By Syed Azharuddin
At the very moment when political circles in Washington were consumed by renewed revelations surrounding the so-called Epstein files, a controversy drawing renewed scrutiny toward powerful figures including U.S. President Donald Trump, negotiations with Iran were reportedly still underway through diplomatic channels. Yet, according to several international reports, the fragile diplomatic track collapsed abruptly when the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes. Many analysts described the move as a betrayal of ongoing negotiations.
The timing of the escalation triggered criticism across sections of global media and among political observers who questioned whether the sudden military action may also have served to redirect international attention from mounting domestic controversies in Washington. Critics further pointed to what they view as a contradiction in dominant geopolitical narratives: while accusations about women’s rights in Iran are frequently amplified in Western discourse, far less attention has been paid to the humanitarian consequences of escalating warfare, including reports that civilians, among them young students, were among the victims of recent strikes. For many observers, the episode illustrated the widening gap between geopolitical rhetoric and the human realities unfolding on the ground.
The war that erupted on 28 February 2026 between Israel, the United States, and Iran was expected by many analysts in Washington and Tel Aviv to be swift, decisive, and strategically transformative. Instead, within days it evolved into one of the most unpredictable geopolitical crises of the decade, exposing the limits of military power of the US and Israel and reshaping the balance of influence across the Middle East.
What began as a coordinated campaign aimed at weakening Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure quickly triggered a chain reaction of retaliation across the region. Iranian missile and drone strikes targeted Israeli territory as well as US military facilities throughout the Gulf, marking one of the most direct confrontations between Iran and Western forces in modern history.
The conflict rapidly sent shockwaves through global markets and diplomatic circles. Energy prices surged, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz slowed amid security fears, and financial markets reacted nervously to the prospect of a prolonged regional war.
Yet the most significant development was not merely the military escalation but the geopolitical realignment it revealed.
For decades, the United States had maintained overwhelming military dominance in the Middle East. The events following February 28 suggested that this dominance was increasingly contested – not only by regional actors such as Iran but also by emerging global powers willing to challenge the strategic status quo.
Iran’s response strategy appeared calculated rather than impulsive. Rather than engaging in a full conventional war with Israel or the United States, Tehran relied on a layered retaliation approach combining missiles, drones, cyber capabilities, and regional pressure points.
Within days of the initial strikes, Iran launched waves of missiles toward Israeli territory and US bases located across Gulf countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
Analysts estimate that hundreds of drones and missiles were deployed during the early phase of the conflict. One report suggested that more than 1,000 drones and over 200 missiles targeted facilities across Gulf states between March 3 and March 5 alone.
Many of these projectiles were intercepted by regional air-defence systems, including Patriot batteries deployed by Gulf Cooperation Council countries and the United States. According to regional security reports, Saudi Arabia alone intercepted more than 20 drones aimed at its oil infrastructure, illustrating both the scale of the attacks and the extraordinary cost imbalance between offensive and defensive systems.
That imbalance has become a defining feature of modern warfare. Iranian drones such as the widely used Shahed series reportedly cost tens of thousands of dollars to produce, while interceptor missiles used to destroy them can cost hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars each. This asymmetry means that prolonged drone warfare can impose substantial financial strain even on technologically advanced militaries.
At the heart of the conflict was the assassination of Iran’s long-time Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, during the opening phase of the war. His death triggered both internal political turbulence and massive public mourning across the country.
Within days, Iran’s leadership structure moved quickly to appoint a successor. According to international reports, Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader’s son, was elevated to the position of Supreme Leader with the backing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The swift transition reflected Iran’s determination to maintain political continuity during a moment of extreme crisis.
What followed across the Muslim world was equally significant. The death of the Supreme Leader did not fracture Iranian society in the way many Western analysts had predicted. Instead, it produced a rare moment of unity across sectarian lines. Religious leaders from both Shia and Sunni communities across the Middle East issued statements condemning the assassination and calling for solidarity with Iran. Scholars and political figures in countries such as Pakistan, Türkiye, and Qatar emphasised that the crisis had moved beyond sectarian divisions and had become a broader question of sovereignty and regional dignity. For many observers, the moment symbolised an unexpected convergence between communities historically divided by politics and theology.
For Washington, however, the episode revived uncomfortable historical parallels. In Afghanistan, the United States spent two decades and trillions of dollars attempting to dismantle the Taliban and construct a new political order, only to see the Taliban return to power after the American withdrawal in 2021. Many analysts now warn that attempts to reshape Iran’s leadership through military pressure could produce similarly paradoxical outcomes, destabilising the region without delivering lasting strategic transformation.
The financial and economic consequences of the conflict quickly became visible. Oil prices surged sharply as disruptions and security threats affected the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes. Insurance costs for vessels operating in the Gulf rose dramatically, while airlines rerouted flights to avoid potential conflict zones.
Israel’s economy also experienced significant strain. Tourism collapsed almost overnight, thousands of reservists were mobilised, and parts of the country’s commercial activity slowed as missile alerts and security disruptions became routine.
In the United States, the conflict reignited debates about the long-term costs of global military commitments.
Meanwhile, a new geopolitical dimension emerged through the involvement, direct or indirect, of major global powers.
Reports from defence analysts suggested that China had deployed its advanced surveillance vessel Liaowang-1 to the Gulf of Oman. The ship, commissioned in 2025, is designed to monitor missile launches and track electronic signals across vast distances.
Satellite imagery and military assessments indicated that Chinese naval assets were operating in nearby waters, fuelling speculation that Beijing was monitoring US and allied military movements in the region. Some open-source intelligence analysts suggested that Chinese satellite networks and maritime sensors could indirectly enhance Iran’s situational awareness of Western military deployments. While these claims remain debated, they illustrate the growing importance of space-based intelligence and electronic surveillance in contemporary warfare.
Russia has also reportedly expanded diplomatic and intelligence engagement with Iran during the conflict, reinforcing the perception that the confrontation is becoming part of a broader geopolitical contest between Western alliances and emerging Eurasian partnerships.
India’s position during the crisis has drawn considerable attention. While New Delhi formally called for restraint and de-escalation, critics argued that India’s diplomatic posture appeared influenced by signals from Washington, particularly during the administration of Donald Trump. The controversy intensified when the United States allowed India limited flexibility to continue purchasing discounted oil from Russia despite broader sanctions regimes.
Opposition parties, led by the Indian National Congress, sharply criticised the government of Narendra Modi for what they described as an overly cautious and compromised foreign policy. Several leaders publicly expressed support for Iran’s right to defend its sovereignty, arguing that India’s historic ties with Iran required a more balanced diplomatic approach.
At the societal level, the conflict triggered a rare moment of unity across sectarian lines within India’s Muslim community. Demonstrations and solidarity gatherings in cities such as Delhi and Lucknow brought together both Shia and Sunni participants who condemned the escalation and expressed solidarity with Iran and Palestine.
At the same time, India’s cautious diplomacy was shaped by economic realities. Nearly 60 per cent of India’s crude oil imports originate from the Gulf region, and millions of Indian workers live in member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Any prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could therefore have direct consequences for India’s energy security, remittances, and diaspora stability.
These developments raised deeper questions about the future structure of the international order. Beyond diplomatic circles, the war also triggered widespread public mobilisation across the world. Large demonstrations occurred in cities across Europe, Africa, and Asia where protesters condemned the US–Israeli military campaign and called for an immediate ceasefire. From London and Paris to Jakarta, Istanbul, and Johannesburg, protest movements increasingly linked the crisis in Iran with the ongoing situation in Palestine, framing both as part of a broader debate over international justice and sovereignty. Social media amplified these voices, transforming the conflict into a global political conversation in which civil society actors increasingly challenged official government narratives.
In Europe, debates also intensified over the security of national assets held in the United States. In Germany, economists and policymakers urged the government to consider repatriating portions of the country’s gold reserves stored in American vaults, citing geopolitical uncertainty and the need for strategic independence. Although no formal decision has yet been taken, the discussion itself reflects how rapidly confidence in traditional power structures can shift during geopolitical crises.
Within Israel, the war deepened existing political divisions. Increasingly evident throughout the crisis was the growing diplomatic isolation of the country itself. While the Trump administration strongly supported Israel’s military actions, that support did not necessarily reflect broader sentiment within the United States. Public debates across universities, media platforms, and civil society organisations revealed deep divisions over Washington’s role in the conflict.
Even among traditional Western allies, enthusiasm for escalation remained limited. Governments in Gulf states adopted cautious positions despite their security partnerships with Washington. Several countries intercepted Iranian drones and missiles passing through their airspace, yet avoided direct confrontation with Iran.
Domestic pressures partly explain this restraint. Populations in many Gulf states already face economic uncertainties, rising energy costs, and water-security challenges. In this context, criticism of US policy and sympathy for the Palestinian cause have grown louder among activists, citizens, and even segments of the business community.
For Iran, the conflict has become a profound test of resilience. Despite the assassination of its long-time leader and significant infrastructure damage from US and Israeli strikes, the country has demonstrated an ability to retaliate across multiple fronts while maintaining political continuity.
At the same time, Israel’s strategic calculus appears increasingly constrained, facing a regional environment in which few governments openly support escalation and global public opinion continues to shift against prolonged war.
The next phase of the conflict will depend largely on how Iran’s new leadership navigates the evolving geopolitical landscape. Will the new Supreme Leader pursue escalation, deterrence, or diplomatic recalibration? Will regional powers attempt mediation, or will the confrontation widen further? And perhaps most importantly, what does this conflict reveal about the future balance of global power?
These questions will shape the next chapter of the Middle East’s evolving geopolitical landscape. The answers, and the implications of Iran’s new leadership, will be explored in the next article of this series.
