Iran

President Trump’s decision to strike Iran creates new risks for a significant chunk of the world’s oil supply.

The Islamic Republic itself pumps about 3.3 million barrels a day, or 3% of global output, making it the fourth-largest producer in OPEC. But the nation wields far greater influence over the world’s energy supplies because of its strategic location.

Iran sits on one side of the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping lane for about a fifth of the world’s crude from key suppliers including Saudi Arabia and Iraq. While the waterway remains open, some oil tankers were avoiding sailing through following the attacks and ships were piling up on either side of the entrance, tracking data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Oil markets are closed for the weekend, and there was no initial information on whether the attacks on Iran and the country’s retaliatory strikes across the region Saturday targeted any energy assets.

Here are the pressure points to watch in oil as events unfold.

Iran’s production

Iran produces about 3.3 million barrels of oil a day, up from less than 2 million barrels a day in 2020 despite continued international sanctions. The country has become more adept at skirting these restrictions, sending about 90% of its exports to China.

The largest oil deposits are Ahvaz and Marun and the West Karun cluster, all in Khuzestan province.

Iran’s main refinery, built at Abadan in 1912, can process more than 500,000 barrels a day. Other key plants include the Bandar Abbas and Persian Gulf Star refineries, which handle crude and condensate, a type of ultra-light oil that’s abundant in Iran. The capital, Tehran, has its own refinery.

For Iran’s overseas shipments, the Kharg Island terminal in the northern Persian Gulf is the main logistical hub. There was an explosion on the island Saturday, according to Iran’s semiofficial Mehr news agency, which didn’t provide details or make any reference to the oil terminal.

Kharg Island has numerous loading berths, jetties, remote mooring points and tens of millions of barrels of crude storage capacity. The facilities have handled export volumes exceeding 2 million barrels a day in recent years.

U.S. sanctions discourage most potential buyers of Iran’s crude, but private Chinese refiners have remained willing customers, provided they get steep discounts. For international shipments, Iran relies on a fleet of aging tankers that mostly sail with their transponders deactivated to avoid detection.

Earlier this month, Iran was rapidly filling tankers at Kharg Island, probably in an effort to get as much crude on the water and move vessels out of harm’s way in case the facility was attacked. It was a move similar to last June ahead of Israeli and U.S. attacks.

Any strike on Kharg Island would be a desperate blow for the country’s economy.

Iran’s main natural gas fields are farther to the south along the Persian Gulf coast. Facilities at Assaluyeh and Bandar Abbas process, transport and ship gas and condensate for domestic use in power generation, heating, petrochemicals and other industries.

The area is the main point for Iran’s condensate exports. During the June war, an attack on a local gas plant sparked jitters among traders, but didn’t cause a lasting spike in oil prices because it didn’t affect any export facilities.

Regional Dangers

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Feb. 1 of a “regional war” if his country was attacked by the U.S. Tehran has claimed that a full closure of the Strait of Hormuz is within its power.

It would be an extreme step that the country has never taken but remains a nightmare scenario for global markets.

Hormuz is the chokepoint for bulk of the Persian Gulf’s exports of crude and also refined fuels such as diesel and jet fuel. Qatar, one of world’s biggest liquefied natural gas exporters, also relies on the strait. At least three gas tankers going to or from Qatar had paused voyages following the latest attacks in the region, according to ship-tracking data.

A seized South Korean-flagged tanker is escorted by Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats in the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz in January 2021. If Iran were to close the strait after the U.S.-Israel strikes Saturday, it would likely cause a massive disruption to exports and cause crude prices to spike.

(Tasnim News Agency via AP)

While OPEC members Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have some ability to reroute their shipments via pipelines that avoid Hormuz, closing the strait would still cause a massive disruption to exports and cause crude prices to spike.

There were signs that other Gulf producers were also accelerating shipments in February. Saudi Arabia’s crude shipments averaged about 7.3 million barrels a day in the first 24 days of the month, the most in almost three years. Combined flows from Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were set to climb almost 600,000 barrels a day from the same period in January, according to data from Vortexa Ltd.

In the past, Tehran has made retaliatory strikes on some of its neighbors’ energy assets. In 2019, Saudi Arabia blamed Tehran for a drone attack on its Abqaiq oil processing facility that halted production equivalent to about 7% of global crude supply.

Many observers say it’s improbable that Iran could keep Hormuz closed for long, making lower-impact actions like harassment of shipping more likely.

During last year’s war on Iran by Israel and the U.S., nearly 1,000 vessels a day were having their GPS signals jammed near Iran’s coast, contributing to one tanker collision. Sea mines are another long-threatened option for deterring shipping.

Market reactions

Oil surged the most in more than three years during the June war, with Brent crude rising above $80 a barrel in London. However, the gains quickly faded once it became clear that key regional oil infrastructure hadn’t been damaged.

Since then, concerns about an oversupply have dominated global markets, with crude in London ending 2025 about 18% lower than where it started.

Despite those fears of a glut, prices have surged 19% this year, partly due to fears of U.S. strikes on Iran.

With the main oil futures closed for the weekend, there’s limited insight into how traders are reacting to the latest attacks. However, a retail trading product, run by IG Group Ltd., was pricing West Texas Intermediate as high as $75.33, a gain of as much as 12% from Friday’s close.

Burkhardt and Di Paola write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg writer Julian Lee contributed to this report.

Democrats are pushing for a vote next week on a resolution to curtail President Trump’s authority to conduct strikes in Iran, a move that would reassert Congress’ role in approving the use of military might.

The effort was already underway to force a vote on a war powers resolution, but it gained fresh momentum as the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran beginning early Saturday, an action that Trump referred to in a video shortly afterward as “war.” House Democratic leaders announced this week — before the strikes — that they would begin procedures to force a floor vote on a resolution for Iran.

The resolution directs Trump to terminate the use of armed forces against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Presidents of both parties have skirted around war powers resolutions in the past.

Passage is uncertain in the Republican-controlled House and Senate, with GOP members of both chambers expressing initial support for the bombing of Iran. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) praised the attacks Saturday and said to reporters that the administration “better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.”

But the effort for a war powers vote has gained the support of at least two House Republicans, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, making it possible for the measure to pass the House if enough Democrats support the measure and enough members show up for the final vote.

On the Senate side, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, who voted for an earlier war powers resolution, said he would “oppose another presidential war.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said Iran “is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses” to allies in the region.

“However, absent exigent circumstances, the Trump administration must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war,” Jeffries’ statement said.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), a California Democrat who is co-sponsoring the resolution with Massie, urged lawmakers to reconvene in Washington on Monday to vote, calling the strikes the launch of “an illegal regime change war in Iran with American lives at risk.”

Massie on social media described the attack as “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.”

The resolution faced initial opposition from staunch pro-Israel House Democrats Jared Moskowitz of Florida and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the Senate should pass the resolution but didn’t outright oppose the strikes. He complained that the administration did not lay out its case to Congress or the public.

Trump would surely veto the resolution if passed, but substantial GOP votes for it could persuade him to limit the attacks on Iran. The Senate passed a procedural vote for a resolution against the strikes in January that culminated in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, after which the White House sent Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Capitol Hill to testify to members.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II has used that formal declaration, instead relying on less expansive authorization to deploy military force. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to slow the Vietnam War.

However, most presidents have sought some level of buy-in and approval from Congress, which approves the budget for the Pentagon.

“The Constitution is clear: The decision to take this nation to war rests with Congress, and launching large-scale military operations — particularly in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States — raises serious legal and constitutional concerns,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in a statement. “Congress must be fully briefed, and the administration must come forward with a clear legal justification.”

Other Senate Democrats, including Tim Kaine of Virginia and Andy Kim of New Jersey, have also urged their chamber to vote on a similar measure to put checks on Trump’s use of military force in Iran.

Rubio notified the so-called Gang of Eight — the top congressional leaders in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees — of the strikes, the White House said.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, defended the strikes as “pivotal and necessary.”

“The President has stated the operation’s goals clearly: thwart permanently the ayatollahs’ desire to create a nuclear weapon, degrade their ballistic missile force and their production capacity, and destroy their naval and terrorism capabilities,” Wicker said in a statement.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) noted in his statement: “This is not how a democracy goes to war.”

Wasson writes for Bloomberg.

Footage from Tehran shows burned vehicles, wrecked buildings, towering plumes of smoke, and a massive crater after US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

Footage from Minab, Iran, shows the aftermath of an Israeli-US strike on a girls’ elementary school that reportedly killed more than 50 people.

Commentators within Israel have described a sense of business as usual in the wake of the country’s joint attack with the United States against Iran.

“It’s Saturday, so the streets are naturally quiet,” political analyst Ori Goldberg said from outside Tel Aviv, as he returned from his shelter for the second time.

“I think, politically, there’s a sense of triumphalism, of having attacked an enemy regime. Not really because we’re greatly invested in the future of the Iranian people, but because, through the genocide on Gaza, we’ve devalued human life,” he said, referring to the Israeli attacks on the besieged territory since October 2023.

Returning to shelters around the country is now the stuff of everyday life for most Israelis, he said.

Israel has been on high alert since it launched a wave of attacks on Iran, the country that its leaders have consistently portrayed as its nemesis for decades.

Announcing the attack through a video post on X, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the attack in characteristically apocalyptic terms, saying Israel and the US had launched attacks to “remove the existential threat posed [to Israel] by the terror regime in Iran”, and going on to call upon the Iranian people to rise against their own leaders in response to the US and Israeli unprovoked strikes upon their cities.

Iran has retaliated with its own waves of missiles and drones against Israel and US assets in the region. At least one person was reported wounded in northern Israel.

But the latest strikes against Iran were met warmly by Israel’s political elite.

“I want to remind us all: The people of Israel are strong. The IDF [Israeli army] and the Air Force are strong. The strongest power in the world stands with us,” opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote on social media, referring to the US.

“In moments like these we stand together – and we win together. There is no coalition and no opposition, only one people and one IDF, with all of us behind them.”

In a subsequent post written in Farsi, he echoed the prime minister’s calls for Iran to enact regime change from within, a longstanding Israeli policy.

‘It’s crazy’

Accounts of the relative calm in Israel stand in sharp contrast to previous escalations, when sources described panic and bulk buying before an anticipated Iranian response to the wave of strikes Israel launched against targets in Iran.

“People here are well trained,” Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament representing the left-wing Hadash-Ta’al faction, which is almost alone in opposing the strikes, said from her apartment near Haifa, where she had just returned from her shelter.

“This is what they’re saying all the time in the media: How well-trained and ready we are. It’s crazy. I don’t think any country in the world has experienced more war than we have, so this is what they mean by ‘trained’,” she said, referencing the wars on Iran, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza that Israel has waged since the Hamas-led attack of October 2023.

As Touma-Suleiman spoke, she was interrupted by an alarm on her phone. “That’s not the alert. That’s a warning on my phone telling me there’s going to be an alert and then I’ll have to return to the shelter,” she explained, laughing drily. “You see what I mean about being well trained?”

Texting from Israel, Ahron Bregman, a senior teaching fellow at the Department for War Studies at King’s College London, described the relative calm and almost relief felt by many within the country that the uncertainty over war with Iran was at an end.

“Both Israel and the US are after the Iranian leadership. They hope to weaken it substantially, though I doubt they could topple it from the air,” he said, raising the possibility of a prolonged conflict.

However, how ready Israel might be for a lengthy war, and to what degree that might be Israel’s choice, was far from certain, Touma-Suleiman said.

“It will be the United States that determines how long the war will be. They’ll continue until they’ve achieved whatever it is they want,” she said.

“I don’t think Israel is ready for that. People are exhausted. The army is exhausted. I don’t know if they even have the reserves to manage a long war, and this is what Netanyahu is willing to gamble with, just so he can say to the public before elections: ‘Here is at least one victory.’”

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

The United States and Israel have launched strikes on Iran despite ongoing talks between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran responded to Saturday’s attacks with missile and air strikes across the region, including in Israel, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.

Israeli officials said their strikes targeted Iran’s military and nuclear-related infrastructure, while airspace across Israel was closed and emergency measures imposed. Several other countries in the region also announced the closure of their airspace.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump said Washington has begun a “major combat operation” in Iran, aimed at “eliminating threats from the Iranian regime”.

“This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States Armed Forces,” he said.

The strikes came just two days after high-stakes US–Iran nuclear negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Oman, ended without a breakthrough. The US-Israel attack marks the most serious escalation since the brief but intense June 2025 war.

Here is a timeline of the events, including attacks and diplomatic overtures leading up to Saturday’s strikes by the US and Israel, and Iran’s fierce response.

June 13, 2025 — Israel launches major air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military facilities, amid ongoing talks between the US and Tehran. Iran responds within hours with large-scale missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities.

June 22 – The US strikes Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, with Trump claiming the attacks degraded Tehran’s nuclear programme. Iranian officials said their programme was set back but not destroyed.

June 23 – In retaliation, Iran fires missiles towards Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, housing US soldiers. The missiles are intercepted, and no casualties are reported.

June 24 – After 12 days of fighting, a US-brokered ceasefire takes effect between Iran and Israel, ending all hostilities. Iran says at least 610 of its citizens were killed in the war, while Israel claimed 28 were killed on its side.

July 2 – Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signs legislation halting cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), barring its inspectors from accessing Iran’s nuclear facilities unless specifically authorised by the country’s Supreme National Security Council.

July 22 – Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, says Tehran will not give up its uranium enrichment programme, despite a temporary halt due to “serious and severe” damages.

August 12 – Iranian police arrest as many as 21,000 people related to the 12-day war with Israel, according to state media.

August 22 – Iran agrees to resume nuclear talks later in the month with the United Kingdom, France and Germany, despite the threat of revived sanctions.

August 28 – The three European countries trigger a mechanism reinstating the United Nations’ sanctions on the Islamic republic for the first time in a decade.

November 1 – Oman urges both the US and Iran to go back to the negotiating table as Iran reiterates it will not stop enriching uranium.

November 7 – Trump says Iran has requested that Washington remove its crippling sanctions on Tehran, and that he is willing to talk about the issue.

December 28 – Protests break out in major cities, including Tehran, over soaring prices after the rial plunges against the US dollar.

January 8, 2026 – The internet is shut down across Iran following the outbreak of antigovernment protests, which have now spread beyond cities. The blackout lasts for more than two weeks.

January 13 – Trump tells Iranians to “keep protesting” , claiming that “help is on the way”, and that the US may be preparing for military intervention against Tehran. The US begins to bolster its military presence off Iran.

February 6 – Iran and the US begin indirect nuclear negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Oman, with the aim of reaching a deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear programme.

February 17 – High-level US–Iran nuclear talks resume in Geneva, again with Omani mediation.

February 22 – Oman confirms another round of discussions in Geneva, describing a “positive push” but admits that significant differences remain.

February 26 – A third round of nuclear talks concludes in Geneva, with mediator Oman saying “significant progress” was made and more discussions would be held the following week in Vienna.

February 27 – Oman’s foreign minister says Iran has agreed to degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” — effectively to unrefined levels. US President Donald Trump says he prefers diplomacy but warns that “all options” remain available if diplomacy fails.

February 28 – Israel launches coordinated strikes on Iranian targets, including sites in and around Tehran. Iran retaliates by launching air and missile strikes across the region, including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait.

Israel has launched an attack on Iran, striking targets in Tehran.

A U.S. official has confirmed to TWZ that the U.S. is attacking Iran. Including strikes from air and sea, the official said. See updates down below.

Details remain extremely limited at this time, but what we know is that Israel struck targets as part of what it is calling a preemptive strike. Images from the capital show smoke plumes rising in urban areas. In addition, we have seen video from Iraq showing what appear to be low flying cruise missiles or possibly fighter aircraft. Iraq has been the primary access point for the Israeli Air Force in past strikes on Iran.

Video shows plumes of smoke rising after Iran targeted a United States military base in Bahrain, following Israel–US attacks across Iran. Two missiles were intercepted over Qatar and explosions were reportedly heard in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Israel and the United States launched an air campaign against Iran on Saturday, striking Tehran and several other cities in what President Trump said was the start of “major combat operations.”

The attacks began with Israeli strikes Saturday morning — a workday in Iran — on Tehran, the capital, with residents speaking of attacks near the presidential palace and Iran’s National Security Council.

There were also reports of Israeli strikes on the Ministry of Intelligence, Ministry of Defense, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and a military complex.

Israel’s defense minister said the “pre-emptive strike” was to “remove threats against the State of Israel”.

It remains unclear the extent of the campaign and what its ultimate aim will be. But in an eight-minute recorded video message on Truth Social, Trump outlined a maximalist strategy that would see much of what he called “this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

“We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. … We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world, and attack our forces,” he said. “And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

He urged Iranians to take over their government.

“This will be probably your only chance for generations,” he said. “For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight.”

Trump also said U.S. military forces “may have casualties.”

Iran’s IRNA news agency quoted a source in the presidential office who said Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian was unharmed in the strike.

Besides the capital, explosions could be heard in other the cities, including Isfahan, Karaj, Kermanshah and Qom, according to Iranian state media.

Both Israel and Iran shut down their airspace.

Cellphone and internet communications were disrupted shortly after the attacks began. Multiple Iranian state news websites also appear to have been hacked.

There was no immediate official response from Iran, but Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s national security commission, vowed retaliation.

“We warned you!” he wrote on social media. “Now you have started down a path which end is no longer in your control.”

Residents reported hearing sounds of missiles flying over cities in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in what was thought to be a missile barrage from Iran against Israel.

The attacks come two days after the U.S. and Iran concluded a third round of Oman-brokered negotiations in Geneva aimed at reducing tensions and stopping the prospect of war.

On Friday, Trump expressed displeasure with the pace of the talks, saying the Iranian side were not negotiating in “good faith” or giving in to U.S. demands. But Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said a deal was “within reach.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the joint US‑Israel strikes on Iran aim to remove an ‘existential threat.’ He hailed the joint action as empowering the Iranian people to shape their own future and praised US President Donald Trump for his leadership.

US President Donald Trump says American forces have begun “major combat operations” in Iran alongside Israel, aiming to eliminate what he described as imminent threats from the Iranian regime and defend the American people.

Israel has launched an attack on Iran, striking targets in Tehran.

A U.S. official has confirmed to TWZ that the U.S. is attacking Iran. Including strikes from air and sea, the official said. See updates down below.

Details remain extremely limited at this time, but what we know is that Israel struck targets as part of what it is calling a preemptive strike. Images from the capital show smoke plumes rising in urban areas. In addition, we have seen video from Iraq showing what appear to be low flying cruise missiles or possibly fighter aircraft. Iraq has been the primary access point for the Israeli Air Force in past strikes on Iran.

Pakistan says it has targeted Taliban forces in Afghanistan’s Kabul and border regions; UN chief says civilians also impacted.

Oman’s Foreign Minister says most recent indirect talks between US, Iran ‘really advanced, substantially’ and diplomacy must be allowed do its work.

Iran agreed during indirect talks with the United States never to stockpile enriched uranium, said Oman’s top diplomat, who described the development as a major breakthrough.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi also said on Friday that he believed all issues in a deal between Iran and the US could be resolved “amicably and comprehensively” within a few months.

“A peace deal is within our reach … if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there,” Al Busaidi said in an interview with CBS News in Washington, DC, after Oman brokered the third round of indirect talks between the US and Iran in Geneva on Thursday.

“If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing [on] a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved any time before,” Al Busaidi said.

“The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb,” he said.

“Now we are talking about zero stockpiling, and that is very, very important because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way that you can actually create a bomb,” he added.

There would also be “full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”, he said, referring to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Oman’s top diplomat also said Iran would degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” so that it is “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible”.

“This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling,” Al Busaidi said.

Regarding recent US demands regarding Iran’s missile programme, Al Busaidi said: “I believe Iran is open to discuss everything”.

Asked if he thought enough ground was covered in the most recent talks in Geneva to hold off a US attack on Iran, the minister said, “I hope so.”

“We have really advanced substantially, and I think, obviously, there remains various details to be ironed out, and this is why we need a little bit more time to really try and accomplish the ultimate goal of having a comprehensive package of the deal,” he said.

“But the big picture is that a deal is in our hands,” he added.

The foreign minister’s comment followed after he met earlier on Friday with US Vice President JD Vance and as US President Donald Trump continued to sabre-rattle while at the same time declaring he favoured a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

Trump said on Friday that he was not happy with the recent talks that concluded in Geneva.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating,” Trump told reporters in Washington, adding that Iran “should make a deal”.

“They’d be smart if they made a deal,” he said.

Trump later said that he would prefer it if the US did not have to use military force, “but sometimes you have to do it”.

The US and Iranian sides are expected to meet again on Monday in Vienna, Austria, for more indirect negotiations.

As Washington escalates threats of military action against Iran, negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear programme continue behind the scenes. But while the Trump administration insists that the standoff is about security, Iran’s state media are pushing a very different narrative: that the crisis is a deliberate distraction from the Epstein scandal that continues to implicate the US president.

Contributors:
Dina Esfandiary – Middle East Lead, Bloomberg Economics
Fereshteh Sadeghi – Iranian journalist
Jamal Abdi – President, National Iranian American Council
Sina Toossi – Senior Fellow, Centre for International Policy

On our radar:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to Israel this past week in a carefully choreographed display of solidarity. While Modi’s trip was celebrated in the Israeli media, criticism by Indian journalists was blocked back home. Leaving the two leaders to sign arms deals that will boost an already significant military partnership.

The Rise of Digital Micro-Bolsonaros

Nearly two years after Jair Bolsonaro’s fall from power in Brazil, the movement he built is searching for a new figurehead. A rising generation of young, evangelical, and hyper-online politicians is stepping in.

They are leveraging a sophisticated, decades-old religious media machine that evolved from radio and television into a powerful force on social media. Brazil’s political right is being reshaped for the digital age.

Featuring:
Anna Virginia Balloussier – Journalist, Folha de Sao Paulo
Caro Evangelista – Executive Director, ISER
Magali Cunha – Editor-in-Chief, Berreia Project

The U.S. Air Force now has at least 14 aerial refueling tankers forward-deployed in Israel ahead of potential strikes on Iran. Beyond supporting U.S. aircraft, an equally important role the tankers — and those spread across the region — could play is refueling Israeli fighters joining in the fight. The Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) entire tanker fleet consists of just seven nearly antique KC-707s, which imposes inherent limits on range, loiter time, sortie rates, loadout options, and other aspects of tactical air operations. Giving the IAF the full tanking resources of the U.S. would unlock its full combat potential.

Nine KC-46s and five KC-135s have arrived at Ben Gurion Airport since the start of this week. Ben Gurion is Israel’s main international airport, and is situated just to the southeast of Tel Aviv, roughly in the center of the country.

At least nine US Air Force refueling tankers have arrived at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport as part of the US’s massive buildup of military forces in the Middle East. Jack Guez, AFP. pic.twitter.com/qNFy677lnE

— Benjamin Alvarez (@BenjAlvarez1) February 27, 2026

At least 11 U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors are also now forward-deployed to the IAF’s Ovda Air Base in the southern tip of Israel. The F-22s had flown there after making a stop at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom. A 12th Raptor reportedly had to return to Lakenheath due to a technical issue, but whether it may now have made its way to Israel is unclear.

Intersting choice.

USAF F-22 fighter jets redeployed from the UK will be stationed at the Ovda Air Base in southern Israel, per reports.

H/t to @EISNspotter as I believe that he broke the news first.

At this moment, we know about the redeployment of 11 F-22s (one from the… https://t.co/v1MKiiDXHr pic.twitter.com/4KOFvJl6yd

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) February 24, 2026

The tankers at Ben Gurion and the F-22s at Ovda are relatively small parts of the massive buildup of U.S. military forces across the Middle East in recent weeks. The large influx of U.S. airpower has caused crowding at other available bases in the region that sit outside the range of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and other standoff weaponry, which clearly played a part in deciding to utilize Israeli facilities for the deployment of additional aircraft. Israel would also be under threat of heavy retaliation in the event of any new U.S. operation targeting Iran. U.S. aircraft in Israel would be well-positioned to help provide more immediate defense against incoming Iranian threats, but those assets could also contribute heavily to strikes on Iran.

At the same time, as TWZ has previously noted, there are very strong signs that Israeli forces will be fully integrated into the defensive and offensive components of any potential new U.S. operation against Iran. The KC-46s and KC-135s now at Ben Gurion are a tanker force twice as big as what the IAF has in its inventory today. Each KC-46 also carries more fuel to offload to receivers than a KC-707 or a KC-135. All of this could offer a major boost in aerial refueling capacity, and the operational benefits that come along with that, to Israeli forces.

From the very start of what became the 12 Day War between Israel and Iran, TWZ pointed out that committing U.S. tankers to the fight could have massive force multiplying impacts for the IAF. In the weeks that followed, there were reports that the United States had done just this, but clandestinely and to a very limited degree, to help sustain the Israeli air campaign. The U.S. Air Force subsequently denied that this had been the case, after which we delved deep into what Israel would have otherwise had to have done to keep up the operational tempo.

As we wrote:

“Fitting as much external fuel on the fighters – the IAF’s F-15 fleets and F-16Is are all notably fitted with conformal fuel tanks and have the ability to carry drop tanks – was clearly necessary. Even dropping external tanks once they are empty to maximize range appears to have been part of the plan during the initial high-volume strikes. While drop tanks are expendable, they are not cheap and are usually retained unless performance has to be regained due to enemy threats or an in-flight emergency occurs. Dropping them to maximize an aircraft’s range is also an established tactic, but not a very sustainable one over the long term. It’s also one that is not needed if tanker support is readily available, nor is equipping the jets with maximum external fuel in the first place, in many circumstances.”

“Flying very carefully planned flight profiles to squeeze every bit of efficiency out of the range of IAF tactical jets was also clearly a tactic employed, although it leaves very little margin for error or combat contingencies. In addition, we know that Israel’s F-35Is have been tweaked to provide extra range. We don’t know exactly what this entails, and it could be a cocktail of measures, from software tweaks to internal or external fuel tanks. Regardless, it was reported that many IAF fighters landed on fumes after their initial sorties.”

“Regardless, maximizing Israel’s fighter force of close to 300 aircraft (total inventory, not what is actually available at any given time) in the opening waves of the war with just seven tankers may have been a feat that can be explained by careful planning, drop tanks, and the use of long-range standoff weaponry, at least early on. As the war continued, the magnitude of the sorties may have dropped, but the geographical depth and power of their strikes increased. These operations were sustained for nearly two weeks.”

“During the conflict, TWZ discussed how, at a certain point, Israel would have to drastically reduce its cadence of operations or wrap up the war. If the U.S. had not struck Fordow with B-2s, it’s possible the war would not have ended until the IDF was able to deal with that very hardened target, which would have likely required a ground operation very deep into a highly-defended area of Iran. Strikes would have eventually slowed as the IAF’s sortie rates degraded, and especially those of its overworked and geriatric tankers.”

As an aside, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter offered what looks to be the first official confirmation that range-extending fuel tanks for the F-35I are in service in an interview earlier this month. “We developed fuel tanks that extend the aircraft’s range without compromising stealth,” Leiter told the Israel Hayom newspaper.

Questions remain about these tanks, including whether they are internally or externally mounted. To date, no pictures have emerged that definitively show them fitted to an F-35I.

Regardless, truly robust tanker support would fundamentally change the IAF’s planning processes and operational possibilities. Access to the USAF’s tanker ‘bridge’ that will cover large swathes of the Middle East, keeping combat aircraft in the fight, will be an unprecedented operational reality for the IAF. More aerial refueling capacity would enable tactical jets to fly further, loitering over areas of the battlespace longer, and carry heavier ordnance loads. Greater reach and time on station could be extremely valuable when hunting for mobile high-value targets, like Iranian ballistic missile launchers. More range and loiter time could be equally important for responding to large waves of incoming Iranian missiles and drones in retaliation.

Far greater tanker support would also provide much higher safety margins for aircraft returning low on fuel from longer-range and/or long-duration missions. As noted earlier, it was reported that IAF fighters often landed on fumes after their initial sorties during the 12 Day War. It is somewhat shocking that aircraft were not lost to fuel starvation alone considering how closely they were operating to the edge of their endurance. Tankers forward-deployed in Israel could be similarly critical for providing recovery tanking, giving IAF aviators an extra margin of flight time, especially if everything doesn’t go as planned. The same can be said for U.S. fighter aircraft operating out of Israel. The F-22 has a notoriously short combat radius, for instance. Fuel starvation was an issue even in the mission to capture Maduro, for instance.

All around, U.S. tankers refueling Israeli jets during a future operation against Iran could only help greatly magnify the contributions of the latter, which would already be substantial in this scenario. IAF involvement would add hundreds of fighter aircraft, unique munitions, and more to the equation. On top of materiel aspects, Israeli pilots would bring immense experience about operations over Iran gained during the 12 Day War, as well as the benefits of analysis of lessons learned from the conflict. The rest of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli intelligence apparatus would be able to provide other kinds of critical support.

12 Days of Precise Action

All of this also underscores the importance of Israel’s effort now to acquire a new fleet of six KC-46 tankers to replace its aging KC-707s. At least as of 2022, Boeing was expected to deliver the first KC-46s to the IAF before the end of this year.

It is still to be seen whether the U.S. will launch a new operation against Iran, and what role Israel will play if that decision is ultimately made. Many other questions remain to be answered, as well, as TWZ just recently explored in detail.

“It’d be nice if we could do it without, but sometimes you have to do it with,” U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters as he left the White House earlier today in response to a question about possible strikes on Iran. “We have the greatest military anywhere in the world. There’s nothing close. I’d love not to use it, but sometimes you have to.”

Trump on military force against Iran: “It’d be nice if we could do it without, but sometimes you have to do it with. We have the greatest military anywhere in the world. There’s nothing close. I’d love not to just it but sometimes you have to.” pic.twitter.com/kDh9oOeoPK

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 27, 2026

“They should make a deal, but they don’t want to quite go far enough. It’s too bad,” Trump also said today. “We’re not happy with the negotiation.”

“They don’t want to say the key words, ‘We’re not going to have a nuclear weapon,’ and they just can’t get there… So I’m not happy with the negotiation,” says @POTUS on Iran. pic.twitter.com/XN0S4ObS2x

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 27, 2026

“I met Vice President J.D. Vance today and shared details of the ongoing negotiation between the United States and Iran and the progress achieved so far,” Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi also wrote in a post on X today. “I am grateful for their engagement and look forward to further and decisive progress in the coming days. Peace is within our reach.”

I met Vice President JD Vance today and shared details of the ongoing negotiation between the United States and Iran and the progress achieved so far. I am grateful for their engagement and look forward to further and decisive progress in the coming days. Peace is within our… pic.twitter.com/fMHxWV0jgl

— Badr Albusaidi – بدر البوسعيدي (@badralbusaidi) February 27, 2026

U.S. and Iranian officials met in Oman yesterday for a second round of talks aimed at avoiding a conflict, and focused on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The results of that engagement were inconclusive, though there are publicly stated plans for another round of talks next week.

If the U.S. government does decide to take action against Iran, the tankers at Ben Gurion are among the forces now in place to swing into action, and could easily find themselves refueling Israeli jets, as well as American ones. U.S. Air Force tanker support would be a massive force multiplier for the IAF that would allow it to have an even greater impact than it had in the 12 Day War.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

As tensions between Israel and Iran periodically escalate, Israel has developed one of the world’s most sophisticated multi-layered air defence networks to counter ballistic missiles, drones, rockets, and cruise missiles. The system is designed to intercept threats at different ranges and altitudes, creating overlapping layers of protection against attacks from state actors and non-state groups.

The architecture reflects decades of missile threats from regional adversaries and has been refined through repeated real-world use. It combines domestically developed systems with U.S.-supported technology and integrated radar, command, and interception capabilities.

Long-Range Interception: Arrow System

The Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 systems form Israel’s top defensive layer against long-range ballistic missiles. Arrow-2 intercepts incoming missiles in the upper atmosphere, while Arrow-3 is designed to destroy threats in space before re-entry.

Developed primarily by Israel Aerospace Industries with support from Boeing, the Arrow program is tailored to counter high-altitude missile threats and allows for the safe dispersal of potential non-conventional warheads away from populated areas.

Mid-Range Shield: David’s Sling

David’s Sling targets medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles fired from roughly 100 to 200 km away. It also intercepts aircraft and drones.

The system was jointly developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and RTX Corporation and fills the operational gap between long-range Arrow interceptors and the short-range Iron Dome.

Short-Range Defence: Iron Dome

The Iron Dome system is designed to intercept short-range rockets, mortars, and drones. Operational since 2011, it uses radar tracking to determine whether an incoming rocket threatens a populated area. If the projectile is projected to land harmlessly, the system conserves interceptors by not engaging.

Originally designed to counter rockets with ranges of 4–70 km, analysts say its effective coverage has expanded. A naval variant deployed in 2017 protects maritime assets.

Directed Energy Layer: Iron Beam

Declared fully operational in late 2025, Iron Beam is a ground-based high-energy laser system designed to neutralize small aerial threats such as UAVs and mortar rounds. Instead of firing interceptors, the laser superheats targets until they fail mid-air.

Because it uses directed energy rather than missiles, Iron Beam is expected to dramatically reduce interception costs and provide rapid response against swarms of low-cost threats.

U.S. Support: THAAD Deployment

The United States deployed the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system to Israel in 2024 to strengthen protection against ballistic missiles during heightened regional tensions. THAAD intercepts missiles in their terminal phase of flight and is a key component of U.S. strategic missile defence.

U.S. naval assets and ground-based systems have also assisted in intercepting missiles during previous attacks, highlighting close defence coordination between the two allies.

Air-to-Air Interception Capability

Beyond ground systems, Israeli fighter jets and attack helicopters have used air-to-air missiles to destroy incoming drones before they enter Israeli airspace. This adds flexibility and an additional interception layer, particularly against slow-moving aerial threats.

Analysis: A Layered Shield for a Complex Threat Environment

Israel’s defence network is built on the principle of layered interception, ensuring that if one system fails or is overwhelmed, another layer can engage the threat. This redundancy is crucial given Iran’s missile arsenal and the increasing use of drones and precision-guided munitions by regional actors.

The integration of Arrow, David’s Sling, Iron Dome, Iron Beam, and U.S. systems creates a comprehensive defence umbrella capable of engaging threats from space to low altitude. The addition of directed-energy weapons reflects a shift toward countering mass drone attacks and reducing the financial burden of interceptor missiles.

However, even sophisticated systems face challenges. Large-scale salvos could strain interceptor inventories, while evolving missile technologies and swarm tactics may test response capacity. As regional tensions fluctuate, Israel’s layered defence remains both a technological achievement and a critical strategic necessity.

With information from Reuters.

Feb. 27 (UPI) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio will visit Israel Monday and Tuesday to discuss Iran and other issues, the State Department announced Friday.

The visit comes amid concern that the United States will attack Iran, despite continued negotiation between the two. On Thursday, the U.S. embassy in Israel told its staff that they could leave because of “safety risks,” though there is no emergency.

“Persons may wish to consider leaving Israel while commercial flights are available,” the State Department said in its new guidance. “In response to security incidents and without advance notice, the U.S. Embassy may further restrict or prohibit U.S. government employees and their family members from traveling to certain areas of Israel, the Old City of Jerusalem, and the West Bank.”

CNBC reported Friday that Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi will meet Friday with Vice President JD Vance and other officials in Washington for “previously unreported talks in an effort to stave off war with Iran.”

Al-Busaidi has mediated talks between American and Iranian officials to ease tensions over President Donald Trump‘s demands that Iran abandon its nuclear program.

Rubio’s visit to Israel is to “discuss a range of regional priorities including Iran, Lebanon and ongoing efforts to implement President Trump’s 20-Point Peace Plan for Gaza,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement.

Democrats are speaking out against a potential strike.

“The American people are still waiting for the strategic justification for a war with Iran that puts thousands of American personnel across the region in harm’s way,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said on X. “What is the evidence of an imminent threat?”

Trump said in his State of the Union speech Tuesday that he is still planning to work the differences out diplomatically.

“My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror — which they are by far — to have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Tehran, Iran – Another round of indirect talks between Iranian and United States officials ended with a mediator claiming “significant progress” but still no clear evidence that either side was willing to concede enough on their positions to avoid war.

After the conclusion of the talks in Geneva on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said further technical talks would be held next week in Vienna and progress had been “good”.

“These were the most serious and longest talks,” Araghchi said.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who mediated the talks, said Iranian and US diplomats would consult with their governments before the Vienna talks.

Few details have emerged about the discussions, but Araghchi was reported to have met US envoy Steve Witkoff – if only briefly, according to Iran’s Tasnim news agency.

The Iranian team, led by Araghchi, handed over on Wednesday night Tehran’s written proposals to Al Busaidi, who also mediated previous rounds of talks in Geneva and Muscat.

The Omani diplomat then met with the US delegation on Thursday, led by Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Al Busaidi mediated between the two teams throughout the day, and the US delegation also held separate talks over Ukraine.

Also taking part in the talks was Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which will have to undertake nuclear monitoring and verification duties in Iran in case of any agreement.

The UN watchdog will hold several days of board meetings starting on March 6, which is around the 10- to 15-day deadline floated by Trump last week for Iran to reach a deal.

Western media outlets have suggested the board could once again consider a move to censure Iran depending on the results of the Geneva talks. Iran has accused Grossi of taking politicised action and criticised the IAEA after Israel attacked Iran in June, one day after the agency passed a resolution saying Tehran was not complying with its commitment to nuclear safeguards.

Fundamental differences

The two sides have been at odds over key issues, including uranium enrichment and missiles.

Washington has repeatedly emphasised, in lockstep with Israel, that it will not accept any nuclear enrichment taking place on Iranian soil, even at civilian-use levels agreed during the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran agreed with world powers. Trump unilaterally abandoned that deal in 2018.

In the days leading up to the Geneva talks, US officials increasingly focused on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, saying the missiles threaten US military bases across the Middle East as well as Israel. Iran has refused to entertain any talks on its conventional weapons. Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, have repeatedly said they will never develop nuclear weapons.

Speaking to local officials during a provincial visit, Pezeshkian also shot back at Trump’s assertion during a lengthy State of the Union speech that Iran was “the world’s number one sponsor of terror”.

Pezeshkian said numerous Iranian officials and nuclear scientists have been assassinated over the decades, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

“If the realities are seen fairly, it will become clear that Iran is not only not a supporter of terrorism, but one of the main victims of terror in the region and across the world,” he said.

The Iranian government’s IRNA news agency said Tehran’s proposal was expected to gauge US “seriousness” in the talks because it contained “win-win” offers.

Iranian officials have not publicly discussed all the details of their proposals, but they are believed to include diluting part of the country’s 60-percent enriched uranium and keeping the uranium inside the country. Iranian authorities envisage that could be paired with economic opportunities for the US related to Iranian oil and gas and the purchase of airplanes.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has maintained his tough rhetoric against the US as well, casting doubt on the chances of any agreement. He also said Trump would be unable to overthrow Iran’s government after the US president said regime change would be “the best thing that could happen” in Iran.

Araghchi said during an interview on Wednesday that even if Khamenei is killed, the theocratic establishment in Iran would carry on because it has legal procedures in place to appoint a successor. Pezeshkian added on Thursday: “They can eliminate me, eliminate anyone. If they hit us, a hundred more like us will come up to run the country.”

Double-digit inflation as Iran braces for war

Iranian and US officials have been hailing supposed “progress” in the indirect talks this month, but many Iranians continue to prepare for war.

In Tehran and across the country, people are buying bottled water, biscuits, canned foods and other essentials in case of a war.

“A few days ago, I bought a power bank to keep the electronics charged. Now I’m looking for a short-wave radio so we can hear the news if the state shuts down the internet and electricity infrastructure is bombed,” said a 28-year-old resident of the capital who asked not to be named.

As bombs fell during the 12-day war with Israel in June, Iranian authorities cut off almost all internet access for several days, followed in January by an unprecedented 20-day total blackout imposed on about 92 million people as thousands of people were killed during nationwide protests.

The Iranian government, which blames “terrorists” armed and funded by the US and Israel for the protests, has rejected Trump’s claim that 32,000 Iranians were killed during the demonstrations. It said more than 3,000 people were killed, and rejects documentation by the United Nations and international human rights organisations that its security forces were behind the killings.

As the threat of war intensifies, not all Iranians are capable of stocking up on food and other necessities due to rising inflation that has gripped the country for more than a decade as a result of a mix of chronic local mismanagement and US and UN sanctions.

According to separate reports by the Statistical Centre of Iran and the Central Bank of Iran released on Thursday, inflation has now shot beyond 60 percent.

The Statistical Centre put annual inflation in the Iranian month of Bahman, which ended on February 19, at 68.1 percent, while the Central Bank said it was 62.2 percent.

Food inflation was by far the strongest driver at a whopping 105 percent. That included a 207-percent inflation rate for cooking oil, 117 percent for red meat, 108 percent for eggs and dairy products, 113 percent for fruit and 142 percent for bread and corn.

Iran’s national currency, the rial, stood at about 1.66 million rials to the US dollar on Thursday, near an all-time low.

So, here we are, once again. The United States has flooded the Middle East with combat capabilities. A massive investment has already been made in airframe hours, manpower, and naval resources in preparation for what could be the biggest initial military action America has taken in more than 20 years. Such an operation is not without absolutely massive risks. Iran has prepared for this day for many decades, and so many questions remain outstanding. Glaring ones. Ones that impact the globe and especially those tasked with fighting what could very well be a bloody war that has, at least at this time, highly opaque goals.

Let’s talk about those questions.

What is the goal?

This is the biggest unknown. What are we getting into here? Aside from the possibility that this is a giant feint — a hammer and anvil tactic to force a diplomatic outcome — there have to be clear military goals. Would an air campaign be focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear program alone? There are limitations to achieving that goal with airpower. Israel, too, is well aware of this. Is this goal to be paired with absolutely neutering Iran’s military-industrial base, along with its existing combat capabilities? That would seem more likely, but doing so would require a much larger, sustained operation.

There have also been reports that the White House is eyeing a limited operation in order to force Iran to make a deal. This seems wildly reckless both on a military and diplomatic level, and I doubt these reports are true. The Pentagon would never recommend this. It would ruin any element of surprise and the cumulative impact of using everything at its disposal to shock, blind, and deafen Iran’s command and control. It would also likely result in Iran counter-attacking, which sets off a chain of events that will be hard to pull back from.

Then there is regime change. That term comes with immense baggage for obvious and totally relevant reasons. Even if this goal is achieved — the collapse of the current regime — mainly through strikes, what comes next? Is there a plan in place for who will succeed Khamenei, and what would that group’s own goals be? How would they seize power when the power vacuum appears? Or will decapitating the regime throw Iran into civil war or even worse, a country controlled by the fanatical IRGC, which, on paper, would seem to be a prime candidate with the might and infrastructure to assume control.

In other words, could lopping off the head of the snake just see another, even more gruesome serpent take its place?

We don’t know the intelligence or what is going on clandestinely to see that such a risky operation has any chance of long-term success. Without a solid plan, such a move would seem to only invite more risk.

And once again, obtaining this level of transformation largely via airpower is a highly questionable proposition, at best. There is absolutely no appetite domestically to engage in another ground war in the Middle East, so that option is a non-starter, which is a good thing, as America’s track record in this regard is terrible.

Finally, as we have mentioned before, the U.S. military has a lot of combat capability now in the region, and more that can strike from afar, but there doesn’t appear to be enough to sustain a long campaign with a wider set of objectives. So this may limit what can be achieved.

That brings us to the next question.

What will Israel’s role be?

I think it’s safe to assume that Israel will be involved deeply in any major military operation the United States executes against Iran. Frankly, for any sustained campaign, based on the airpower capabilities in the region, America will need Israel’s help, and for that to be en masse.

Israel brings hundreds of fighter aircraft, unique munitions, and more to the fight. Supported fully by America’s tanker force, Israel’s tactical airpower will be far more effective than it was during the 12 Day War less than a year ago. Combining forces fully to achieve a common outcome is more powerful than the sum of its parts in this case.

Beyond traditional airpower, leveraging Israel’s intelligence would be critical. Traditional intelligence products from Israel will be key in achieving any outcome faster in an air war. The same can be said for the flow of U.S. information in Israel’s direction. Still, operating seamlessly is very tough in such a complex, long-range combat scenario. While Israel and the United States have repeatedly trained on smaller scales for this type of operation, doing it on a massive scale is a different story. How the tasking orders would be assigned and deconflicted would be very interesting to watch.

But even above the traditional combat power and intelligence Israel can offer such a mission, Israel’s deep presence on the ground in Iran will be arguably of the greatest value. Nobody is anywhere as deeply embedded inside Iran as Israel. And this will impact the full gamut of potential operational scenarios.

Case in point is the Mossad’s novel operation to take out Iran’s air defenses in key areas using operatives on the ground equipped with one-way attack drones and loitering anti-tank guided missiles. While suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses is largely thought to be relegated to the role of airpower, it is anything but limited to just this domain. And Israel proved this on an unprecedented level in the opening stages of the air war in June. Those near-field attacks on Iranian air defense sites allowed standoff munitions, drones, and eventually manned aircraft to make it to their targets, firmly setting the momentum in Israel’s favor during the opening parts of the campaign. It wouldn’t be that surprising if this is repeated, at least in some altered fashion, during whatever could happen in the coming days.

Mossad operatives on the ground also worked to assassinate the cream of Iran’s nuclear scientist corps during the operation, mainly using drones launched from near their targets. We would likely see a similar operation take place against military and regime leadership in the opening stages of the looming conflict, if it comes to pass. There are no indications that the United States has anywhere near this capability working inside Iran.

As we have discussed for years, Israel would likely be willing to put special operations units on the ground to seize and destroy absolutely critical hardened targets, such as nuclear sites or possibly individuals hidden within regime bunkers, that are not capable of being destroyed from the air. The United States could as well, but the political risks would be far higher if such an operation went awry.

Finally, it is worth noting that going to war alongside Israel against Iran brings additional diplomatic risks in the region, although these have waned in recent years as Arab countries have become far less hostile to the Jewish State. These Arab states also could see a massive benefit from a successful campaign that rejiggers the status quo in the region and ends Iran’s troublesome influence throughout it. Still, the economic disruption alone could be large, especially if the war carries and if Iran actively works to deny access to the Persian Gulf.

Real dangers

We have not seen modern Iran fight for its very life against the United States or even Israel. On paper, Iran can do immense damage to the region. Yes, it can close and mine the Strait of Hormuz, causing massive repercussions that could last long after the war ends, a possibility which you can read about here. This is a well-understood danger. But above even that, Iran has an absolutely huge inventory of standoff weapons — specifically cruise missiles, long-range one-way attack drones, and most importantly, ballistic missiles. On the latter, there is a broad misconception that Israel wiped out Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

During the 12 Day War, Israel was concerned with Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles — MRBMs and IRBMs. These are also the easiest to find, fix, and destroy. They are large and their launchers are vulnerable because of it, especially during the pre-launch fueling stage. The location of the storage areas for these missiles is well known, including the missile cave complexes, some of which have the ability to launch the missiles through apertures in launch room ceilings. By hitting the entry and exit points of these facilities, these weapons are not destroyed but they are trapped inside.

In addition, Israel focused their interdiction ‘missile hunting’ efforts on these long-range weapons that threaten its homeland. They were also the weapons that had to be exposed as they were employed in retaliatory strikes during the war. The shorter-range stuff didn’t need to be as it was largely not used.

To make this clear, Iran’s far more plentiful short-range ballistic missiles that threaten American bases in Gulf Arab allied states were not heavily targeted. The same can be said for the shorter-range drones and cruise missiles.

So no, these capabilities were not knocked out by any means, and they are also by far the easiest for Iran to disperse and hide. This makes hunting for them from the air extremely problematic. This is especially true when Iran enters into a combat state, where it distributes these missiles, which are largely loaded onto common truck platforms, into population centers and hidden under pretty much anything. They can also shoot and scoot much faster than their long-range counterparts.

The IRGC-N took a massive delivery of anti ship missiles for coastal defense

Note the dual tube launcher in the pics, which we’ve never seen before. Seems to be a new anti ship new cruise missile. Sadly no information was given besides pics

My guess is possible supersonic AShM pic.twitter.com/i7i0z8uFc0

— Iran Defense commentary (unofficial) (@IranDefense) August 9, 2024

With all of America’s intelligence capabilities, finding and destroying these weapons from the air will be extremely challenging. Even the relatively meager arsenal belonging to Yemen’s Houthis proved vexing for the U.S. military after many months of sustained ‘hunting.’ The Houthis continued to get off successful coastal launches throughout these operations. The scale of the Iranian threat is exponentially larger, and the country has more complex terrain to hide these weapons.

Iran’s shorter-range standoff weapons number in the thousands. They have the ability to saturate the best defenses on earth and lay waste to prized targets across the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and deeper into allied Arab nations. This not only makes nearby basing of U.S. aircraft and personnel problematic, but it greatly increases the cost of any war the United States could execute against Iran.

We have seen what it took to defend against just one volley of Iranian short-range ballistic missiles. It resulted in the largest volley of Patriot interceptors in history. Even that defensive action wasn’t entirely successful at rebuffing the attack, let alone repeated ones that would include layers of drones, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles.

Footage of a US/Qatari PATRIOT surface to air missile system conducting a large ballistic missile engagement over Al-Udeid this evening, salvoing out dozens of PAC-3 interceptors at incoming Iranian ballistic missiles. pic.twitter.com/a7OHrs9svr

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 23, 2025

There is also a risk to American warships, even those that are operating far out to sea. Iran has shown it has the ability to launch long-range anti-ship weaponry not just from its coasts and warships, but from unassuming seaborne platforms, including using containerized missiles and drones. The farther U.S. Navy vessels have to operate from Iranian territory also means their missiles won’t be able to penetrate as far into the country. A carrier’s air wing will need additional tanking support to get to its targets, and sortie rates will be lowered.

These capabilities, along with the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, drastically increase the chances of expanding the conflict by pulling Arab countries into it, as well, which would complicate, not help the cause, at least in many respects.

Iran knows full well where American aircraft are currently based, and they will throw everything they have at these sites. This includes America’s sprawling airbase in Jordan that is packed with tactical airpower. They know what defenses are there and have an understanding of what it will take to overwhelm them if they get the chance to do so. So the idea that we could not see mass losses of aircraft and other materiel, and even lives, on the ground, even when striking from afar, is not reality.

The same can be said about an air war. The U.S. has the most advanced air combat capabilities on earth, but ‘shit happens,’ especially during war. Even the Houthis nearly downed U.S. fighter aircraft optimized to destroy enemy air defenses. But regardless of defenses and the state of Iran’s air defense overlay, putting Americans over Iran, and repeatedly over days and weeks, is a risk. Aircraft can malfunction and mistakes can be made. When that happens, it will require even more risk to push combat search and rescue assets into the area to try and recover the crew. In other words, regardless of America’s outstanding air warfare capabilities, there is still a real risk involved in any operation over Iran.

Finally, if Iran is really backed into a corner, and especially if its most extremist elements remain in play, it could resort to weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, chemical weapons and rudimentary radiological ones (dirty bombs) could be used in a dying gasp of the regime. If they did this, it would mean a certain end for the sitting power structure in the country, but if that is going to happen anyway, they could lash out in horrible ways. There is debate as to whether Iran would, or even could, actually do this, but historically, the regime in Tehran is no stranger to the use of chemical weapons.

Defending Israel again

Iran did not run out of long-range ballistic missiles during the 12 Day War, either. They ran out of ones available for launch, and they likely saw real degradation in their ability to launch those accessible due to Israel’s interdiction efforts and disarray in Iranian command and control after nearly two weeks of being bombarded. Since that war, Iran has been pumping out more of these missiles at a high rate, despite Israel’s attacks on missile production-related targets. Some of these weapons are quite advanced, proving their ability to penetrate the IDF’s multi-tier integrated air defense system, the most advanced one on Earth, an air defense capability you can read all about here.

At the same time, the 12 Day War saw the United States and Israel burn through stocks of advanced interceptors, especially the mid-course or near mid-course intercept-capable ones. These weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. Israel’s coveted Arrow system was reported to be running low on interceptors towards the end of the war, although how accurate those reports were is in question. The U.S. military burned through a large portion of its THAAD interceptors and many of the U.S. Navy’s prized SM-3 interceptors. This is on top of Israel ripping through countless Stunners fired by David’s Sling. The U.S. also fired a considerable number of PAC-3 Patriots and air-to-air missiles during the conflict while defending in areas outside of Israel from missile and drone attacks. But it’s the stockpile of the upper tier of missile defense interceptors that is most concerning.

If Iran was truly fighting for its life and knowing the end could be near, how many missiles will it send at Israel, and how many interceptors are available to defend against those barrages? Iran also has become increasingly savvy on what tactics to employ and where in order to overwhelm Israel’s defenses. While targeting has focused, at least to a degree, on military and governmental targets, if this was an all-out conflict, it’s likely Iran would just concentrate on population centers with whatever it has to throw at the cause.

The U.S. stockpile of advanced munitions is already a real concern after multiple campaigns to defend Israel, the long and violent standoff in the Red Sea, and the war in Ukraine. This is especially true for its more advanced interceptors, which are also in extreme demand among allies globally. This is all happening as the threat from China is growing more concerning by the day. A war in the Pacific will consume stocks of these weapons at a vastly higher rate than anything we have seen before. If those magazines run dry, it could mean the difference between winning and losing in that critical theater. And remember, these weapons take years to produce and cost many millions of dollars each. So it’s not like you can just say, ‘we’ll buy more.’ Of course, we will, but we won’t get those weapons for years, even as expansion of production is now underway across the DoW’s munitions portfolio.

So the cost of taking on Iran is not just in money and assets, and especially blood, it’s the opportunity cost of expending precious weapons in a war of choice that would be essential in a war of necessity that could erupt at any time.

Wild cards

There are capabilities and war plans we know nothing about. It may be possible that the United States thinks it can break Iran’s command and control capabilities so quickly that it can preempt many of its most dangerous weapons from being used in large quantities. This could come in the form of cyber attacks, other forms of espionage, electronic warfare, and exotic weaponry — and more likely a combination of the above. It could also be the orchestration of an insider coup-like scenario.

There is also the possibility that the United States thinks Iran’s military apparatus would simply collapse under a full combined aerial assault by the U.S. and Israel. A possible decapitation of the regime is another factor here.

If this is the case, and Iran’s warfighting capabilities can be left largely unused, then the risk equation changes. But this is a massive bet to make, and just how certain whatever measures are used will have the exact crippling effects intended could mean the difference between go and no-go for a major campaign.

In other words, we really don’t know what the United States and Israel still have up their sleeves. And maybe they have nothing that would cause such a dramatic effect at all. Instead, hitting them traditionally fast and hard, along with cyber, espionage, electronic warfare, and everything else, will be needed to erode Iran’s ability to fight back over time.

Regardless, the United States and Israel have prepared for exactly this eventuality for decades, so there certainly are bound to be some surprises. Of what magnitude is the question.

What if a deal is made, but Israel doesn’t think it’s good enough?

It’s possible that the game tree could expand in such a way that the United States makes a nuclear deal with Iran, but it does not address the long-range missile threat, or even the nuclear program, to a sufficient degree in Israel’s eyes. If this occurs, there is still the chance that Israel goes it alone and tries to do as much damage as possible to both of these elements. In some ways, this could be played to America’s advantage as it could deny being involved in the conflict and work to see if the deal sticks even after Israel’s kinetic action. In this case, American resources would be used to defend Israel, but not participate in the attack.

This may sound far-fetched, but it really isn’t an impossibility. Especially if Trump realizes how much of a commitment achieving something meaningful via an air campaign could become, as well as the risks of what comes after on the ground in Iran.

Whether a nuclear deal would even survive such a situation is unclear, but it’s possible.

Why now?

In the end, these are the fundamental questions Trump has to be asking himself and his aides: Is going to war with Iran really worth the risks, both the known ones and unknown ones, and what is the goal in doing so? Is that goal readily attainable and at what cost?

These questions also bleed directly into the political arena. Trump claimed to be the President that would get America out of wars, not start them, and especially ones that seem like they could spiral out of control relatively easily, resulting in much longer-term commitments. While he has had some stunningly successful military victories as of late, and there is a danger for politicians to think it will always turn out a similar way, that can change very quickly. If America wakes up to seeing a U.S. pilot being dragged through the streets of Tehran, any support for this conflict could quickly evaporate.

Above all else, the question has to be asked, why now? What has prompted the idea of declaring war on Iran at this moment? Yes, the protests and the brutal deaths of thousands at the hands of the regime seemed to have moved Trump, but that was subsequently used as a pretext for nuclear negotiations, not to correct human rights abuses.

In addition, Trump has declared repeatedly that he destroyed Iran’s nuclear program after the B-2 strikes in June. So why, just eight months after that action took place, is the United States about to go all-in against Iran over its nuclear program? We have heard anecdotes about possible threats of Iran starting the nuclear program back up, the threat posed by the enriched uranium they already have, and the possibility that they could develop new, longer-range missiles that could hit the U.S. one day, maybe. Yet nothing has been presented in a concrete manner as to why doing this right now is essential. It doesn’t match Trump’s long-standing political rhetoric at all.

There is obviously much the public doesn’t know, but the risk-reward equation seems like a uniquely puzzling one with this crisis, at least at this time.

If Iran doesn’t make a deal, it seems clear that Trump has put himself in a position where he will either have his bluff called or he will need to commit to an air war against Iran.

What happens from that historic split in the road is really anyone’s guess.

Including the Pentagon’s.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Feb. 25 (UPI) — The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced sanctions Wednesday on more than 30 people, entities and vessels that it said are “enabling illicit Iranian petroleum sales and Iran’s ballistic missile and advanced conventional weapons production.”

The sanctions are part of the federal government’s pressure campaign against Iran.

The vessels targeted are part of Iran’s “shadow fleet,” which the department said in a press release “serve as the regime’s primary source of revenue for financing domestic repression, terrorist proxies and weapons programs.”

“Iran exploits financial systems to sell illicit oil, launder the proceeds, procure components for its nuclear and conventional weapons programs and support its terrorist proxies,” said Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent in a statement. “Treasury will continue to put maximum pressure on Iran to target the regime’s weapons capabilities and support for terrorism, which it has prioritized over the lives of the Iranian people.”

The vessels sanctioned are: Hoot, Ocean Koi, North Star, Felicita, Ateela 1, Ateela 2, Niba, Luma, Remiz, Danuta 1, Alaa and Gas Fate.

The organizations sanctioned are: Poros Maritime Ventures S.A., Ocean Kudos Shipping Co Ltd., Mistral Fleet Co Ltd., Vast Marine Inc., Behengam Tadbir Qeshm Shipping and Maritime Services Company, Paros Maritime S.A., Wansa Gas Shipping Co., Goldwave Maritime Services Inc. and Ithaki Maritime and Trading S.A.

OFAC also targeted the following entities based in Iran, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates that have aided in the purchase of precursor chemicals and sensitive machinery for Iran. They are Iran-based Oje Parvaz Mado Nafar Company; Turkey-based Utus Gumrukleme Gida Tekstil Ithalat Ihracat Dis Ticaret ve Sanayi Limited Sirketi, Turkey-based Arya Global Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Turkey-based Altis Tekstil Makina Ticaret Limited Sirketi (Altis), Iran-based Adak Pargas Pars Trading Company and UAE-based Mostafa Roknifard Prime Choice General Trading LLC.

Four people being sanctioned are Iran-based Mohammad Abedini, Mehdi Zand, Mehrdad Jafari and Ebrahim Shariatzadeh. They are allegedly employees of Iran’s Qods Aviation Industries, which was sanctioned in 2013.

w