The strike that resulted in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28 began with a secretive effort by the United States. Intelligence gathered over several months by the CIA was crucial and was shared with Israel, helping to pinpoint the location of Iran’s leadership. This intelligence paved the way for Operation Epic Fury. According to CBS News, the operation was driven by this intelligence, as noted by the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The aftermath involved a barrage of missiles and drones from Iran across the Gulf, intercepted by defense systems in Dubai, Bahrain, and Doha. The 2026 conflict emerged as an intelligence war disguised as an air campaign, primarily influenced by American intelligence. Achieving the killing of a head of state requires precise knowledge of their location, timing, and surroundings; effectively utilizing such intelligence over years rather than just moments. The intelligence was paramount to the operation’s success, highlighting America’s role in this achievement.
President Donald Trump emphasized the capabilities of U.S. Intelligence in tracking and targeting Khamenei. This American contribution was intertwined with years of effort by its ally, Israel. Key operations included Mossad’s 2018 success in removing Iran’s nuclear archive, the 2020 assassination of physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and the July 2024 incident involving Ismail Haniyeh. The 2025 conflict saw targeted eliminations of key Iranian military figures, displaying a state compromised from within.
America’s expertise in fusing intelligence with prior operations allowed it to lock the Iranian leadership in place successfully. David Petraeus echoed that precise intelligence led the operation and resulted in the targeted killing.
Intelligence failures and successes are interlinked. On October 7, 2023, disciplined tactics allowed a weaker actor to obscure its plans from a capable service. In 2026, the opposite occurred, with a regime struck by adversaries it could not perceive, driven by intelligence that pierced its defenses.
Iran’s penetration is partly due to its divided intelligence apparatus between the Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guard, each distrusting the other. Such rivalry creates vulnerabilities that adversaries can exploit. The centralized nature of Iran’s command, resting largely with the supreme leader, meant that removing a few key figures could incapacitate the regime effectively.
The subsequent purge, involving arrests and executions on charges of espionage, indicates Iran’s struggle to control internal security. A regime unable to distinguish real traitors from convenient scapegoats undermines its own protective measures.
For the United States, the lesson extends beyond defensive capabilities. The 2026 war highlighted the importance of intelligence collection and human sources, capabilities that cannot be replicated easily by rivals. As Iran rebuilds, it will likely change its strategies, decentralize authority, move sensitive operations offline, and assume adversary penetration.
Ultimately, the next significant encounter with Iran will begin with these adjustments, once again involving intelligence rather than overt military action. The physical remnants of the conflict—the interceptions, the craters, and the funerals—are visible, but the decisive intelligence battle transpired without visible evidence, led by unnamed professionals before any missiles flew.
Muhanad Seloom, an assistant professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies and a senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, discusses these insights. His viewpoints are personal and expressed independently.