The Pentagon has released official footage of U.S. precision strikes against Iranian military targets as part of Operation Epic Fury, a joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign that commenced on February 28, 2026, at 1:15 a.m. ET. The initial footage, published by U.S. Central Command on March 1, showed an M142 HIMARS launching ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles toward targets inside Iran, with night-vision video capturing the launcher elevating its pod before firing, a bright exhaust plume and shockwave clearly visible in the frame. Additional footage released on March 2 depicted strikes on ballistic missile launcher storage sites, kamikaze UAV depots, and parking areas for Su-22M4 fighter-bombers belonging to the Iranian Air Force, along with U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles actively operating in Iranian airspace for reconnaissance and targeting purposes. The scale of the operation is staggering.
According to a CENTCOM fact sheet released on Sunday, March 1, over 1,000 targets were struck in the first two days alone. Israel’s air force, operating under its own codename “Operation Roaring Lion,” reported dropping more than 1,200 munitions across 24 of Iran’s 31 provinces. CENTCOM characterized the campaign as the largest regional concentration of U.S. military firepower in a generation. The strikes have not come without cost — three U.S. service members were killed in action and five were seriously wounded, with President Trump acknowledging in a Sunday evening address that “there will likely be more” casualties. This article examines the footage released by the Pentagon, the weapons systems deployed, the scope of targets struck across Iran, the strategic implications of the campaign, and what the operation means for U.S. military posture in the region going forward.
Table of Contents
- What Does the Pentagon’s Official Footage of Precision Strikes on Iranian Targets Actually Show?
- The Full Arsenal — What Weapons Were Used in Operation Epic Fury?
- Where Did the Strikes Hit and What Was Targeted?
- U.S. Casualties and the Human Cost of the Operation
- The Assassination of Khamenei and Its Strategic Implications
- CENTCOM’s Characterization as the Largest U.S. Firepower Deployment in a Generation
- What Comes Next — The Outlook for U.S.-Iran Relations and Regional Stability
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Does the Pentagon’s Official Footage of Precision Strikes on Iranian Targets Actually Show?
The first batch of unclassified footage, released by U.S. Central Command on March 1, 2026, focuses on a single M142 HIMARS vehicle — a mobile, truck-mounted rocket launcher that has become one of the most recognizable weapons in the U.S. arsenal after its prominent role in Ukraine. The night-vision clip shows the vehicle elevating its launcher pod before firing an ATACMS tactical ballistic missile. The Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, is a longer-range munition than the standard rockets the HIMARS typically fires, capable of striking targets well over 100 miles away. The footage is stark and clinical: a bright exhaust plume, a visible shockwave rippling outward, and then the missile disappearing into the night sky toward its target. The second release, on March 2, broadened the picture considerably.
This footage showed the aftermath and execution of strikes on three categories of Iranian military infrastructure: ballistic missile launcher storage sites, kamikaze drone depots, and parking areas for Su-22M4 fighter-bombers operated by the Iranian Air Force. Perhaps most notably, the footage confirmed that U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles were actively operating inside Iranian airspace, conducting reconnaissance and providing targeting data in real time. This is a significant detail — it demonstrates that U.S. forces had achieved at least partial air superiority or suppression of Iranian air defenses sufficient to fly drones over sovereign Iranian territory without apparent interference. For comparison, during the U.S. strikes on Syria in 2017 and 2018, the pentagon released footage primarily of Tomahawk cruise missile launches from naval vessels. The Operation Epic Fury footage is qualitatively different in that it shows ground-based launch systems operating in theater and unmanned aircraft operating inside the target country’s airspace, suggesting a far more integrated and forward-deployed operation.
The Full Arsenal — What Weapons Were Used in Operation Epic Fury?
The weapons systems deployed in Operation Epic Fury represent nearly the full spectrum of U.S. conventional strike capability. In addition to the HIMARS-launched ATACMS shown in the initial footage, the campaign employed Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from naval vessels, B-2 Spirit stealth bombers carrying 2,000-pound bombs, and one-way attack drones. Each of these systems fills a different niche: Tomahawks provide standoff range from ships positioned in the Gulf or Arabian Sea, B-2s deliver heavy penetrating munitions against hardened targets while evading radar, and attack drones offer persistence and the ability to loiter over target areas before striking. The most significant weapons debut, however, was the combat-first use of the PrSM — the Precision Strike Missile — launched from a HIMARS platform. The PrSM is the next-generation replacement for the aging ATACMS, offering greater range, improved accuracy, and a more modern guidance system.
Its combat debut in iran marks a milestone for the U.S. Army’s modernization program. It is worth noting, however, that the operational details of the PrSM’s performance in this engagement remain limited. The Pentagon has not released specific data on the missile’s accuracy or the nature of the targets it was assigned, and independent verification of its effectiveness is difficult given the ongoing nature of the conflict. One important limitation to keep in mind: the footage and fact sheets released by CENTCOM represent the U.S. military’s own account of the operation. Independent journalists and international observers have had limited access to strike sites inside Iran, meaning that damage assessments and claims about the precision of these strikes cannot yet be fully corroborated by outside parties.
Where Did the Strikes Hit and What Was Targeted?
The geographic scope of Operation Epic Fury stretched across a wide swath of Iranian territory. Strike locations confirmed by CENTCOM and corroborated by media reporting include Isfahan — home to a major nuclear facility — as well as Qom, Karaj, Kermanshah, Lorestan, and Tabriz. Israel’s reported operations across 24 of Iran’s 31 provinces further underscores that this was not a limited, surgical strike against a handful of sites but a nationwide campaign intended to degrade Iran’s military capacity broadly. The target list itself reads like a systematic dismantling of Iran’s offensive and defensive military infrastructure. According to CENTCOM, strikes hit IRGC command-and-control facilities, Iranian air defense systems, missile and drone launch sites, military airfields, naval vessels, submarines, and communications links.
The inclusion of air defense systems early in the target list is standard doctrine — suppressing enemy air defenses is typically the first priority in any major air campaign, as it opens the door for follow-on strikes with less risk to manned aircraft. The targeting of submarines and naval vessels suggests the campaign also aimed to neutralize Iran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The strikes on Isfahan warrant particular attention. The city is home to Iran’s uranium conversion facility, a key node in the country’s nuclear program. While the Pentagon has not explicitly confirmed strikes on nuclear infrastructure, the inclusion of Isfahan among the target cities raises obvious questions about whether the operation’s objectives extended beyond conventional military targets.
U.S. Casualties and the Human Cost of the Operation
Three U.S. service members were killed in action during the opening phase of Operation Epic Fury, with five more seriously wounded. President Trump addressed the casualties directly in a Sunday evening statement, acknowledging the losses while warning that “there will likely be more.” The frank admission stands in contrast to the often-sanitized language surrounding military operations and suggests the administration is preparing the public for a campaign that may extend beyond its initial phase. The casualty figures, while relatively low given the scale of the operation, invite comparison with other recent U.S. military engagements. The January 2024 drone attack on Tower 22 in Jordan killed three U.S.
soldiers and wounded dozens more, prompting retaliatory strikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. Operation Epic Fury represents a dramatically different scale of response — direct strikes against Iran itself rather than proxy forces. The tradeoff is clear: striking Iran directly carries greater strategic impact but also greater risk, both in terms of immediate casualties and the potential for escalation into a broader regional conflict. It is also worth noting what the casualty reports do not yet include. Information about Iranian military and civilian casualties remains fragmentary. Iranian state media has released limited information, and independent reporting from inside Iran has been constrained. Any full accounting of the operation’s human cost will require time and access that does not currently exist.
The Assassination of Khamenei and Its Strategic Implications
Among the most consequential outcomes of the operation was the reported assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei via Israeli strikes. If confirmed and sustained — meaning no successor rapidly consolidates power — this represents a decapitation strike against the Iranian political and military command structure with few modern precedents. The Supreme Leader sits atop Iran’s entire governance framework, commanding the armed forces, controlling the judiciary, and setting the direction of foreign policy. The strategic implications are enormous but also deeply uncertain. Decapitation strikes have a mixed historical record.
The killing of Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 eliminated Iran’s most effective military strategist but did not fundamentally alter Iran’s regional posture or its support for proxy forces. The removal of Khamenei is orders of magnitude more significant, but the outcome depends heavily on the Iranian political system’s ability to reconstitute leadership. Iran’s Assembly of Experts is constitutionally responsible for selecting a new Supreme Leader, but whether that process can function in the midst of an active military campaign against the country is an open question. One clear warning: the power vacuum created by Khamenei’s death could produce outcomes that are worse from a U.S. strategic perspective, not better. Fragmentation of Iranian command authority could lead to uncoordinated retaliatory strikes by IRGC factions, accelerated nuclear weapons development by hardliners seeking a deterrent, or internal instability that destabilizes the broader region in unpredictable ways.
CENTCOM’s Characterization as the Largest U.S. Firepower Deployment in a Generation
CENTCOM’s description of Operation Epic Fury as the largest regional concentration of U.S. military firepower in a generation places it in historical context alongside operations like the opening phase of the Iraq War in 2003 (Operation Iraqi Freedom’s “shock and awe” campaign) and the 1991 Gulf War air campaign. The claim is difficult to independently verify in real time, but the numbers support it: over 1,000 targets struck in 48 hours, combined with Israel’s 1,200-plus munitions dropped across 24 provinces, represents a volume of ordnance that exceeds most post-9/11 U.S.
military operations in both scale and geographic scope. The deployment of B-2 stealth bombers, sea-launched Tomahawks, ground-based HIMARS with both ATACMS and the new PrSM, and unmanned systems operating inside Iranian airspace reflects a multi-domain approach that draws on nearly every conventional strike capability in the U.S. inventory. This is not a limited punitive action — it is a full-scale military campaign.
What Comes Next — The Outlook for U.S.-Iran Relations and Regional Stability
The immediate question is whether Operation Epic Fury represents a discrete military action or the opening phase of a sustained campaign. President Trump’s warning that casualties “will likely” increase suggests the administration does not view the operation as concluded. The continued release of strike footage — with new material appearing on both March 1 and March 2 — indicates an ongoing public information campaign designed to demonstrate the operation’s effectiveness and maintain domestic support.
The longer-term trajectory depends on factors that remain highly uncertain: whether Iran retains the capacity and political will to retaliate, whether the leadership vacuum created by Khamenei’s death produces chaos or consolidation, whether regional allies and adversaries (including Russia, China, and Gulf states) intervene diplomatically or otherwise, and whether the U.S. domestic political environment sustains support for continued military action. What is clear is that the U.S.-Iran relationship has crossed a threshold that will be extraordinarily difficult to walk back, and the regional security architecture of the Middle East has been fundamentally altered.
Conclusion
The Pentagon’s release of official footage from Operation Epic Fury provides a partial but significant window into the largest U.S. military operation in the Middle East in a generation. The imagery of HIMARS-launched ATACMS, the confirmed combat debut of the PrSM missile, and the evidence of U.S. drones operating freely in Iranian airspace demonstrate a level of military capability and operational reach that is difficult to dispute. Over 1,000 targets struck across multiple Iranian provinces, combined with Israeli operations spanning 24 of 31 provinces, represent a comprehensive campaign against Iran’s military infrastructure.
The costs are real and still being tallied. Three U.S. service members are dead, five seriously wounded, and the president has warned of more to come. Iranian casualties remain largely unknown. The assassination of Supreme Leader Khamenei introduces a degree of strategic uncertainty that could take months or years to resolve. For the American public and for policymakers, the challenge now is to assess not just the military effectiveness of the operation — which appears substantial based on available evidence — but its long-term strategic consequences, which remain far from clear.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did Operation Epic Fury begin?
Operation Epic Fury commenced on February 28, 2026, at 1:15 a.m. ET, at the direction of President Trump. It is a joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign; Israel designated its component “Operation Roaring Lion.”
What weapons were used in the strikes on Iran?
The U.S. deployed HIMARS-launched ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from naval vessels, B-2 stealth bombers with 2,000-pound bombs, one-way attack drones, and the new PrSM (Precision Strike Missile), which made its combat debut during the operation.
How many targets were struck?
According to a CENTCOM fact sheet, over 1,000 targets were struck in the first two days. Israel’s air force reported dropping more than 1,200 munitions across 24 of Iran’s 31 provinces.
Were there U.S. casualties?
Yes. Three U.S. service members were killed in action and five were seriously wounded. President Trump acknowledged the losses and stated that “there will likely be more” casualties.
What types of Iranian targets were hit?
Targets included IRGC command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, missile and drone launch sites, military airfields, ships, submarines, communications links, ballistic missile launcher storage sites, kamikaze UAV depots, and Su-22M4 fighter-bomber parking areas.
Where in Iran were the strikes concentrated?
Confirmed strike locations include Isfahan (near a major nuclear facility), Qom, Karaj, Kermanshah, Lorestan, and Tabriz, with Israeli operations spanning 24 of Iran’s 31 provinces.