A major crisis erupted in the Middle East on 28 February 2026 when the USA and Israel launched a coordinated military assault on Iran. The opening operation involved more than one hundred aircraft and large numbers of cruise missiles striking Iranian command infrastructure, missile facilities, naval assets and intelligence sites across the country. Iranian state media later confirmed that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been killed in the strikes along with senior figures in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The conflict widened rapidly; Iran launched waves of ballistic missiles and Shahed drones against Israel and against US military installations across the Gulf, including facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. By early March the war had also spread to maritime operations: a US submarine torpedoed the unarmed Iranian frigate IRIS Dena near Sri Lanka, while dozens of Iranian naval vessels were reported destroyed during the opening phase of the campaign. What began as a strike campaign against Iranian military capacity has escalated into a broader regional war with no clear end in sight.
From the perspective of global politics, the war illustrates the erosion of the traditional Westphalian model of sovereignty. Under contemporary international law, the legitimate use of force is tightly restricted by the United Nations Charter. Article 51 allows states to act in self-defence in response to an armed attack, while other military action requires authorisation by the United Nations Security Council. Neither condition clearly applied to the initial US–Israeli assault. Washington and Tel Aviv justified the campaign primarily through the language of anticipatory self-defence and humanitarian concern. Donald Trump argued that Iran posed an imminent threat and was approaching nuclear weapons capability, while Benjamin Netanyahu framed the strikes partly as an effort to protect the Iranian population from repression by its own government. However, the threshold for anticipatory self-defence under international law requires an immediate and overwhelming threat and the R2P “Responsibility to Protect” logic seems tenuous given the impact that US-Israeli strikes are having on Iran’s citizens. The episode highlights a deeper tension between the formal rules governing sovereignty and the strategic behaviour of powerful states. The notion of a “rules-based international order” becomes difficult to sustain when the leading architects of that order (i.e. the USA) appear willing to bypass its legal constraints.
The conflict also reveals how deeply economic globalisation links regional crises to the wider international economy. The most important example concerns the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime corridor between Iran and Oman through which around one fifth of globally traded oil normally passes. Iran has not formally declared the strait closed, but the threat of missile and drone attacks has produced a de facto shutdown of shipping. War-risk insurance premiums for tankers transiting the Gulf rose from roughly 0.2% of a ship’s value to around 1% within days of the outbreak of fighting, and in some cases as high as 3%. As insurers withdrew coverage, tanker traffic through the strait collapsed from roughly thirty-seven vessels per day to effectively zero. At the same time, Iranian drone strikes forced the temporary suspension of production at Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG (liquefied natural gas) complex, the largest LNG export facility in the world. Qatar normally supplies about 20% of globally traded LNG. Energy markets reacted immediately. Brent crude (a global benchmark for oil prices) rose above $90 per barrel for the first time since late 2023, while European gas prices surged sharply as traders anticipated supply disruptions. East Asian economies are particularly vulnerable – over 90% of Japan’s oil imports, for example, travel through the Strait of Hormuz. Economic globalisation has created unprecedented prosperity, but it has also produced a system in which geopolitical shocks proliferate and spread rapidly across the entire world economy.
Another revealing aspect of the crisis concerns the relationship between state sovereignty and transnational corporations, particularly technology companies involved in artificial intelligence. Modern military operations increasingly rely on advanced data processing platforms capable of analysing large volumes of intelligence information. One such system is Maven Smart Systems, developed by the American firm Palantir to assist military intelligence analysis and targeting processes. Reuters reporting indicates that this platform incorporated prompts and software components built using Claude, the large language model developed by the US AI company Anthropic. A public dispute subsequently emerged between Anthropic and the US government. The company refused to remove safeguards embedded in Claude that prohibit “autonomous lethal decision-making” (i.e. the AI deciding to kill someone, without a human making the final decision) and large-scale surveillance of American citizens. In response, the Pentagon classified Anthropic as a supply-chain risk and instructed defence contractors to remove its technology from Pentagon-related work. The episode demonstrates that despite the enormous economic influence of technology firms, governments retain decisive authority over companies operating within their jurisdiction when national security concerns are involved.
The crisis also highlights the limited capacity of international institutions to constrain the actions of powerful states. An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council was convened on 28 February at the request of Russia and China following the initial strikes. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the escalation risked triggering a wider regional conflict and urged all parties to return to diplomacy. However, the Security Council has not produced binding action capable of restraining either Washington or Tel Aviv. European responses have similarly been limited to diplomatic statements. The European Union called for “maximum restraint” and for full respect for international law while condemning Iranian missile attacks on neighbouring countries. Britain, France and Germany issued similar appeals for de-escalation while reiterating their support for Israel’s security. In practice these statements have had little direct impact on the conduct of the war, illustrating the structural limits of supranational institutions in a system dominated by sovereign states.
The war also raises broader questions about the relationship between hard power and soft power in the contemporary international system. Militarily, the campaign demonstrates the extraordinary reach of American and Israeli forces. Long-range strikes deep inside Iran, the elimination of key figures within the Iranian leadership and naval operations thousands of kilometres from US territory all illustrate a level of military capability that few other states possess. Russia, despite its long-standing relationship with Tehran, has shown no capacity to defend its partner from such operations. China has criticised the escalation but has not intervened militarily. Yet these operations may simultaneously damage US soft power. The legality of the strikes is contested, civilian casualties have generated criticism across parts of the Global South, and there remains no clear political end state to the war. Military success does not automatically translate into international legitimacy. In addition, Iran has successfully used relatively cheap and mass-produced Shahed drones to saturate and overwhelm expensive US-produced THAAD air defences in the Gulf region (which work by shooting down incoming drones and missiles). While US air defence systems have been able to intercept most missiles, the cost of producing a Shahed drone ($50,000) vs intercepting one ($13million) is wildly asymmetric; pointing towards a future where having more expensive and advanced technology does not necessarily translate into being able to “win” a war decisively.
Taken together, the crisis illustrates the continuing debate between realist and liberal interpretations of international politics. Liberal theory emphasises the role of international law, institutions and economic interdependence in restraining conflict. Realist theory instead stresses power, security competition and the primacy of sovereign states operating within an anarchic international system. The events of early 2026 appear to support several realist assumptions. Military force remains a central instrument of state policy, powerful states can act with limited institutional constraint, and international organisations have struggled to enforce collective rules. At the same time, the economic shock generated by disruptions in the Gulf demonstrates that global interdependence still shapes the behaviour of states. Even the most powerful actors cannot fully insulate themselves from the consequences of instability elsewhere in the international system.