The strike on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28 marked a pivotal moment, driven primarily by intelligence efforts. The CIA, after months of gathering information, shared crucial intel with Israel. This enabled the first phase of Operation Epic Fury. As reported by CBS News, the operation hinged on intelligence collected by the United States and Israel.
The response saw thousands of Iranian missiles and drones attacking areas across the Gulf, while regions like Dubai, Bahrain, and Doha employed interceptors defensively. The 2026 conflict, although appearing to be an air campaign, rested heavily on intelligence. The decisive American intelligence identified the whereabouts of Iran’s leadership.
To successfully target Khamenei, adversaries required precise details such as his location and surrounding personnel. Acquiring this level of information is a long-term endeavor involving collection and human sources. The United States played the key role, as noted by President Donald Trump, who attributed their success to superior intelligence and tracking systems.
America’s collaboration extended from previous significant Israeli operations. In 2018, Israeli Mossad agents removed Iranian nuclear files, and in 2020, physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated using a remote-operated weapon. In July 2024, Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Tehran, and in 2025, Israeli forces’ actions led to the deaths of top Iranian military leaders. These events depicted Iran as vulnerable from internal breaches.
“The operation was led by precise intelligence, and the killing was its product.” – David Petraeus
Meanwhile, a notable event on October 7, 2023, showcased how disciplined, resource-limited forces could evade powerful intelligence services through rigorous operational security. The 2026 conflict reversed this scenario, spotlighting the strengths of effective discovery in intelligence work.
Iran’s vulnerabilities stem from a flawed system where surveillance efforts turned inward rather than outward. The divide between Iranian intelligence departments exacerbated these weaknesses, fostering internal competition rather than collaboration. Moreover, Iran’s centralized power structure, while effective in control, proved brittle when leadership was targeted.
Post-war, Iran initiated severe purges, arresting hundreds for alleged espionage. Human-rights groups criticized these actions as repressive attempts labeled as network dismantling. The intense scale of the purge reflected deep-rooted trust issues within the regime, which jeopardizes internal security and inadvertently aids adversaries.
For the United States, the war illustrated the power of intelligence beyond military hardware. Despite the temptation to enhance security through advanced defense systems, intelligence gathering and human sources remain invaluable and unmatched.
Such intelligence capabilities are also at risk of diminishing over time. Following this conflict, Iran may adapt by decentralizing decision-making and reverting to methods that undermine electronic surveillance. Future encounters may already be brewing and will likely unfold discreetly, long preceding overt military actions.
The monuments of the 2026 war include visible defense systems and destruction in Iran. However, the critical battle was fought by unknown agents, producing no public images or documentation. This decisive American contribution effectively altered the course of events.
Muhanad Seloom, assistant professor of intelligence and national security at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, offers insights into such conflicts. He frequently shares his thoughts on the subject on X.
Leave a Reply