United States and Israeli forces carried out coordinated military strikes against multiple targets inside Iran, with explosions reported across Tehran and in other Iranian cities.

Witnesses and media reported explosions and smoke in central Tehran, including strikes near University Street, the Jomhouri area, and the northern Seyyed Khandan neighborhood, and Iranian authorities said one strike occurred near the offices of the supreme leader and that his location was moved to a secure facility. Other Iranian cities where blasts or strikes were reported include Qom, Isfahan, Karaj, Kermanshah, Tabriz, Khorramabad, Ilam and western Iranian sites; some reports said missile impacts were recorded in Tehran districts. Communications disruptions and partial or near-total internet outages were reported in parts of Iran, and some cellphone calls were reportedly not possible in areas of Tehran.

U.S. officials said American forces conducted strikes by air and sea, including Tomahawk missile launches from Navy ships, and described the action as the start of major combat operations. Israeli officials said the Israel Air Force conducted strikes on western Iranian military targets and named the operation “Roaring Lion”; the U.S. Defense Department was reported to have used the name “Operation Epic Fury” in one account. Israeli statements described the operation as aimed at degrading Iranian military and nuclear-related capabilities and at removing threats from Iran; U.S. and Israeli officials characterized parts of the action as pre-emptive and said planning with U.S. forces took place over months and the timing was set weeks earlier.

Iranian authorities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and government officials, said they would prepare a “crushing” or “crushing retaliatory” response, warned that all American and Israeli assets and interests in the Middle East had become legitimate targets, and reported launching missiles and drones toward Israel and U.S.-linked sites. Iran reported missile and drone attacks toward northern Israel and other regional locations; Israeli authorities and regional states reported sirens and activated air-defence systems as missiles and rockets were detected, and at least one rocket or missile impact was reported in northern Israel in some accounts. Accounts varied on launch locations, with some reports attributing launches to Iran and others saying some launches were reported from Lebanon; the Israeli military denied some of those Lebanon-based launch claims.

Explosions and air-raid sirens were also reported across the wider region, including in Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, and reports described blasts near the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet area in Bahrain. Several Gulf states and other countries briefly closed airspace or issued shelter-in-place guidance; U.S. diplomatic posts in Bahrain, Qatar and Jordan issued shelter-in-place or reduced-staff advisories and some embassies advised nationals to follow local instructions or leave. Civilian flights were suspended or rerouted in affected airspace, and some airlines cancelled flights to and from affected cities.

U.S. and Israeli leaders addressed Iranian audiences directly in public statements. The U.S. president urged Iranians to take over their government and offered immunity to members of the Iranian military who surrendered, and warned of possible U.S. casualties. Israeli officials and agencies, including Mossad, were reported to have issued communications aimed at encouraging opposition to Iran’s leadership. Iranian officials condemned the strikes as violations of sovereignty and called on international bodies, including the United Nations and the Security Council, to take action.

Initial casualty and damage claims differed between accounts. Iranian state-aligned reports claimed thousands of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members were killed or wounded at some military sites; other summaries reported no confirmed casualty figures or independent damage assessments at the time. Both Iran and Israel closed their airspace to civilian flights in some accounts; Iran’s airspace was reported closed for six hours in one report.

A substantial U.S. military buildup was present in the region before the strikes, including two aircraft carrier strike groups and a large fleet of fighter jets and warships, according to U.S. officials. U.S. and Israeli officials said the campaign could continue for several days.

The situation remained highly volatile, with regional air defences engaged, continuing military actions and diplomacy under strain, and international monitoring ongoing. Humanitarian and security risks to civilians were elevated by missile launches, airstrikes, airspace closures, communications outages and mass alerts across multiple countries.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (israel) (iran) (tehran) (bahrain) (missiles) (drones)

Actionable information: The article is a report of military strikes, missile impacts, airspace closures and political statements. It does not give a clear, actionable checklist a normal person can follow. It mentions that Iran and Israel closed airspace and that civilians were urged to stay near shelters in Israel, but the piece does not convert those facts into specific, practical steps (for example how to find a shelter, what to pack, how to confirm closures or rebook travel). It names broad actions by governments (declaring a state of emergency, urging regime change) without providing tools or instructions a reader could use immediately. In short, the article offers situational facts but no concrete, usable guidance for most readers.

Educational depth: The article reports events and quotes official claims, but it does not explain underlying causes, military doctrine, or the mechanics of missile and air-defense systems. It does not analyze the strategic logic behind a “pre-emptive” strike, the credibility of the stated threats, or how escalation might unfold under different scenarios. There are no numbers, charts, or statistics to evaluate, and the piece does not explain how any data were gathered. As a result it remains at the level of surface facts and eyewitness-type description rather than teaching readers about the systems, history, or reasoning that would deepen understanding.

Personal relevance: For people in the directly affected areas (residents of Tehran, northern Israel, Bahrain, or nearby military personnel) the report is highly relevant to personal safety. For most readers far from the region, the immediate personal relevance is limited to indirect concerns — travel plans, economic or geopolitical effects, or general interest. The article does not help individuals assess how likely they are to be affected personally, nor does it give guidance on what actions those outside the region should take (for instance travel advisories or precautions).

Public service function: The report provides situational awareness but lacks explicit public-service content such as verified shelter locations, emergency contact numbers, instructions for civilians in affected zones, or guidance on how to verify safety bulletins. It recounts officials urging people to stay near shelters but does not translate that into operational advice. Therefore its public-service value is limited: it informs that dangerous events are unfolding but does not equip people with steps to protect themselves.

Practicality of any advice present: The only practical-sounding items are statements that airspace is closed and civilians were urged to remain near shelters. Those are too vague to be actionable beyond the obvious. The article does not provide realistic, followable guidance for ordinary readers (how to shelter, how to check whether an airport is open, how to contact family, or how to find medical help). Any reader expecting practical emergency instructions will find this lacking.

Long-term usefulness: The article documents an intense, rapidly developing event but does not offer lessons, planning advice, or strategies that would help readers prepare for future crises. It does not discuss contingency planning, how to verify information in a crisis, or how to maintain essential supplies and communications over time. Its focus on immediate events means it offers little long-term benefit.

Emotional and psychological impact: The article is likely to provoke fear, anxiety, or shock. It emphasizes explosions, strikes near leadership offices, government calls for regime change, and threats of “crushing retaliation,” all of which increase alarm without giving readers coping steps or calming context. It conveys urgency but does not help readers process risk or find constructive ways to respond.

Clickbait or sensationalizing tendencies: The language centers on dramatic events and high-stakes rhetoric. While these details may be accurate and newsworthy, the piece leans toward sensational elements (strikes near the supreme leader’s offices, appeals for regime change, “crushing retaliation”) without balancing them with explanatory context or practical information. That emphasis increases attention but reduces usefulness.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide: The article could have furnished clear, actionable guidance for civilians in affected areas such as how to confirm airspace and airport status, how to find official shelter locations and emergency services, or basic steps to protect oneself from missile or drone attacks. It also could have explained the likely sequence of escalation in a regional conflict and how civilians and foreign nationals are typically protected or evacuated. Finally, it could have pointed readers to credible official sources, international organizations, or longstanding safety practices rather than only reporting statements by governments.

Concrete, realistic guidance the article failed to provide

If you are in or near an area experiencing strikes, prioritize immediate personal safety. Seek the most secure, enclosed place available away from windows, ideally a basement or internal room on a lower floor. If you hear official instructions to shelter, follow them; if no official guidance is available, err on the side of sheltering until you can confirm it is safe. Keep a charged phone, a battery power bank, and a way to receive official updates (local radio, verified government social accounts, or SMS alerts) and test that device beforehand if possible. Prepare a small emergency kit you can grab quickly that includes water, nonperishable food for 24–72 hours, essential medicines, a flashlight with spare batteries, basic first-aid supplies, copies of identity and travel documents, and some cash. Use simple communication plans with family: designate one out-of-area contact person everyone can check in with and agree on a meeting point if you cannot return home.

If you are traveling or planning to travel to a region with reported military activity, postpone nonessential trips. Contact airlines and your embassy or consulate for official travel advisories and rebooking assistance. Confirm whether insurance or consular registration covers emergency evacuations. Avoid transiting through regions with airspace closures; if flights are canceled, rebook through official carrier channels and verify travel status frequently.

To evaluate reports in real time, cross-check multiple independent, credible sources rather than relying on a single outlet or social media posts. Prioritize official government warnings, recognized international organizations, and established news organizations with local correspondents. Be cautious with unverified imagery and eyewitness clips; look for consistent details across sources and timestamps to reduce the risk of misinterpreting outdated or unrelated footage.

For longer-term preparedness, maintain a basic household emergency plan that identifies safe rooms, evacuation routes, and procedures for securing pets, documents, and medications. Store several days’ worth of supplies and ensure everyone in your household knows the plan. For people with special medical needs, contact local health authorities or NGOs ahead of time to confirm how continuity of care will be handled during crises.

Emotionally, limit exposure to repeated graphic coverage if you find it distressing. Rely on concise, verified updates rather than continuous streams of breaking-news alerts. Reach out to friends, family, or mental health professionals if anxiety or fear becomes overwhelming.

These recommendations are general emergency-preparedness and information-evaluation principles meant to help readers act sensibly when confronted with sudden conflict-related reporting. They do not rely on any unverified claims and are applicable broadly in many urgent situations.

"coordinated strikes by the United States and Israel" — This phrase names the actors but frames the action as orderly coordination, which can normalize or legitimize the attacks. It helps the U.S. and Israel by presenting their action as planned and professional rather than chaotic. The wording downplays violence’s shock and makes readers accept the strikes as standard military behavior. That choice steers feelings toward seeing the strikes as justified operations.

"The United States described the action as the start of major combat operations" — This quote reports the U.S. claim without challenge, giving authority to one side’s framing. It helps the U.S. narrative by making severe escalation sound official and decisive. The sentence accepts the American label as fact, which can shape reader expectations about scale and justification. It omits any counter-evidence or doubt about the claim.

"the Iranian government said it would prepare a crushing retaliation" — The word "crushing" is strong and emotional, casting Iran’s response as extreme and threatening. It helps portray Iran as violent and ominous, stirring fear. The choice of that adjective amplifies perceived danger without nuance about targets or scale. This pushes readers toward seeing Iran as aggressive.

"U.S. president addressed Iranians directly, urging them to take over their government and offering immunity to members of the Iranian military who surrendered." — This reports a foreign leader urging regime change and offering immunity, which is an interventionist stance presented plainly. It helps the U.S. position by showing active encouragement of uprising and weakening of Iran’s military. The phrasing presents interference as a positive offer rather than a violation of sovereignty. It frames internal revolt as supported externally.

"Both Iran and Israel closed their airspace to civilian flights." — This neutral fact is placed alongside combat and missile lines, which links both sides as equally reactive. It can suggest symmetry of danger without noting who initiated strikes. The ordering flattens responsibility and can hide asymmetry in actions that led to closures. This creates a sense of mutual disruption rather than cause and effect.

"United States and Israeli officials framed the strikes as pre-emptive measures against perceived Iranian threats" — The word "framed" and "perceived" together signal that the threat is a characterization, not proven fact. It helps show that the justification may be contested, but the sentence still centers U.S./Israeli viewpoint. It highlights that the threat is seen through those officials’ lens but does not give Iran’s perspective on the alleged threats. That can bias toward accepting the pre-emptive rationale.

"both governments called for regime change in Iran and urged Iranians to rise up against their leadership" — This fact pairs two governments’ calls with the idea of domestic uprising, which stresses external pressure on internal politics. It helps portray Iran as a target of foreign-driven change, making the intervention look coordinated. The sentence presents calls for regime change as simple facts without discussing legality or consequences, which can normalize them.

"Iran reported multiple missile impacts in Tehran districts and said the president was safe." — The clause "said the president was safe" uses reported speech, distancing verification and leaving the claim unconfirmed. It helps avoid responsibility for verifying the president’s condition and lets the report stand without evidence. The passive framing of "was safe" hides who verified it and what sources exist, weakening clarity.

"Missiles and drones were reportedly launched toward northern Israel, prompting air defenses to activate and the country to declare a state of emergency while urging civilians to remain near shelters." — The passive "were reportedly launched" hides the attackers’ identity and responsibility. It helps avoid assigning blame and keeps the focus on consequences, not origin. The sequence emphasizes fear and emergency procedures, shaping readers’ sense of danger. The passive voice reduces clarity about who took aggressive action.

"A large U.S. military buildup had been assembled in the region, including two aircraft carrier strike groups." — The word "buildup" and naming carriers conveys clear U.S. military power presence; it frames the U.S. as prepared for major action. It helps the idea of American dominance and readiness. The sentence may nudge readers to see the strikes as part of long planning rather than isolated events. It omits local or regional military presences for balance.

"Iranian authorities warned of severe retaliation, and rights groups noted recent deadly crackdowns on mass protests inside Iran." — This pairs Iran’s threat with criticism of Iran’s human rights record, linking military retaliation with domestic repression. It helps shape Iran as both externally aggressive and internally abusive. The juxtap pushes a negative overall image without exploring context or timing between events. It blends separate criticisms into one impression.

"International reactions and the unfolding military situation were described as highly volatile, with significant risks to civilians and regional security." — The phrase "were described as" reports others’ views rather than asserting facts, which is cautious but vague about who described it. It helps present the situation as dangerous without specifying sources. That vagueness can amplify alarm without grounding it in named authorities or evidence. It leaves readers with a general sense of crisis rather than precise claims.

The text conveys a spectrum of strong emotions that shape the reader’s sense of danger and urgency. Fear appears clearly and powerfully through words describing explosions, strikes, missiles, drones, air defenses activating, and declarations of state of emergency; phrases such as “major combat operations,” “crushing retaliation,” and “severe retaliation” amplify a sense of imminent threat. This fear is intense: it emphasizes risk to civilians, national leaders, and regional stability, and its purpose is to make the reader feel the seriousness and peril of the situation. Anger and hostility are present in the language of action and intent: terms like “coordinated strikes,” “pre-emptive measures,” calls for “regime change,” and urging people “to rise up” convey aggression from multiple actors. This anger is strong where it describes government directives and military buildup, and it serves to portray conflict as deliberate and antagonistic, pushing the reader to perceive clear sides and motives. Alarm and urgency are reinforced by reporting of military mobilization — “a large U.S. military buildup,” “two aircraft carrier strike groups,” and airspace closures — which produces a heightened, immediate tone meant to prompt concern and attention. This urgency is moderate to high and guides the reader to take the events seriously and to expect rapid developments. Defiance and resolve are implied in statements that Iran “would prepare a crushing retaliation” and in authorities warning of severe response; these words show determination and a promise of counteraction, creating a feeling of inevitability and escalation. The resolve here is strong and aims to signal that the conflict will continue, influencing the reader to anticipate further confrontation. Sympathy and worry for civilians are suggested through mentions of “significant risks to civilians,” “deadly crackdowns on mass protests,” and the president being “safe,” which humanize the stakes and highlight vulnerability; this appeals to compassion and concern, moderately softening the purely strategic focus of the report and inviting readers to care about human consequences. Persuasion through moral positioning appears where U.S. and Israeli officials call for Iranians to “rise up” and the U.S. president offers “immunity” to defecting military members; these elements inject hope and incentive for regime change, conveying a mix of encouragement and opportunism that seeks to influence behavior. The tone also contains a sense of power and dominance, communicated by describing advanced weaponry and control measures, which serves to reassure supporters of decisive action while intimidating opponents; this effect is moderate but deliberate. The writer uses word choice and framing to heighten emotional impact: vivid verbs (“reported,” “launched,” “activated”), dramatic nouns (“explosions,” “strike,” “crushing retaliation”), and emphatic qualifiers (“major,” “severe,” “significant”) make events feel immediate and extreme rather than neutral. Repetition of conflict-related actions across different locations (Tehran, northern Israel, Bahrain) and actors reinforces the scale and ubiquity of the threat, steering attention toward a narrative of widespread confrontation. Including concrete details about leaders, military assets, and civilian measures provides specificity that strengthens credibility while making the danger more tangible. The combination of fear-inducing imagery, assertive moral calls, and concrete military detail works together to shape reader reaction: to alarm and engage, to frame actors as aggressive or resolute, to elicit sympathy for civilians, and to nudge opinions about legitimacy and possible support for action or resistance.