CRS U.S. Military Operations Against Iran’s Missile and Nuclear Programs

Key Takeaways

• U.S. and Israel struck Iran on Feb 28, 2026.
• Objectives: halt nuclear weapon, destroy missiles, raze missile industry.
• Congress split: some question, others endorse operation.
• New law mandates automatic draft registration, expanding data collection.
• Experts warn law moves U.S. closer to draft activation.

Summary

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against Iran targeting its missile and nuclear programs. President Donald Trump framed the operation as preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, destroying its missile arsenal, and razing its missile industry. The action sparked a partisan split in Congress, with some members questioning the legality and strategic wisdom while others praised the move as necessary to curb Iran’s reconstituting capabilities. Simultaneously, Congress enacted Section 535, mandating automatic Selective Service registration and broad data sharing, raising concerns about a potential draft revival.

Pulse Analysis

Iran’s nuclear ambition and ballistic‑missile development have long haunted U.S. strategic planners. After a series of covert operations and diplomatic pressure, the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli strikes were touted by President Trump as having “completely obliterated” key enrichment facilities. Yet Tehran’s clandestine networks persisted, prompting a more overt campaign in February 2026 that combined air strikes with cyber‑disruption to degrade centrifuge plants, missile test sites, and supply chains. This escalation reflects Washington’s shift from containment to direct degradation, aiming to reset the regional balance before Iran can field advanced delivery systems.

The operation immediately ignited a partisan firestorm on Capitol Hill. Critics argue the strikes may violate international law and risk broader conflict, pointing to Trump’s earlier hyperbolic claims as evidence of reckless rhetoric. Supporters, however, cite intelligence reports of Iran’s rapid reconstitution of nuclear components and missile stockpiles, framing the action as a pre‑emptive safeguard for allies and U.S. forces in the Gulf. The debate underscores a growing tension between executive military authority and congressional oversight, with potential ramifications for future authorizations of force and alliance dynamics with Israel.

Concurrently, the passage of Section 535 introduces automatic Selective Service registration for all men aged 18‑26, consolidating data from multiple federal agencies. Policy analysts warn that this infrastructure could streamline a draft activation, effectively lowering the threshold for large‑scale mobilization. Civil‑liberties groups caution that expanded data aggregation heightens privacy risks and may set a precedent for broader governmental surveillance. Together, the military strike and the draft law illustrate a broader U.S. security posture that intertwines overseas kinetic actions with domestic readiness mechanisms, signaling a more integrated approach to perceived existential threats.