war

Antonio Costa says Russia benefits from soaring global energy prices and attention being diverted from war in Ukraine.

European Council President Antonio Costa has said Russia is the only country benefitting from the US-Israeli war on Iran, as global energy prices soar and attention from Moscow’s four-year conflict with Ukraine is diverted.

Now in its 11th day, the war has spiralled rapidly throughout the region as Iranian forces hit back at US and Israeli targets, as well as facilities in the Gulf. It has also slowed oil and natural gas flows through the strategic Strait of Hormuz to a near standstill, pushing fuel prices upwards and threatening far-reaching impacts on a number of industries.

“So far, there is only one winner in this war – Russia,” Costa said in a speech to European Union ambassadors in Brussels on Tuesday.

“It gains ‌new resources to finance its war against Ukraine as energy prices rise. It profits from the diversion of military capabilities that could otherwise have been sent to support Ukraine. And it benefits from reduced ⁠attention to the Ukrainian front ⁠as the conflict in the Middle East takes centre stage.”

Costa stressed the need for the EU to protect ⁠the international rules-based order, which he said was now being challenged ⁠by the United States, ⁠and for all parties in the Middle East to return to the negotiating table.

“Freedom and human rights cannot ‌be achieved through bombs. Only international law upholds them,” he said. “We must avoid further escalation. ‌Such ‌a path threatens the Middle East, Europe, and beyond.”

The US and Israeli attack on Iran triggered the biggest spike in oil prices on Monday since the turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Costa’s comments came as the Kremlin said all parties wanted to continue US-mediated Russia-Ukraine peace talks, but that no date or venue had been agreed yet for the next round.

Russia and Ukraine held three rounds of talks in Turkiye last year and have conducted several more US-mediated sessions in Abu Dhabi and Geneva this year. But they remain far apart on key issues, especially on Russia’s demand for Ukraine to cede control of the whole of its eastern Donetsk region.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, held their first phone call of the year, during which they discussed the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

The Kremlin said the possibility of lifting US sanctions on Russian oil had not been discussed in any detail with Washington, but that US actions were aimed at stabilising global energy markets.

Following this call, Putin said Russia, the world’s second-largest oil exporter and holder of the biggest natural gas reserves, was ready to work again with European customers if they wanted to return to long-term cooperation.

Before the Ukraine war, Europe was buying more than 40 percent of its gas from Russia. By 2025, combined sales of pipeline gas and LNG from Russia accounted for only 13 percent of total EU imports.

Also on Monday, Trump said his administration would lift some sanctions on oil-producing countries to keep energy prices down – though he did not say which ones.

Washington currently maintains sanctions on the oil sectors of Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

The Reuters news agency, citing multiple unnamed sources, reported that Trump was considering easing sanctions on Russia as part of his plans to keep oil prices down.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week announced a 30-day waiver on sanctions on Russian oil sales to India to help it cope with the cuts to Middle East supply.

Investors placed strong bets on Tuesday that Donald Trump could bring the war in Iran to a rapid conclusion, even as both sides escalated threats. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran declared that no oil would leave the Middle East until U.S. and Israeli attacks cease, prompting Trump to threaten that any attempt to block tanker traffic would be met with strikes “twenty times harder.”

Despite the rhetoric, markets quickly reversed the historic surge in crude prices seen on Monday. Brent crude briefly surged to nearly $120 a barrel, a level not seen since mid‑2022, but fell back to around $92 by Tuesday morning. Futures volumes were low, reflecting both caution and the fact that traders were recalibrating risk based on Trump’s comments that the U.S. was “very far ahead” of his initial four- to five-week timeframe for the conflict. Asian and European share prices staged a recovery from earlier steep falls, signaling that markets were treating Trump’s statements as a de-escalation signal, even if the on-the-ground situation remained dire.

Analysts noted that while the market’s reaction reflects optimism about a short conflict, underlying risks remain. Suvro Sarkar of DBS Bank observed that benchmark Middle Eastern grades like Murban and Dubai crude remain above $100 per barrel, meaning the fundamental pressures on supply have not dissipated.

On the Ground: Intensified Conflict

Meanwhile, the human and strategic realities on the ground remain stark. Tehran residents described the heaviest bombardment of the conflict yet, with strikes across the city leaving civilians fearful and homes damaged. One resident said, “It was like hell. They were bombing everywhere, every part of Tehran… my children are afraid to sleep now. We have nowhere to go.”

Israel is simultaneously operating under the assumption that Trump could end the war at any moment, sources familiar with its military plans told Reuters. This has encouraged Israeli forces to maximize damage on Iranian targets before any potential ceasefire, highlighting the tension between the short-term operational calculus and long-term strategic objectives.

Iran’s appointment of hardliner Mojtaba Khamenei as Supreme Leader signals defiance against U.S. pressure to influence Iranian leadership, underscoring Tehran’s unwillingness to yield to external demands despite the military pressure.

Strategic Implications: Oil, Leadership, and Geopolitics

The war has effectively halted shipments through the Strait of Hormuz policy measures such as easing sanctions on Russia and releasing strategic oil reserves, are interpreted by markets as mitigating factors that could prevent a prolonged energy crisis.

However, the underlying political and military dynamics suggest that a rapid resolution may not meet all stated U.S. objectives. Ending the conflict quickly to restore oil flows would likely leave Iran’s leadership intact, which contrasts with Trump’s previous maximalist demands for influence over Iran’s succession. Israel’s objectives diverge further, as it continues to seek regime change and to weaken Tehran’s ability to strike beyond its borders, while U.S. officials emphasize missile and nuclear containment.

Human and Regional Costs

The war has already inflicted significant human costs. Iran’s U.N. ambassador reported at least 1,332 civilian deaths and thousands wounded since the airstrikes began. Iranian missile and drone strikes targeting Gulf states have damaged infrastructure, closed airports, and disrupted hotels, while retaliatory Israeli strikes in Lebanon have killed scores amid ongoing efforts to neutralize Hezbollah.

Domestically, Iran has suppressed dissent and anti-government protests following the death of Ali Khamenei, further complicating the social dynamics that external military action interacts with. Large-scale rallies in support of Mojtaba Khamenei demonstrate public mobilization in favor of the hardline leadership, which may limit the U.S. and Israel’s capacity to influence internal political outcomes even after the war concludes.

Analysis: Financial, Strategic, and Geopolitical Interplay

Markets are betting on a short conflict because of political signaling, but the broader picture is far more complex. Oil prices remain sensitive to supply disruptions, and the potential for renewed escalations persists. The market response highlights how sentiment can temporarily override fundamental risks, yet volatility is likely to continue as long as strategic objectives, military operations, and leadership decisions remain unresolved.

From a geopolitical perspective, the conflict illustrates the tension between military objectives and economic consequences. A rapid end to the war would stabilize energy markets and global growth expectations but may leave U.S. and Israeli goals partially unmet. Conversely, prolonging the conflict to pursue maximalist aims risks a sustained oil shock, regional instability, and wider economic fallout, echoing lessons from past Middle East crises in the 1970s.

Analysts emphasize that energy markets, geopolitical strategy, and human costs are tightly intertwined: traders respond quickly to political statements, but the underlying realities strikes, leadership decisions, and supply chain vulnerabilities ensure that uncertainty will remain high. The delicate balance between military pressure, diplomacy, and market psychology will determine whether the Iran conflict resolves quickly or evolves into a more protracted crisis.

With information from Reuters.

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran has caused the largest energy supply shock in decades.

The Strait of Hormuz is in effect closed, and attacks are being carried out on energy facilities in the Middle East, rattling oil markets.

From Americans filling their tanks at the pump to European factories and Asian economies, the impact is already being felt.

US President Donald Trump says the rise in oil prices is a “very small price to pay” for “safety and peace”. But investors warn that if the conflict drags on, there’s danger of stagflation.

A suspected Iranian attack on a high-rise residential building in Bahrain’s capital of Manama has killed a 29-year-old Bahraini woman and injured several others.

Surging energy prices caused by the US-Israel war on Iran could ripple across the United States economy, heaping further strain on consumers at a time when cost-of-living issues are already a primary concern.

The price of crude oil increased from about $67 per barrel before the war began on February 28 to nearly $97 on Monday, as the conflict snarls production and transport in one of the most energy-rich regions on earth. Oil temporarily passed $100 per barrel on Sunday before slightly easing back.

The price tracker GasBuddy reported on Monday that the average price of gas in the US has risen by 51 cents per gallon over the last week.

“Yes, yes, definitely,” said 52-year-old Alma Newell when asked if she was worried about price increases at a gas station in the coastal city of Goleta, California.

Newell said she is out of work with a shoulder injury and worried that rising costs could stretch her already limited budget.

“The prices have a big impact because I’m not working right now,” she said. “Food and rent are already very expensive.”

“It’s crazy,” she added. “Because the war is so unnecessary.”

Cost of living issues

Rising prices could deepen frustration with the administration of US President Donald Trump and put greater political pressure on the White House, already struggling to address cost-of-living issues with the crucial midterm elections set to take place later this year.

“I think the current price increase in oil suggests the US will see $3.50 to $4 gasoline by next week, and $5 diesel this week,” said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst on Iran and oil at the Eurasia Group.

The highest recorded average for gas prices at the pump was in June 2022, when prices soared to $5.034, months after the Russian war on Ukraine started, according to Gas Buddy, which tracks fuel prices going back to 2008.

“The impact 1773123967 is more political than economic, as high gasoline prices generate negative press and can add to the perception that the government is not properly handling the economy. That means Trump will feel more political pressure to end this war quickly.”

A Pew Research Center poll in early February suggested widespread anxiety about the rising cost-of-living before the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran, with 68 percent of respondents saying they were very or somewhat concerned about gas prices.

“I’m not too worried myself because I have a hybrid car and ride my bike,” said 72-year-old Bjorn Birmir at the gas station in Goleta, California. “But for people in general, it will make life more expensive. Prices are already high, and it will make them even higher.”

Ongoing disruptions

The disruptions caused by the war include the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz, a key node in global transit and shipping. Iran has long said that it could close down the strait in the event of a showdown with the US and Israel.

About 20 percent of global oil and a significant portion of natural gas pass through the strait, predominantly to Asia, supplies that are now stranded as traffic through the narrow waterway has ground to a halt. Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in countries across the region have also led some countries to scale back production.

Other economic sectors are also feeling the squeeze.

Goods such as fertiliser, vital for agricultural production, are seeing price increases just ahead of the spring planting season in the Northern Hemisphere. About one-third of the global fertiliser trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Effects of the war could ripple throughout the global economy, with poor countries especially hard-hit. Pakistan announced a series of austerity measures and cuts to fuel subsidies on Monday, while Bangladesh shuttered universities and announced restrictions on fuel use as a result of the war.

US officials and countries around the world have already discussed measures to help ease the shock of rising energy prices, including the potential release of strategic oil reserves in a bid to temporarily boost global supply.

The G7 said on Monday that it would take “necessary measures” to support energy supplies, but held off on announcing the release of strategic reserves, with energy ministers set to meet on Tuesday to discuss the matter further.

The US has a strategic oil reserve of more than 415 million barrels, one of the largest in the world, that it could release in coordination with allied countries.

But it is unclear when these measures would kick in and how long such steps could help fill the gaps created by the war.

Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, says that much depends on whether the war is brought to a speedy conclusion or continues on for weeks or even months, with the possibility of further escalation.

Thus far, neither the US and Israel nor Iran has suggested it are willing to stop the war anytime soon, although Trump told CBS News on Monday that “the war is very complete, pretty much”, comments that helped ease some of the price swings in oil and stocks.

“If the war continues, we would see oil prices not only remain elevated, but perhaps rally further as markets price in a more protracted outage,” said Ziemba. “There’s also the question of, when it does end, how much damage will be done to infrastructure and just how quickly supplies could come back online.”

Initial polling has suggested that the war is unpopular in the US, with a Quinnipiac University poll released on Monday finding that 53 percent of voters who responded oppose Trump’s military action in Iran, including 60 percent of political independents.

That lack of popular support could present a political headache for Trump and his Republican Party if voters connect the war to increasing prices. Thus far, Trump has largely dismissed concerns about the war’s possible impact on the rising cost of living.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for USA, and World, Safety and Peace,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Sunday. “ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!”

The BBC war drama depicts a fictional nuclear attack on Britain by Russia and its devastating aftermath – and was so disturbing it was banned from broadcast for two decades

In the face of escalating conflicts worldwide – from the intensifying US-Israel joint operation against Iran in the Middle East, Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza following Hamas’ October 2023 attack, to the four-year-long Russia-Ukraine war still in progress – it’s no exaggeration to say we’re witnessing a catastrophic level of global unrest.

Amidst this turmoil, the looming threat of nuclear warfare is ever-present. The aftermath of such a conflict would bring about unimaginable destruction and devastation – the fallout is too horrific to contemplate.

This chilling scenario was portrayed in a BBC documentary from 1965, a film so disturbing it was banned from television broadcast for two decades by the British Broadcasting Corporation itself.

At the time, the corporation justified its decision to prohibit the documentary, stating: “The effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..”

The controversial pseudo-documentary finally aired in Great Britain on 31 July 1985, twenty years after its initial scheduled screening date of 6 October 1965. This broadcast coincided with the week leading up to the 40th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, reports the Express.

The War Game is currently available for free streaming on BBC iPlayer or can be bought for £5.99 on Amazon Prime Video.

Written, directed and produced by Peter Watkins for the BBC, The War Game depicted a fictional nuclear strike on Britain by the Soviets and its devastating consequences.

The docu-film’s official synopsis states: “In this British documentary, a hypothetical Chinese invasion of South Vietnam triggers a new world war between East and West. In the town of Rochester, Kent, the anticipation of a nuclear attack leads to mass evacuations.

When a stray missile actually explodes, the ensuing firestorm blinds all those who see it. It’s not long before the fabric of society is ripped apart owing to radiation poisoning, a lack of infrastructure and rioting for food and other necessities.”

On 13 April 1966, The War Game had its premiere at the National Film Theatre in London, where it screened until 3 May. Barred from broadcast, the 47-minute docu-drama subsequently appeared at numerous international film festivals, including Venice, where it secured the Special Prize.

The recognition continued – the prohibited BBC production went on to claim the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1967, alongside two BAFTAs for Best Short Film and the UN Award.

Boasting a near-flawless 93% approval rating on review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, The War Game has earned widespread acclaim from critics and viewers.

One reviewer commented on the docu-drama: “Nothing that you have heard or read can fully prepare you for Peter Watkins’ 1965 faux documentary on the aftermath of a nuclear attack on Great Britain.”

Another reviewer added: “One of the most disturbing, overwhelming, and downright important films ever produced.”

A third critic described it as essential viewing, noting: “It was produced by the British Broadcasting Corp. but never televised because it was felt its showing would be both horrifying and depressing. It is. It also is realistic, informative and shattering. It is a movie that everyone should see.”

Whilst one critic said: “Still packs a whallop. Will stick with you for life. Don’t say I didn’t warn you,” another commented on the nuclear war drama, “One of the most skillful documentary films ever made.”

Viewer reactions mirror this sentiment, with one audience member writing in an extensive review: “The War Game, although created as a TV movie for the BBC for the 20th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is easily the one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen, on par only with Gus van Sant’s “Elephant. ” It accurately portrays the effects and aftermath of a nuclear attack and uses a handheld documentary style that makes everything chillingly real.

“There were several times during the film when I had to remind myself that Britain had never suffered a nuclear attack and the footage I was looking at was not real. There are very few films that have left me in the state that this one did when it was over. Much like “Schindler’s List” or “American History X,” this is the kind of movie I think everyone should watch because it is so incredibly informative and brings the viewer so much closer to understanding the pain and monstrosity of a nuclear attack.”

Another viewer described it as: “A harrowing punch in the gut that nothing prepared me for. Unforgettable.”

Meanwhile, one audience member remarked about Watkins’ drama: “Really shook me up and left me reeling for a while after seeing it. Peter Watkins ruined my 3 day weekend with this masterfully done piece of film. Needs to be required viewing for every being capable of understanding images and sound.”

The War Game can be streamed free of charge on BBC iPlayer until July 2026, or purchased for £5.99 through Amazon Prime Video.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said air-to-air missiles and a reconnaissance plane will be sent to region amid conflict with Iran.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia will deploy a long-range reconnaissance aircraft and send air-to-air missiles to help countries in the Gulf region defend against Iranian attacks.

“The Iranian conflict in the Middle East began just over a week ago, and Iran’s reprisal attacks continue to escalate, already at a scale and depth we haven’t seen before. Twelve countries across the region, from Cyprus through to the Gulf, are continuing to be targeted,” Albanese said in a news conference on Tuesday.

He said the Royal Australian Air Force will send an E7A Wedgetail surveillance aircraft and supporting personnel to “protect and secure airspace above the Gulf” for the next four weeks, and help the region with its “collective self-defence”.

Australia will also send advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles to the United Arab Emirates, he said, following a phone call with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Albanese cited the 115,000 Australians living in the Middle East – among them, 24,000 in the UAE – as a major factor behind the deployment of military assets.

“Helping Australians means also helping the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf nations defend themselves against what are unprovoked attacks,” he told reporters, stressing that the deployments were for defensive purposes only.

“My government has been clear: We are not taking offensive action against Iran, and we are clear we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran,” he said.

Some 2,600 Australians have left the Middle East since last week, Albanese said, but “significant challenges” remain in helping those who want to leave but remain in the region.

The prime minister’s announcement was immediately slammed by the opposition Greens party, which said Australia risks becoming embroiled in another US-led “forever war”.

Australia joined the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, and lost more than 50 personnel during the conflicts, according to the Australian War Memorial.

Greens Senator Larissa Waters said she feared more Australian lives were at risk with the announced deployments, which the government, led by the Labor Party, said would be accompanied by 85 Australian personnel.

“Australians do not want to get dragged into Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war on Iran. Labor shouldn’t be sending troops to help a military that’s killed 150 schoolchildren in a primary school bombing. That will only escalate an illegal conflict that’s already spiralling out of control, and leave Australia trapped in yet another forever war,” Waters said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Every day Trump and Netanyahu’s demands of Australia keep growing. It was refuelling US spy planes yesterday, a recon jet and missiles today, and could be ever more troops tomorrow. Labor has no red lines when it comes to appeasing Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu,” she said, referring to the US president and Israeli prime minister, respectively.

Albanese said separately on Tuesday that Canberra has formally granted asylum to five members of Iran’s women’s football team, who were visiting Australia for the Asian Football Confederation Women’s Asian Cup 2026 in Queensland.

Albanese said the women had been issued with humanitarian visas and moved to a safe location with the assistance of Australian Federal Police.

“Australians have been moved by the plight of these brave women. They’re safe here, and they should feel at home here,” Albanese told reporters.

Modern wars are fought not only with weapons but with assumptions—and the most dangerous assumptions are often invisible to those making them. Donald Rumsfeld’s distinction between known unknowns (questions we recognize but cannot answer) and unknown unknowns (risks we have not even framed as questions) captures something essential about the current confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

The Nuclear Material Problem

The June 2025 12-day war struck several of Iran’s nuclear facilities but left the most consequential question unanswered: where is the material? The March 2026 campaign has struck deeper, targeting hardened and dispersed sites that June’s operations left intact. Yet the fundamental uncertainty has not resolved—it has compounded. Iran reportedly retains roughly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, approaching weapons-grade, and the precise location of that stockpile is now more opaque than before. On March 2, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported the entrance buildings of Iran’s underground Natanz enrichment plant had been bombed, but without inspection access, the agency cannot reconstruct a monitoring baseline.

The strategic paradox is acute. Any Iranian government—this one or a successor—must now confront a nuclear-armed Israel and a United States willing to strike Iranian territory twice in nine months. Under those conditions, nuclear capability looks less like a provocation and more like a rational insurance policy. The war may have permanently entrenched the very incentive it was designed to dismantle. A further risk of escaping conventional arms-control frameworks is if Iranian institutions fragment, specialized nuclear expertise disperses internationally, potentially becoming available to states or non-state actors.

Regime Change and What Follows

The war’s stated objective rests on uncertain ground. Intelligence assessments before the conflict reportedly concluded that even a large-scale assault was unlikely to produce regime collapse—yet the campaign proceeded anyway. The Iranian state has shown remarkable institutional resilience, with no visible defections among senior leadership, a government operating under its constitutional framework, and a regime that has absorbed the Iran-Iraq War, the Green Movement, and decades of sanctions.

War has accelerated the succession question around Ali Khamenei. One trajectory involves Mojtaba Khamenei, whose rise would mean dynastic continuity rather than transformation; another sees the IRGC consolidating power—equally misaligned with Western hopes. The question of what comes after was not answered before the bombs fell.

Retaliation, Major-Power Shadows, and Strategic Incoherence

Iran’s retaliation has demonstrated its asymmetric reach. The IRGC claims attacks on at least 27 bases hosting American troops across the region, alongside Israeli military facilities. Tehran appears to be pacing its response, sustaining an attrition campaign designed to exhaust interceptor stocks rather than overwhelm them in a single strike.

The major power dimensions compound this. Russia has reportedly been providing intelligence on American naval deployments; Chinese-linked entities have allegedly tracked US forces via satellite. Meanwhile, strategic incoherence in Washington compounds every other risk. Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have framed this as a limited campaign against nuclear infrastructure; Trump has simultaneously floated regime change on social media.

The Munitions Race

The deepest structural vulnerability may not lie on the battlefield but in the arithmetic of an industrial system never designed to fight this kind of war. The first 36 hours consumed more than 3,000 precision-guided munitions and interceptors. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine had warned that stockpiles were already significantly depleted before the first strike. Secretary Marco Rubio subsequently acknowledged that Iran produces an estimated 100 missiles a month versus roughly six or seven high-end interceptors that American industry can manufacture in the same period.

That deficit has a history. The US likely expended 100 to 150 THAAD interceptors and 80 SM-3s supporting Israel during June’s Twelve-Day War. Those stocks were never fully replenished. The bottlenecks are physical as well as financial. Lockheed Martin’s plan to raise PAC-3 MSE production to 2,000 units per year addresses a six-to-seven-year horizon, not the current emergency.

The drone dimension adds a layer officials have been slow to acknowledge. Hegseth and Caine admitted in a closed-door briefing that Iran’s Shahed drones present a challenge US air defenses cannot fully meet. The Shahed flies low and slow—hard to detect and poorly matched to the high-end interceptors THAAD and SM-3 are optimized to defeat. Intercepting a drone can cost roughly five times what it costs to manufacture one.

This crystallizes the war’s most consequential known unknown: how much of Iran’s arsenal reflects genuine capability, and how much reflects deliberate restraint? The IDF assessed Iran possessed roughly 2,500 ballistic missiles on February 11.

The search for emergency solutions has produced one remarkable geopolitical inversion. The Pentagon has approached Ukraine about purchasing drone interceptors. They are low-cost systems Ukrainian manufacturers developed specifically to hunt Shaheds, built from years of adapting to exactly the threat now confounding American air defenses in the Gulf. The US is buying drone killers from a country it recently all but abandoned! The implications extend to the Indo-Pacific. Every interceptor fired over the Gulf of Bahrain is one fewer available in the Taiwan Strait.

The Energy Shock

The Strait of Hormuz has moved from a textbook chokepoint to a live emergency. Tanker traffic has come to a near standstill. War-risk insurance premiums have made commercial passage unviable even where it remains physically possible. At least five tankers have been struck across the Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and nearby waters. Approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day—a fifth of global consumption—normally transit the strait, alongside roughly 20% of global LNG trade. Traders are warning that oil prices could surge past $100 a barrel if the conflict in Iran continues to escalate. Goldman Sachs Research estimates that a full one-month closure would add $15 per barrel, assuming no compensating measures like spare pipeline utilization or releases from strategic petroleum reserves. Bank of America sees tail risk far higher, estimating a prolonged shutdown could add $40–$80 per barrel above current prices.

The LNG dimension may prove more immediately damaging than oil. QatarEnergy has halted production at Ras Laffan, the world’s largest LNG facility, after Iranian drone attacks. This has already caused European natural gas futures to spike. If global LNG tightens, Europe must compete with Asian buyers on price. That competition may, in turn, force Europe back toward Russian gas, quietly reversing one of the most consequential geopolitical achievements of the post-Ukraine sanctions era.

The exposure is global and unevenly distributed. China, India, Japan, and South Korea account for roughly 75% of Hormuz crude exports and 59% of its LNG flows. South Korea has warned it could exhaust LNG reserves within nine days and has announced a 100 trillion won stabilization fund. India is pivoting toward Russian crude. These developments structurally benefit Moscow regardless of the war’s outcome.

The fertilizer dimension compounds the energy shock with a slower fuse. Nitrogen fertilizers are manufactured from natural gas; roughly a third of globally traded urea transits Hormuz. QatarEnergy’s halt removes fertilizer output simultaneously with LNG. Urea prices have already surged $60 to $80 per ton at New Orleans, with the spring planting window closing. The food-price consequences will not appear in grocery stores for months. But they are already locked in.

The Gulf Security Paradox

For decades the Gulf states managed their rivalry with Iran below the threshold of open confrontation, relying on the American security umbrella while avoiding direct entanglement. The war has collapsed that strategy. The Gulf states did not arrive at this crisis as Iran’s adversaries but rather as reluctant bystanders who had invested enormous diplomatic capital in preventing it. They gave ironclad assurances to Tehran, both before the war and up to its eve, that their territories would not serve as launchpads. That Iran responded by striking these same neighbors is a strategic miscalculation of historic proportions and a moral failure that may poison relations for a generation.

This has opened a structural debate now conducted in public. Is American military presence a protective shield or a magnet for retaliation? Citizens and analysts are asking why Gulf states should bear the risk of hosting US forces when Washington appears unable to protect them. Undoubtedly, Tehran understands this dynamic. Drone strikes on UAE-based data centers targeted Gulf publics’ confidence in the connectivity model as much as American commercial interests. The UAE and Saudi Arabia have staked their post-oil futures on projecting stability and attracting mobile capital. Intercepting most of the incoming fire is not sufficient when global firms are deciding where to invest next decade.

The crisis confronts the Gulf Cooperation Council with a strategic fork. One path leads toward deeper collective security, featuring integrated missile defense, expanded intelligence sharing, and coordinated maritime protection that could reduce dependence on any single external patron. The other leads toward renewed fragmentation as internal rivalries re-emerge.

Former Qatari prime minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani warned that the Gulf “must not be dragged into a direct confrontation with Iran,” arguing that such a clash would “deplete the resources of both sides and provide an opportunity for outside forces to control us under the pretext of helping us escape the crisis.” Yet the same crisis that could finally catalyze genuine Gulf collective security could just as easily deepen the divisions that have historically prevented it.

The Mediator’s Dilemma and the Meta-Unknown

The conflict has also damaged the diplomatic architecture that previously helped manage US-Iran tensions. Oman and Qatar built genuine credibility as intermediaries through years of patient back-channel work. Effective mediation requires neutrality. When conflict spreads into the territory of potential mediators, that credibility erodes. Iran’s decision to strike the very states whose neutrality made diplomacy possible may have burned the bridges needed to end the war—which is perhaps the most consequential unknown unknown in the entire conflict, second only to the US twice striking Iran in the span of nine months while negotiations were still ongoing.

At the deepest level lies a question no intelligence assessment can answer: whether the strategic logic of the war is coherent at all. Negotiations failed because each side demanded outcomes the other could not accept. The same incompatibility that made diplomacy impossible may make military victory equally elusive. Iran cannot surrender unconditionally without ceasing to be the Islamic Republic. And the conditions that make nuclear deterrence attractive to any Iranian government—this one or a successor—have not been removed by the strikes; they have been reinforced.

Conclusion

In sum, the US-Israeli campaign against Iran has illuminated the limits of military certainty. Known unknowns—munition shortages, asymmetric retaliation, and energy vulnerabilities—interact with unknown unknowns—nuclear dispersal, regime succession, and Gulf fragmentation—to create a conflict whose trajectory is inherently unpredictable. Rather than eliminating threats, the strikes may have entrenched incentives for nuclear retention, incentivized strategic caution, and stressed regional and global systems. The coherence of the war itself is in question, as military action and diplomacy pull in contradictory directions. Ultimately, the conflict underscores that modern warfare is as much about managing uncertainties as it is about destroying targets.

The reported idea of a special operation to seize Iran’s uranium should alarm anyone who still thinks there is a line between pressure and recklessness. Sending foreign forces into Iranian territory to capture nuclear material would be far beyond coercion. It would be war in plain sight. That risk looks even sharper when it is paired with talk of unconditional surrender and a revived maximum pressure campaign. Officials call that flexibility. In practice, it often creates confusion and a dangerous illusion of control.

Strategic Ambiguity Has Limits

Trump has long preferred threat inflation as a negotiating tool, and his administration’s National Security Presidential Memorandum on Iran makes clear that Washington wants to deny Tehran every path to a bomb. But there is a difference between pressure meant to shape diplomacy and rhetoric that drifts toward occupation logic. A raid assumes the United States can enter a sovereign state, take possession of fissile material, and leave without igniting a larger conflict. That is not strategy. It is a gamble.

A Raid Would Not Stay Small

Iran is not an isolated militia camp. It is a large state with layered security organs, missile capacity, regional partners, and a long memory of external intervention. Any attempt to seize uranium by force would expose American troops, bases, shipping lanes, diplomats, and partners to retaliation across several fronts. Even before talk of a raid, Washington and Tehran had been engaged in indirect nuclear talks in Oman. Replacing diplomacy with a ground mission would not create leverage. It would destroy what remains of a controlled bargaining space.

The Nuclear Picture Is Already Murky

The hardest fact in this debate is that the nuclear picture is already uncertain. In its February 2026 safeguards report, the IAEA said it could not verify the current status of facilities hit in June 2025. Reuters later highlighted that same report’s estimate that Iran had 440.9 kilograms enriched up to 60 percent before the strikes, while the Associated Press noted the wider stockpile had reached 9,874.9 kilograms of enriched uranium in total. Reuters also reported a cat-and-mouse hunt for missing material and confirmed that tunnel entrances at Isfahan were hit. Those facts do not make a commando operation look cleaner. They make it look less knowable.

Force Has Already Damaged Oversight

This is the contradiction hawks avoid. Military action may damage buildings, but it can also damage the inspection system needed to track what survives. The IAEA chief said that returning to Iranian sites was the top priority after the attacks because the agency had lost visibility. Reuters warned even before the war that any new Iran deal would have to address serious watchdog blind spots. Rafael Grossi had already reminded the Security Council that nuclear facilities must never be attacked and later stressed that inspectors must be allowed to do their job. Once oversight is broken, claims about perfect control become less credible.

Pressure Without Diplomacy Can Harden Iran

Advocates of seizure argue that urgency changes the rules. Their point is easy to grasp. If material has been moved, hidden, or split across sites, then delay is dangerous. But urgency cuts both ways. The less certainty there is, the more any raid grows in scope. A supposedly limited mission can quickly expand into repeated searches, broader strikes, and pressure for a longer presence. That trajectory sits uneasily with both the basic ban on the use of force in the UN Charter and the logic of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which depends on verification and compliance, not theatrical confiscation. Reuters has also shown that the damage from earlier strikes was difficult to measure and that U.S. officials later said there was no known intelligence that Iran had moved the uranium. That uncertainty is exactly why fantasies of a clean raid should be treated with suspicion.

Containment Is Less Dramatic, but Safer

There is another reason to reject this path. Public overstatement can create policy traps. Trump has already brushed aside internal caution, including when Reuters reported that he said his own intelligence chief was wrong about Iran’s program. Tehran, for its part, has insisted through officials speaking to Reuters that it will not give up enrichment under pressure. That is not a recipe for surrender. It is a recipe for concealment and hardening. Serious policy should focus on intelligence work, restored IAEA access, sustained diplomatic pressure backed by credible penalties, and a clear effort to prevent a regional war that would leave the uranium question even murkier.

The appeal of seizure is obvious. It sounds decisive and final. But nuclear crises rarely yield to cinematic solutions. They are managed through verification, containment, bargaining, and steady pressure, not through fantasies of absolute control. If this idea is truly being weighed in Washington, it should be rejected before rhetoric turns into mission planning. A ground effort to capture uranium inside Iran would not settle the problem. It could widen the war, shatter what diplomacy still exists, and leave the world with the same material, less oversight, and far more bloodshed.

Itamar Greenberg laughed when asked if he thought he should be afraid. The 19-year-old Israeli antiwar activist had just described being spat on in the street and is the target of an online hate campaign.

“Yes!” he finally responded. “If I thought about it, I probably should be. I just don’t have time.”

Voices like Greenberg’s are rare in Israel at a time when public clamour for war is growing, and genocidal language already familiar to millions of Palestinians is reemerging, but with a different target – Iran.

Officially, 11 Israelis have been killed in Iranian strikes since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28. What the actual number might be, or how many of Iran’s ballistic missiles may have penetrated the country’s Iron Dome defence shield, is unknown.

Speaking at the site of an Iranian missile strike in West Jerusalem, shortly after the start of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to the use of apocalyptic language that has characterised the genocide his country has conducted in Gaza. Comparing Iranians with the Jewish people’s biblical foe, Amalek, who the Jews had been divinely ordered to wipe from the face of the planet, Netanyahu told reporters: “In this week’s Torah portion, we read, “‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember, and we act.”

So far, Iran claims to have launched strikes across Israel, saying its missiles and drones hit military sites, symbolic infrastructure, and even Netanyahu’s office. Tehran has described the attacks as precise and strategic, rather than indiscriminate and part of a broader regional response. Iran also claims to have targeted locations such as Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion airport and Haifa.

However, Israeli officials have denied many of the specific claims. Netanyahu’s office dismissed Iranian assertions about hitting his office, or affecting his condition, as “fake news”, with stringent reporting restrictions on Iranian strikes within Israel making confirmation either way difficult.

What is clearer is that against the drumbeat of Iranian strikes, the fervour for war appears to be increasing among the public. A poll carried out last week by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) suggested overwhelming public support for the war, with 93 percent of Jewish-Israeli respondents expressing support for the strikes on Iran, and 74 percent expressing support for Netanyahu, the country’s historically divisive prime minister.

“No one’s talking about opposition to the war,” Greenberg said, describing an environment in which figures from across Israel’s media and political landscape – with the exception of the left-wing Hadash party and antiwar organisations such as Greenberg’s Mesarvot – had lined up behind the war. “It’s also getting increasingly violent,” he said.

“We held a protest on Tuesday, where the police were already waiting. They beat and arrested us. I was illegally strip-searched,” he said, describing it as efforts intended to humiliate him.

Greenberg is no stranger to such tactics. Six months ago, after being arrested for protesting the genocide in Gaza, prison guards had threatened to carve a Star of David on his face, a permanent reminder of what they thought his priorities should be.

It’s not just antiwar activists who have faced the brunt of the Israeli security establishment’s force.

“The atmosphere is very violent,“ lawmaker Ofer Cassif of the Hadash party told Al Jazeera. “When I leave the house, I’m more worried by the danger posed by a physical attack by fascists than I am by any missile,” he said.

Hadash and lawmakers like Cassif have been targeted by physical threats and attacks throughout the Gaza war. But criticism of the Netanyahu government’s handling of Israeli captives in Gaza meant that opposition to the Gaza war was – comparatively – more socially acceptable. When it comes to Iran, the current climate is toxic, Cassif said.

“We’re often accused of supporting the regime in Tehran,” Cassif explained of the attempts to delegitimise their opposition to the war.

“We’re unequivocally not. We want to see that regime go, but we’re not going to allow Netanyahu to say he’s doing this for the Iranian people. He isn’t. That’s not just rhetoric, that’s fact. The Israeli leadership was just as supportive of the shah as the US, and he was a murderous dictator no less than the current regime,” Cassif said, referring to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the leader of Iran before the Islamic revolution.

For now, analysts and observers in Israel describe a society that believes it is almost engaged in a holy war.

“They brought an antiwar activist onto one of the light news programmes,” political analyst Ori Goldberg said from near Tel Aviv, “and she was treated like you would a flat-earther. It’s as if it’s inconceivable that anyone would oppose this war.

“Israel has become a society with no middle ground, no capacity for conversation. It’s as if our entire existence is dependent on our ability to do anything we want. And if the world tries to stop that, then the world’s anti-Semitic, and we all burn.”

US-Israeli attacks on Iran continue as Iranians rally in support of new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has never held a formal position in government, but his appointment as his late father’s successor amid the US-Israeli war on his country was not unexpected.

Iran’s Assembly of Experts appointed the 56-year-old mid-ranking religious scholar to the position on Sunday, just over a week after his late father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in United States-Israeli strikes.

Khamenei, who has strong ties with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and his late father’s still-influential office, is seen as a hardliner who will provide continuity in the country.

His appointment, which came after he lost both his father and his wife in strikes, was interpreted as a defiant choice signalling continuity as the Islamic Republic faces the biggest crisis in its 47-year history.

Khamenei received immediate backing from figures in Iran’s political and security establishment, including IRGC leaders, President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

Outside the country, reactions were mixed:

Oman

Oman was a mediator in recent talks between Iran and the United States, which collapsed when the US and Israel unleashed their war on Iran last month.

Oman’s Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said on Monday sent a “cable of congratulations” to Khamenei on his appointment as Iran’s new supreme leader, according to the official Oman News Agency.

Iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani also congratulated Khamenei on his appointment on Monday.

“We express our confidence in the ability of the new leadership in the Islamic Republic of Iran to manage this sensitive stage, and continue to strengthen the unity of the Iranian people in facing the current challenges,” al-Sudani said in a statement.

He reaffirmed Iraq’s solidarity and support for Iran and “all steps aimed at ending the conflict and rejecting military operations against its sovereignty, in order to preserve the stability of other countries in the region”.

United States

US President Donald Trump had previously dismissed Mojtaba Khamenei as a “lightweight”, and insisted he should have a say in appointing a new Iranian leader, which Tehran rejected.

On Monday, Trump told NBC News, “I think they made a big mistake. I don’t know if it’s going to last. I think they made a mistake.”

Later on Monday, he told CBS News: “I have no message for him.”

Trump said he has someone in mind to lead Iran, but did not elaborate.

Israel

The ⁠Israeli ⁠military has already threatened to kill any replacement for the late Ali Khamenei.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said Monday that Mojtaba Khamenei was a “tyrant” like his slain father, and would continue what it described as the Iranian “regime’s brutality”.

In a post on X featuring a picture of Mojtaba Khamenei and his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holding guns, the ministry wrote: “Mojtaba Khamenei. Like Father Like Son”.

“Mojtaba Khamenei’s hands are already stained with the bloodshed that defined his father’s rule. Another tyrant to continue the Iranian regime’s brutality,” said the ministry.

Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday pledged “unwavering support” to Iran.

“I would like to reaffirm our unwavering support for Tehran and solidarity with our Iranian friends,” Putin said in a message to Khamenei, adding that “Russia has been and will remain a reliable partner” to Iran.

“At a time when Iran is confronting armed aggression, your tenure in this high position will undoubtedly require great courage and dedication,” the Russian leader said.

China

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters on Monday that Iran’s decision to appoint the younger Khamenei was “based on its constitution”.

“China opposes interference in other countries’ internal affairs under any pretext, and Iran’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity should be respected,” he said when asked about the threats against the new leader.

Beijing is a close partner of Tehran and condemned the killing of the former supreme leader, but it has also criticised the Iranian counterstrikes against Gulf states.

Yemen’s Houthis

Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Monday welcomed the appointment of the new supreme leader.

“We congratulate the Islamic Republic of Iran, its leadership and people, on the selection of Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution at this important and pivotal juncture,” the group said in a statement on Telegram.

It called his selection “a new victory for the Islamic Revolution and a resounding blow to the enemies of the Islamic Republic and the enemies of the nation”.

Dozens of civilians, including children, wounded by an Iranian drone strike in Bahrain. France deploying warships to secure shipping commerce in the Strait of Hormuz. Australia taking heat from President Trump over its handling of the Iranian women’s soccer team. Markets across Asia plunging as the price of oil surged.

Lebanon reporting half a million people displaced by fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. State Department telling nonessential staff to get out of Saudi Arabia after attacks there killed workers from India and Bangladesh. Ukrainian anti-drone experts turning their attention from their war with Russia to help intercept Iranian attacks. The defense minister of ever-neutral Switzerland saying his country believes the U.S.-Israeli war violates international law.

In less than two weeks, the Trump administration has instigated a truly global conflict — and with no quick and clear path to resolution, despite Trump insisting to congressional Republicans gathered at his Miami resort Monday that it would be a “short term excursion.”

“Short term! Short term!” Trump said in a bullish speech about the conflict, in which he said “the world respects us right now more than they have ever respected us before.”

“We’re counting down the minutes until they will be gone,” he said of Iran’s remaining leadership, while adding that the U.S. “will not relent” until Iran is “totally and decisively defeated.”

The war is not isolated to Iran, though it has certainly caused devastation there — with more than 1,300 deaths reported and toxic clouds from strikes on fuel depots hovering over Tehran, a city of some 10 million people.

The war’s effects also are not limited to the Middle East, though they are widespread there — as Israel has pushed into Lebanon and Iran has launched a wave of retaliatory strikes on U.S. allies across the Persian Gulf. The fighting has grounded regional air traffic, threatened desalination facilities that provide drinking water to millions and undermined the safe reputation of modern metropolises such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Unlike the recent U.S. incursion into Venezuela to capture and oust President Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. war on Iran has been met with stiff resistance militarily, drawn in a slew of allies, reignited proxy battles, drastically destabilized the oil trade and shifted dynamics between the U.S. and other major powers such as China and Russia.

China, which gets upward of 50% of its crude oil imports through the Strait of Hormuz, has largely stayed out of the conflict, though China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Sunday that the war “should never have happened” and “benefited no one.”

Trump said Monday that the U.S. is less harmed by strait disruptions, and was “really helping China” by securing the strait.

Russia, meanwhile, has emerged the lone winner of energy disruptions in the region, said Robert David English, a UCLA international policy analyst — as the Trump administration considers reducing oil sanctions on Russia to take pressure off of Mideast sources.

Trump said he had a “good talk” with Russian President Vladimir Putin about Iran on Monday. He also said the U.S. was going to suspend sanctions against other countries in order to alleviate strain on oil markets while the Iran conflict persists, but did not provide specifics.

The scope of the war has been dictated in part by Iran, which has historically limited its responses to U.S. strikes but warned after the U.S. bombed its nuclear sites last summer that it would treat any new attacks — large or small — as an act of war, and respond in kind.

Its strikes on U.S. facilities and allies throughout the region reflect that strategy, and are aimed in part at making the war more politically costly for the U.S. by straining global markets and its regional allies, experts said.

However, “you can’t attribute the increasingly global characteristics of the conflict solely to an Iranian strategy, because wars in this region tend to spill over the longer they last, with unintended consequences” including “bringing in all kinds of actors that don’t want to be involved,” said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

That can serve as a deterrent to starting wars in the region, he said, but “also makes them more difficult to wind down.”

The surge in oil prices to nearly $120 a barrel Monday — before a remarkable reversal to below $90 by the time U.S. stocks closed — is one of the furthest-reaching effects of the war, and one that clearly had Trump’s attention.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” Trump wrote on social media Sunday.

How long prices will remain elevated or volatile is a matter of debate, but Trump’s “short term” projections have been undercut by increasing strikes on oil and gas facilities in the region.

“If you can tolerate oil at more than $200 per barrel, continue this game,” Ebrahim Zolfaghari, a spokesperson for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Sunday.

Prices at the pump have surged for average Americans, some of whom were attracted to Trump’s candidacy because of his promises to avoid foreign wars and focus on driving down the cost of living for U.S. citizens.

Now, Trump and other administration officials are facing questions about their own role in putting the world at war, and offering various different justifications. They’ve asserted without proof that the U.S. faced an imminent threat of attack from Iran. Trump has repeatedly hinted that his goal was removing the government.

President Trump speaks at the Republican Members Issues Conference on Monday at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

In the meantime, Iran has shown no signs of bowing to Trump, rejecting his calls for “surrender” and for him to have a say in naming their next leader. Iran installed Mojtaba Khamenei after Trump said the hard-liner son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be “unacceptable.”

The choice was hailed by the president of Azerbaijan and the leader of Yemen’s Houthi rebels, among other allies.

To date, seven U.S. service members have been killed in the conflict, according to U.S. officials. Every day, U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $1 billion in war costs, according to one estimate. Democrats have slammed Trump for both.

“This war is coming from the same President that is building a $400 million ballroom in the White House. The same President that says $100 for a barrel for oil is worth it. The same President that doubled healthcare premiums for millions of Americans. But we have money for another endless war?” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote Monday on X.

Other world leaders focused on the global economic impact.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which transports about 20% of the world’s oil, has nearly halted, while producers in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates ceased oil operations without open routes for export.

In response, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested French and other allied naval assets could escort oil tankers in the strait, shifting the security burden there from Washington onto Europe, leaving European vessels vulnerable to hostilities and potentially drawing the European Union deeper into the conflict.

Already, they’ve agreed to allow the U.S. to use bases in their territories, though the U.S. and Spain got into a spat after Spain rejected U.S. use of its bases and Trump threatened U.S. trade with the country.

Macron on Monday also threw additional military support behind Cyprus, following a meeting with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis at a Cyprus air base.

France will dispatch an additional 11 warships to operate across the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, Macron said, after an Iranian drone struck a British military base on Cyprus on Monday.

“When Cyprus is attacked, it is Europe that is attacked,” Macron said.

Located just 150 miles from Israel in the eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus has emerged as a strategic — and exposed — nerve center in the U.S. offensive against Iran. It hosts vital British military bases and acts as an intelligence, surveillance, and logistics hub in countering Iranian influence and proxy attacks.

Britain’s Defense Secretary John Healey said Monday that the United Kingdom was conducting air defense to support the UAE, and that Typhoon jets had taken out two drones — one over Jordan and the other headed to Bahrain.

Trump suggested Monday that the U.S. was on the path toward victory, but acknowledged it had not accomplished all of its goals.

“We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough,” he said — adding the conflict will end “pretty quickly.”

He said Iran had been “very foolish, very stupid” when it attacked its neighbors, hurting its own chances of success in resisting the U.S.

“Their neighbors were largely neutral, or at least weren’t gonna be involved, and they got attacked,” Trump said. “And it had the reverse effect. The neighbors came onto our side, and started attacking them.”

Iran may still attempt to widen the conflict’s economic and geopolitical impact to keep up pressure and push for a ceasefire in its favor, but that could also backfire, said Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations.

“Iran’s becoming increasingly like North Korea in this sense,” he said, “isolating itself further.”

Russian president spoke as oil prices surged past $100 per barrel, reaching levels unseen since start of Ukraine war.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is ready to conditionally supply oil and gas to Europe as the US-Israeli war on Iran brings shipments through the Strait of Hormuz to a halt.

The Russian president said in televised comments on Monday that Moscow was ready to work again with European customers, which largely stopped buying from his country in a bid to stop funding its war on Ukraine, if they wanted to return to long-term cooperation.

European countries, however, have spent the past four years sharply reducing their reliance on Russian oil and gas in response to Moscow’s war in Ukraine and subsequent European Union and Group of Seven (G7) sanctions.

The EU banned maritime imports of Russian crude in 2022, while Russia’s pipeline exports to Hungary and Slovakia have been effectively halted since January due to damage to the Druzhba oil pipeline via Ukraine.

“If European companies and European buyers suddenly decide to reorient themselves and provide us with long-term, sustainable cooperation, free from political pressures, free from political pressures, then yes, we’ve never refused it. We’re ready to work with Europeans too,” said Putin at a meeting with government officials and heads of Russia’s top oil and gas producers.

He said that Russian companies should take advantage of conflict in the Middle East, which has seen Iran effectively halt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s key oil transit chokepoints that carries roughly a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas.

The Russian president spoke as oil prices exceeded $100 per barrel on Monday, reaching peaks unseen since he launched his country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose by more than 30 percent on Sunday, at one point topping $119 a barrel, as fears grew of prolonged disruption to global energy supplies.

G7 nations said on Monday that they were prepared to implement “necessary measures” in response to surging global oil prices, but stopped short of committing to release emergency reserves.

Putin’s comments came hours after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban urged the European Union to suspend sanctions on Russian oil and gas to counter prices sent soaring by the war in the Middle East.

Last week, Putin had instructed the government to consider switching remaining Russian oil and gas flows away from Europe, before the European Union starts enforcing its decision to completely ban Russian fossil fuels.

Before the Ukraine war, Europe was buying more than 40 percent of its gas from Russia. By 2025, combined sales of pipeline gas and LNG from Russia accounted for only 13 percent of total EU imports.

The loss of the European market during the Ukraine war forced Russia to sell oil and gas at steep discounts to Asia.

A new supreme leader in Iran – Mojtaba Khamenei – has replaced his assassinated father.

His selection sends a defiant message to the United States and Israel as they attack the country.

So, who is Iran’s new leader – and what does his appointment mean?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Hassan Ahmadian – Associate professor at the University of Tehran

Mehran Kamrava – Professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and director of the Iranian Studies Unit at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies

Alex Vatanka – Senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus says children, the elderly at particular risk after damage to Iranian petroleum facilities.

The head of the World Health Organization has warned that recent Israeli attacks on oil facilities in Iran could have negative effects on public health, with Iranian children and the elderly among the most vulnerable.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement on Monday that damage to Iranian petroleum facilities “risks contaminating food, water and air”.

Those hazards “can have severe health impacts especially on children, older people, and people with pre existing medical conditions”, Tedros warned in a post on X. “Rain laden with oil has been reported falling in parts of the country.”

The Iranian authorities said oil facilities in the capital, Tehran, and the nearby province of Alborz were targeted on Saturday in the United States-Israeli war against the country, the Fars news agency reported.

Israel said it struck “a number of fuel storage facilities in Tehran” that were used “to operate military infrastructure”.

The strikes sent massive flames and clouds of thick, black smoke into the sky above Tehran, with Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi reporting that black raindrops fell early on Sunday morning.

The attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure came as the US and Israeli governments had vowed to continue to bombard the country despite mounting international concern over the widening conflict.

Iran has retaliated to the US-Israeli strikes by launching missiles and drones at targets across the Middle East, including energy infrastructure in nearby Arab Gulf states.

Human rights groups have condemned both Iran and the US and Israel for targeting civilian infrastructure.

Agnes Callamard, the head of Amnesty International, said on Monday that “Israel should have taken all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize the risks to civilians when targeting oil refineries” in Iran.

“The incidental harm to civilians, including the release of toxic substance, appears to indicate that too little precautions were taken and that the incidental harm to civilians is disproportionate,” she wrote on X.

“The scenes of catastrophe described by Iranians after Tehran’s oil depots were bombed are yet another demonstration that ultimately, whatever they may say, the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran are harming first and foremost civilians, including children.”

EU economy and finance ministers are gathering in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday to discuss how to respond to surging energy prices and anticipated inflation amid the ongoing strikes and counter-strikes in the Middle East.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

“We are ready to take necessary and coordinated steps in order to stabilise markets, such as strategic stockpiling,” French Economy Minister Roland Lescure told journalists on Monday after chairing a meeting of G7 finance ministers.

Asked whether G7 finance ministers had agreed on releasing the system’s strategic stockpile, Lescure said: “We are not there yet.”

“What we’ve agreed upon is to use any necessary tools to stabilise the market, including the potential release of necessary stockpiles. The work is going to keep being done in the next couple of days”, the French minister said.

German Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil said on Monday that his country is open to unlocking the oil reserve, but that “this is not the right time”.

The International Energy Agency’s member countries currently hold over 1.2 billion barrels of public emergency oil stocks, with a further 600 million barrels of industry stocks held under government obligation.

Oil prices have rocketed since the Israeli and US attacks on Iran on 28 February, which killed some 40 Iranian leaders, including the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The conflict has now expanded into other countries in the region, including Lebanon and Gulf countries, with retaliatory attacks by Iran hitting civilian energy facilities and US bases.

Mojtaba Khamenei, the former Ayatollah’s son, was elected as successor on Monday, providing continuity in leadership for the current regime.

The price for a barrel of Brent crude, the international benchmark, surged to $119.50 early on Monday, but later traded around $107.80 after the Financial Times indicated that the use of reserve oil to respond to the crisis was on the table.

Leading European stock market indexes started the week with a big sell-off, following a major drop across Asian markets and surging oil prices.

The war is showing no sign of de-escalation. On 4 March, Qatar announced the suspension of its LNG production; then, over the weekend, Israel struck Iranian energy infrastructure while passage through the critical Strait of Hormuz remained suspended.

Energy prices in Europe will be affected, and inflation is likely to rise in the coming months. However, some EU diplomats and the European Commission indicates that the current situation presents significant differences from the energy crisis Europe experienced when the war in Ukraine started in February 2022.

“Thanks to the decisive actions we have taken over the past years, Europe’s energy system is better prepared and way more resilient today. Our energy sources are more diverse and cleaner. Our coordination is stronger,” European Commissioner for Energy Dan Jorgensen wrote on X on 6 March.

He called on the bloc to double down on the energy transition and continue to expand clean and homegrown renewable energy and energy efficiency efficients, all while modernising Europe’s energy infrastructure.

Spanish Economy Minister Carlos Cuerpo told journalists on Monday that the EU should take inspiration from the response to the 2022 crisis as it formulates its response to the war.

A different crisis?

This crisis is also structurally different from the one that exploded in 2022, an EU government official told Euronews.

When Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, Europe needed an “infrastructure reset” with a new portfolio of suppliers, the official said – whereas in the current case, “the release of reserves and re-opening of routes could see prices going down faster”.

However, the situation remains extremely volatile, as it is highly dependent on when the Strait of Hormuz will reopen and when production will resume in top LNG-exporting countries.

Discussions on Monday and Tuesday among EU ministers are expected to touch upon energy prices with the European Commission, while euro-area ministers are set to discuss with the European Central Bank how the war could impact inflation and the overall macroeconomic outlook.

While EU ministers are not expecting to put forward a common strategy on the table by the end of the meetings, the EU institutions will present an update of the situation. Most of the member states will likely present their remarks based on their national assessment of the war’s impact, an EU diplomat told Euronews.

Maria Tadeo contributed reporting.

Tehran, Iran – Commanders, politicians and religious authorities in Iran are rallying around the flag and hinting at a prolonged war after Mojtaba Khamenei was selected as supreme leader as the country is under fire from the United States and Israel.

The 88-member Assembly of Experts, made up of religious leaders, approved the second son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as his successor after he was killed on February 28, the first day of the war. The younger Khamenei was tasked with steering the “holy establishment of the Islamic Republic”, state television said overnight into Monday.

The 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei has hardly made any public appearances or remarks but is believed to have acted as a powerbroker with deep connections to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). His ascension signals continuity for the theocratic establishment that came to power after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The IRGC, which was originally created to operate in parallel to the country’s regular army to safeguard the establishment but has since turned into a major military and economic force, was among the first to pledge allegiance to the new leader.

It said its forces are prepared to “fully obey and sacrifice for the divine commands” of Khamenei to “maintain the values of the Islamic revolution and safeguard the legacies” of the first two supreme leaders, Ali Khamenei and Ruhollah Khomeini.

The aerospace, ground, naval and other major forces of the IRGC issued separate statements of support.

The Iranian army, the high command of police and the Defence Council also said they were prepared to take orders from Mojtaba Khamenei, and Intelligence Minister Esmaeil Khatib said his selection shows that “Islamic Iran knows no dead ends and always has a bright outlook of victory.”

The powerful 12-member constitutional watchdog known as the Guardian Council called the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei a “balm for the pain” of losing his father while influential seminaries across the country and the heads of government, the judiciary and parliament issued similar statements.

Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, appeared relatively less enthusiastic but emphasised that the process was done legally so he backs it.

“During the recent period, many negative narratives and campaigns were carried out, but the transparent and lawful process undertaken by the Assembly of Experts provided a clear response to those narratives,” he told state media in an apparent reference to media reports that he and some others were opposed to the choice.

Larijani stressed that the office of the supreme leader must be assisted by all as a “symbol of national unity” and expressed hope that during Mojtaba Khamenei’s time, “Iran is aligned with the path of development, economic conditions are improved, and more calm and welfare is provided for the people”.

All who praised the new leader referred to him as “ayatollah”, indicating that his religious standing has been upgraded from the lower rank of hojatoleslam as part of his ascension to the highest political and religious office in the country.

Hardline state-affiliated media and supporters went as far as calling him “imam”, a title used to describe significant religious figures and regularly used by state media to describe his father and Khomeini, the first supreme leader.

State television broadcast images of the news of Khamenei’s selection being announced at important mosques in Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan and other cities across the country.

Mass text messages sent by the state to Iranians invited people to gather at Enghelab (Revolution) Square in downtown Tehran and spots in other cities on Monday afternoon to “renew the covenant with the martyred imam of the Muslim nation and pledge allegiance to the supreme leader selected by the Assembly of Experts”.

Israeli and US warplanes bombed Tehran and Isfahan in the afternoon, two days after sweeping attacks on the capital’s oil reserves and refineries left thick black smoke hanging over the city.

Rocky road ahead

The younger Khamenei faces myriad challenges, most prominently the threat of assassination in the foreseeable future as the US and Israel have promised to keep taking out Iranian leaders.

Some local and Israeli media have claimed he may have been wounded in a strike, but details were unclear. There was no clarity from officials on whether Khamenei is expected to make an appearance anytime soon.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he is unhappy with the selection and will aim to kill the new leader because he wants the US to play a role in deciding Iran’s future leadership.

The younger Khamenei’s ascension suggests more hardline factions in Iran’s establishment retain power and could indicate that the government has little desire to agree to new negotiations with the US in the short term.

The commanders of the IRGC and the army have continued shooting projectiles since his selection with one IRGC commander telling state television that the country is capable of keeping up considerable attacks for at least six months.

US officials have also expressed eagerness to continue the war in pursuit of their objectives, including dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes and cutting off support to regional allies in the “axis of resistance”.

Its members – including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and armed groups in Iraq – released statements backing Khamenei’s selection.

Khamenei is also leading Iran at a time when the US is trying to curb its oil exports, a key revenue stream, while tightening sanctions that have heavily damaged the Iranian economy.

The Strait of Hormuz is expected to remain a flashpoint area as shipping is disrupted. Iran is also experiencing one of its highest inflation rates in decades at about 70 percent with annual food inflation rates shooting above 100 percent, according to the Statistical Centre of Iran.

The national currency is among the least valuable and most isolated in the world. The government continues to promise that Iran’s population of about 92 million people does not need to worry about shortages of essential goods like food and fuel because contingency plans are in motion.

French President Emmanuel Macron has said France and its allies are preparing a “purely defensive” mission to escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz once the “most intense phase” of the US-Israeli war on Iran ends.

Speaking in Cyprus on Monday, Macron said the “purely escort mission” must be prepared by both European and non-European countries.

Its purpose “is to enable, as soon as possible after the most intense phase of the conflict has ended, the escort of container ships and tankers to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz”, the French president said, without providing further details.

Macron’s comments come as global oil prices have surged amid continued attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran, as well as retaliatory Iranian missile and drone strikes across the wider region.

The war has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic Gulf waterway through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass, while Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in the Middle East also have raised concerns.

Responding to Macron’s comments, top Iranian security official Ali Larijani said, “It is unlikely that any security will be achieved in the Strait of Hormuz amid the fires of the war ignited by the United States and Israel in the region.”

Larijani added in a social media post that security is also unlikely to be restored as a result of plans designed by “parties that were not far removed from supporting this war and contributing to its fanning”.

While European countries have been largely sidelined as the war escalates, several – including France, the United Kingdom and Greece – have sent military assets to Cyprus following an Iranian-made drone attack on a British base on the island.

Greece has dispatched four F-16 fighter planes to the Paphos airbase and its two state-of-the-art frigates Kimon and Psara are patrolling offshore Cyprus, tasked with intercepting any missiles or drones.

Last week, Macron ordered the French frigate Languedoc to waters off Cyprus to bolster the country’s anti-drone and anti-missile defences.

“When Cyprus is attacked, then Europe is attacked,” Macron said after meeting with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Paphos on Monday.

The French president said he would also deploy a total of eight warships, two helicopter carriers and the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Eastern Mediterranean and the wider Middle East region, calling the move “unprecedented”.

France’s objective “is to maintain a strictly defensive stance, standing alongside all countries attacked by Iran in its retaliation, to ensure our credibility, and to contribute to regional de-escalation”, Macron said.

“Ultimately, we aim to guarantee freedom of navigation and maritime security.”

With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz sending oil prices soaring, finance ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) countries met in Brussels on Monday to discuss how to respond.

Crude oil prices have increased by about 50 percent since the US and Israel launched the war last month, with international benchmark Brent crude prices surpassing $100 a barrel on Monday.

French Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters that the G7 ministers did not make a decision on the potential release of emergency oil stocks amid the war. “What we’ve agreed upon is to use any necessary tools if need be to stabilise the market, including the potential release of necessary stockpiles,” Lescure said.

Paul Hickin, editor-in-chief and chief economist at Petroleum Economist, said getting the Strait of Hormuz reopened is the main priority. “That’s not going to happen in any shape or form until there’s a resolution to the conflict,” Hickin told Al Jazeera.

He explained that several countries in the Middle East, such as Kuwait and Iraq, are dependent on the strait to get their energy supplies to market.

“Kuwait and Iraq and those producers, they are really having a shut-in, and it will take a little bit of time to get back up and running,” said Hickin.

“That is the big risk, the knock-on effect … Getting those ships back, getting that infrastructure back up and running, it’s a slow process. So prices won’t come back down as quickly as many may think.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that Kyiv could provide defensive systems as well as assistance to civilians and American soldiers “deployed in certain countries” in the Middle East as the war in Iran continues.

He has reportedly proposed an exchange of Ukrainian defensive technology to combat Iranian drones in return for advanced US defensive systems to use in the war against Russia.

The US-Israel-Iran conflict, which started 10 days ago when the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran and killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has continued to escalate. Iran has responded with strikes on Israel and US military assets and other infrastructure in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

As Gulf and other Middle Eastern states continue to attempt to intercept incoming drones and missiles with US-supplied air defences, the US has asked Ukraine to contribute some of its own air-defence systems.

Here is what we know.

What has the US requested from Ukraine and why?

The US has asked for Ukraine’s help in defending Washington’s allies in the Middle East against Iranian missile attacks on infrastructure and US military assets, Ukraine’s president confirmed last week.

At the moment, the US is using air defence systems such as the Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, to intercept Iranian drones and missiles targeting its military assets in the region. The Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) and PAC-3 are advanced surface-to-air missile defence systems.

However, these types of systems are extremely expensive, costing millions of dollars for each interceptor missile fired, and there are concerns that supplies of US interceptor missiles could run low.

“We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against ‘shaheds’ in the Middle East region,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post on March 5.

Shahed drones, particularly the Shahed-136, are Iranian-designed “kamikaze” or loitering munitions which are very low cost compared to the interceptors being used by the US. Costing roughly $20,000-$35,000 each, these GPS-guided drones are about 3.5m (11.5 feet) long and fly autonomously to pre-programmed coordinates to strike fixed targets with explosive payloads. They blow up as they hit their targets.

Over the course of the Iran war, Shahed-136 drones have targeted Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE where US military assets and troops are hosted. Experts estimate that Iran has thousands of these drones.

Iran has also been supplying Moscow with many thousands of Shahed drones during Russia’s war on Ukraine.

During the course of Russia’s four-year war on Ukraine, Ukraine’s domestic arms industry has been forced to innovate, building low-cost interceptor drones priced at roughly $1,000 to $2,000 to counter Russian attacks with imported Iranian Shahed-136s.

Kyiv is now mass-producing these low-cost interceptor drones.

“The role of Shahed-type drones in long-range attacks has become more prominent in Ukraine after Russia took Iranian technology, improved it, and built it in previously unimaginable numbers,” Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert for the UK-based think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

What has Zelenskyy said?

Zelenskyy has posted several statements on social media confirming that he is ready to help Middle Eastern countries defend their territories by providing technical expertise.

“Ukrainians have been fighting against ‘shahed’ drones for years now, and everyone recognises that no other country in the world has this kind of experience. We are ready to help,” he wrote on X on March 5.

“I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security.

“Ukraine helps partners who help ensure our security and protect the lives of our people.”

It is understood that Ukraine is in talks with several Middle Eastern countries about this.

On Monday, Zelenskyy said Ukraine has deployed interceptor drones and a team of specialists to help protect US military bases in Jordan.

Zelenskyy wrote on X that he has also spoken directly to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) about “countering threats from the Iranian regime”.

He also said he had spoken with the leaders of Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly stressed that Ukraine must not weaken its own air defences. However, it is mass-producing this equipment now, and may well be able to afford to share.

“The fact that there are surplus capabilities ready to be sent to the US and the Middle East is unsurprising because Ukraine has led this innovation,” Giles said.

Zelenskyy has therefore proposed an exchange of air defence systems with the US ones being used in the Middle East.

“We ourselves are at war. And I said, completely frankly, that we have a shortage of what they have. They have missiles for the Patriots, but hundreds or thousands of ‘shaheds’ cannot be intercepted with Patriot missiles – it is too costly,” Zelenskyy said.

“Meanwhile, we have a shortage of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles. So, when it comes to technology or weapons exchange, I believe our country will be open to it.”

Zelenskyy may also have good political reasons for extending help, analysts say.

“The US has declined support for Ukraine on the ground that it had insufficient supply of air defence munitions, and now more of those Patriots have been fired in the Middle East in a few days, than have been supplied to Ukraine in four years,” Giles said.

“Zelenskyy will be aware that in providing this assistance, he is not only shaming the US, but also directly supporting potential friends and partners in the Middle East, who before now have been ambivalent to the situation in Ukraine,” Giles said.

Who else has sent defensive backup to the Gulf?

European countries including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy have pledged to provide defensive backup to Gulf nations over the past week. Additionally, Australia said it was deploying military assets to the region.

Wary of becoming directly involved in the US-Israeli war on Iran, European countries have nevertheless been drawn into the conflict by attacks on a British base on Cyprus in the Mediterranean and Iranian strikes on Western allies in Gulf countries that host US troops in military bases.

What will happen next?

Just as Ukraine is getting involved in the war, Russia might too, say experts.

“We should not be surprised if before long, as well as Russian technology in Iranian drones, we see Iran launching Shaheds manufactured in Russia,” Giles said.

He described Russia as a “primary beneficiary of current US actions,” pointing to how the surge in oil prices, the relaxation in US curbs on Russian energy exports to keep crude and gas prices under control, and the diversion of air defence munitions from Europe to the Middle East all helped Moscow. These, he said, “are all lifelines for Russia”.

Ministry of National Defence says no casualties or damage after missile shot down over southern city of Gaziantep.

The Turkish Ministry of National Defence says NATO air defences have intercepted a ballistic missile launched from Iran towards Turkiye as concerns grow that the United States-Israel war against Iran will escalate.

The missile was intercepted on Monday over the Sahinbey district of Gaziantep in southern Turkiye, the ministry said in a statement. No casualties or damage were reported.

“Ankara emphasized its capability and determination to protect national airspace and border security, while warning that further escalation in the region must be avoided,” the statement said.

The ministry also urged all sides, especially Tehran, “to refrain from actions that could endanger civilians or undermine regional stability”.

Monday’s incident was the second time an Iranian ballistic missile was fired towards Turkiye since the US and Israel launched a war against Iran on February 28, according to local authorities.

The US-Israeli attacks have prompted a wave of Iranian missile and drone strikes across the wider region, including on targets in Arab Gulf countries.

Iran did not immediately comment on the Turkish ministry’s statement.

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed that the military alliance had intercepted “a missile heading to Turkiye”. “NATO stands firm in its readiness to defend all Allies against any threat,” Hart said in a post on X.

Iran denied firing a ballistic missile towards Turkiye on Wednesday after Turkish authorities said NATO air defences shot down a projectile over the Eastern Mediterranean.

NATO condemned that launch, expressing its “full solidarity” with Turkiye.

“This is a tangible demonstration of the Alliance’s ability to defend our populations against all threats, including those posed by ballistic missiles,” NATO said of the interception.

Article 5 of the alliance’s North Atlantic Treaty says an attack on one NATO country will be considered an attack on all. It also commits each NATO member state to taking action deemed necessary “to restore and maintain” security.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency last week after the first ballistic missile heading towards Turkiye was shot down, NATO chief Mark Rutte said there was no talk of invoking Article 5.

Iranian authorities have said they are firing at US military bases and other US- and Israel-linked targets across the region in self-defence, but civilian infrastructure has also been attacked.

“Iran’s targets are not just US bases; they are, in fact, primarily large-scale infrastructure and civilian targets as well,” said Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in defence studies at King’s College London.

“This is not a mistake. This is by design,” Pinfold told Al Jazeera, explaining that Tehran is seeking to “unleash as much chaos as possible to destabilise the region and global markets” in an effort to force Washington to abandon the war.

“We’ve seen that Iran is targeting every single [Gulf Cooperation Council] state. It’s prepared to burn its bridges with all of them to pursue this very uncertain and high-risk strategy,” he said.

“It really shows you how Iran feels like it’s facing an existential threat. For them, this is a real do-or-die moment.”

Published on 09/03/2026 – 17:06 GMT+1•Updated
17:14

G7 finance ministers discussed a coordinated release of emergency oil reserves on Monday but failed to reach agreement, with France’s Roland Lescure saying the group was “not there yet” on a deal.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The G7 was exploring a coordinated release of emergency oil reserves to tamp down fears of an impending shortage but stopped short of a deal.

Japan’s finance minister, Satsuki Katayama, said the International Energy Agency (IEA) explicitly requested the coordinated release during the G7 meeting, according to Bloomberg.

Brent crude briefly hit $119.50 a barrel on Monday morning, its highest level since 2022, having jumped roughly 25% since Friday as the Iran war intensified, raising fears over global production and shipping.

At the time of writing, oil prices pared gains and are trading slightly below $100 a barrel, as markets remain highly volatile.

Stock markets fell worldwide on concerns the global economy would not be able to absorb a sustained oil price shock.

Equity markets drop over uncertainty

At the open on Monday, the S&P 500 fell 1.3%, coming off its worst week since October. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 1.5% and the Nasdaq composite 1.2% lower.

The most immediate pain on Wall Street is hitting companies with large fuel bills. Carnival lost 7.3%, United Airlines sank 6.9% and Old Dominion Freight fell 3.8%.

Retailers dependent on long-haul shipping, whose customers are also facing higher petrol costs, also struggled. Best Buy fell 4.4% and Williams-Sonoma dropped 4%.

The moves followed steeper losses in European and Asian markets, where economies are more exposed to imported oil and gas. South Korea’s Kospi sank 6%, Japan’s Nikkei 225 dropped 5.2% and Europe’s Euro Stoxx 50 tumbled 1%.

Potential stagflation scenario

Since the war with Iran began, the central worry for financial markets has been how high oil prices will go and how long they will stay there.

If prices stay very high for very long, household budgets already stretched by high inflation could break under the pressure.

Meanwhile, companies would see their own bills jump for key items such as fuel and stock items, as well as for powering their data centres.

It all raises the possibility of a worst-case scenario for the global economy: stagflation, or a period when economic growth stagnates and inflation remains persistently high.

Late on Sunday, President Donald Trump countered this narrative by assuring that high oil prices at the moment are both worth the cost and only temporary.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and world, safety and peace,” he said in a post on Truth Social.

In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury held at 4.15%, where it ended Friday.

Worries about high inflation and oil prices are applying upward pressure on Treasury yields, while risks of a slowing economy are pulling in the opposite direction.

Concerns about stagflation deepened on Friday following a surprisingly weak US jobs report showing that employers cut more jobs last month than they added.