Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced on March 18 that it had launched the 61st wave of an operation it calls True Promise‑4 in retaliation for the killing of Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. The IRGC said it fired a mix of ballistic and cruise missiles — named locally as Castle Breaker, Imad, Khoramshahr‑4 and Qader among others — some fitted with multiple warheads, striking more than 100 military and security targets around Tel Aviv and causing local power outages. Iranian state outlets claimed Israeli casualties exceeded 230, a figure that cannot be independently verified at this stage and which Israel has not publicly confirmed.
The same day Iranian authorities announced the execution of an Iranian national they identified as Kourosh Keyvani, whom they described as a Mossad agent who provided imagery of sensitive sites. Tehran said Keyvani was arrested last June during what Iranian media termed the 12‑day conflict sparked by Israeli strikes, and that investigators seized cash, vehicles and satellite communications equipment from a villa in Savojbolagh county. The execution underscores how intelligence and counterintelligence have become central features of the wider confrontation.
Separately, Iran’s atomic agency reported that a projectile struck the grounds of the Bushehr nuclear power plant on March 17 without causing technical or radiological damage. The agency condemned attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities as violations of international law and warned of severe regional consequences if such strikes continue, highlighting the risk of escalation that reaches critical infrastructure.
The United States has also stepped up kinetic operations. CENTCOM said US forces used multiple 5,000‑pound bunker‑busting munitions to destroy Iranian missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz that it described as threats to international shipping. Washington has simultaneously signalled a willingness to deploy more forces to the Middle East, including an amphibious assault ship and several thousand Marines, while publicly lamenting that NATO and many allies have declined to join proposed escort missions for commercial vessels.
Behind the scenes Washington has been investing in rapid production of Iranian‑style loitering munitions. US defence officials have discussed mass production of a platform nicknamed Lucas, a copy of an Iranian design, and a US ‘‘ghost factory’’ has reportedly already produced dozens for deployment. The technology transfer in reverse — copying and proliferating Iranian drone designs — reflects how the conflict is changing the weapons balance as much as the battlefield.
The confrontation is also drawing in other partners. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the UK parliament that Kyiv has deployed more than 200 anti‑drone specialists to the Gulf to help countries defend against Iranian 'Witness' series drones, and that Ukraine can produce roughly 2,000 interceptor drones per day and is ready to supply a portion of that output. The involvement of Ukrainian personnel and industry demonstrates how the conflict is internationalising through niche military technologies and expertise.
Taken together, the strikes, executions and deployments mark a distinct phase in which kinetic exchanges, intelligence operations and rapid weapons diffusion are entangling regional and extra‑regional actors. The immediate risk is miscalculation: strikes on bases, missiles, or nuclear facilities could provoke retaliation that other states feel compelled to answer. At the same time, the dispersal of drone technology and counter‑drone capabilities will leave a lasting imprint on how Middle East campaigns are fought, even if a full regional war remains avoidable. The short term will be shaped by alliance choices in Washington and Brussels, operational restraint in Tel Aviv and Tehran, and the effectiveness of maritime and air defences protecting commercial and nuclear sites.