israel sought to mobilise armed groups among Iran's ethnic minorities, including Arabs from south-west Iran and Baloch from south-east Iran, at the beginning of the conflict in January 2026. Mobilization of ethnic minority armed groups at war's start shows pursuit of internal rebellion/collapse strategy. This is Israel's regime-change goal, distinct from US military-only positioning. 1 source, analysis
• The US and Israel called on Iranians to rise up against the Iranian regime since the beginning of the war in 2026. This account requires genuine policy divergence: US pursued military goals while Israel pursued regime destabilization. A call for Iranians to rise up fits regime-change objectives; if only the US called this out, it validates the divergence—US rhetoric modest, Israel's goals broader. 1 source, editorial
• Multiple senior US officials and American military intelligence analysts disputed Israel's plan for mass rebellion in Iran and predicted Iranians would not protest while being bombed. US officials publicly disputed Israel's rebellion strategy and predicted failure. This overt disagreement proves genuine divergence in objectives, not mere tactical debate—core evidence for the 'different aims' part. 1 source, unnamed officials

For: The operational coordination between US and Israel began to fracture over the divergence between stated US military-only objectives and Israel's broader political-military strategy, leading to unilateral Israeli actions, targeting disputes, and loss of mutual strategic clarity by mid-campaign. The partnership remained nominally intact but with growing friction and independent Israeli decision-making.

• The gap between United States stated objectives (military only) and Israel's broader strategic goals creates significant risk of operational coordination failures and strategic divergence during the ongoing military campaign. The gap between stated US military-only goals and Israel's broader destabilization is exactly the coordination friction the hypothesis predicts, distinguishing it from hidden-agreement or maintained-coordination scenarios. 6 sources, analysis
• The United States and Israel deliberately targeted Iran's educational and scientific infrastructure with the primary objective of destroying the country's scientific foundation and cultural heritage. Deliberate targeting of educational/scientific infrastructure as war objective goes beyond shared military parameters. This evidence shows Israel expanding beyond agreed targeting—a fracture signal. 2 sources, multiple independent
• Israel accelerated war initiation to take advantage of heightened US interest following January 2026 Iranian protests, prioritizing strategic opportunity over defensive preparation. Israel accelerating timing to seize opportunity rather than waiting for coordinated US planning directly shows unilateral Israeli action. This is the breaking of synchronized scheduling—the first crack in operational coordination. 1 source, editorial
• Northeastern Iran has remained relatively untouched by airstrikes during the 2026 US-Israel conflict, yet alleged intelligence gathering operations were detected there. Untouched zones with detected intelligence gathering suggest compartmentalized Israeli activity outside US coordination. Evidence of unilateral Israeli ops—early sign of fracture. 1 source, named source
• Multiple senior US officials and American military intelligence analysts disputed Israel's plan for mass rebellion in Iran and predicted Iranians would not protest while being bombed. US officials' public disagreement with Israel's mass rebellion strategy proves formal coordination strain, distinguishing this fracture hypothesis from the hidden-agreement hypothesis. 1 source, unnamed officials

For: They agreed on regime change but kept it hidden

• The United States and Israel deliberately targeted Iran's educational and scientific infrastructure with the primary objective of destroying the country's scientific foundation and cultural heritage. Deliberate targeting of educational and scientific infrastructure to destroy Iran's scientific foundation directly supports the hidden-agreement hypothesis by showing regime-change political objective, not military-only goals. 2 sources, multiple independent
• US-Israeli coordination involved synchronized political destabilization and military operations designed to catalyse regime change in Iran through both covert arms supply and bombing campaign starting February 28, 2026. Synchronized political destabilization and military operations explicitly designed for regime change catalyze directly support the hidden-agreement hypothesis by showing shared political objective from the start. 1 source, analysis
• The United States and Israel sought to mobilise armed groups among Iran's ethnic minorities, including Arabs from south-west Iran and Baloch from south-east Iran, at the beginning of the conflict in January 2026. Mobilizing ethnic minority armed groups at war's outset directly supports regime change through internal collapse—a political objective that would need to be hidden from public claims about military-only operations. 1 source, analysis
• The United States and Israel exploited a protest movement in Iran that occurred earlier in 2026. Joint exploitation of January 2026 protests for political destabilization is explicit regime-change tactic, supporting the hidden-agreement hypothesis by showing shared political objective. 1 source, editorial
• The US and Israel called on Iranians to rise up against the Iranian regime since the beginning of the war in 2026. US calls for Iranians to rise up directly support the hidden-agreement hypothesis, showing both parties pursued regime change (not just military goals) from the war's beginning. 1 source, editorial