Iran

The Strait of Hormuz is no longer merely a disputed maritime passage, nor simply a recurring flashpoint between Iran and the United States. It has instead evolved into a central arena for testing the meaning of sovereignty in the region. While Washington continues to regard the strait as an international waterway governed by the principle of freedom of navigation, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps treats it as a sovereign zone under its direct administration, subject to military rules imposed through effective ground control. Accordingly, the core of the crisis no longer centres on the question, "Is the strait open or closed?" Rather, the more consequential question has become: what is the future of the strait in light of the ongoing negotiations?   Recent developments, particularly following the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to what it described as violations of the terms of the memorandum of understanding, especially about the Lebanese file just days after the memorandum was signed, reveal that the issue has not been resolved but has instead grown more complex. The memorandum treated the strait as a technical issue that could be managed through arrangements governing passage and transit to prevent friction. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by contrast, approached it as a symbol of sovereignty, power, and the right to set the rules. This divergence rendered the understanding itself incapable of resolving the underlying dispute, because the disagreement between the two sides lies not in procedural details, but in who holds the authority to determine those procedures in the first place.   Although the United States and Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz immediately after signing the preliminary agreement, this does not necessarily mean that maritime traffic will return to pre-war levels. Implementing this provision presents complex challenges related to the mechanism for reactivating the shipping corridor, the arrangements required to resume vessel traffic, and the restrictions that may persist during the sixty days allocated to negotiate the final agreement. These challenges are further compounded by the dispute over which party will assume responsibility for regulating and managing maritime traffic through the strait. Taken together, these obstacles suggest that reopening the strait may prove one of the most complex aspects of the agreement, particularly given the ongoing divergence between the American and Iranian visions for the future control of this strategic waterway.   The crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, therefore, cannot be understood merely as a dispute over borders or the passage of ships; it is fundamentally a crisis of authority: the authority to set the rules, to impose exceptions, and to exercise the final say in determining whether this waterway remains open, closed, or conditionally accessible. For this reason, the question of the strait should no longer be viewed as a secondary file within the broader Iran–United States conflict. Rather, it should be recognised as one of the most consequential issues shaping and redefining the very concept of sovereignty, both within Iran itself and in the evolving structure of relations between regional and international powers.

The Al Habtoor Research Centre (AHRC) presents a groundbreaking, equation-based assessment analysing the direct and indirect social and economic resource costs of the 110-day conflict that began on February 28, 2026. Utilising an advanced conflict economics framework—including the Stiglitz-Bilmes convention and counterfactual synthetic controls—this research delivers an unprecedented, exclusive analysis of the financial burdens borne by the belligerents and the wider global economy. The headline finding is one of profound asymmetry, proving that recovery capacity, rather than the size of the initial kinetic blow, dictates the medium-term cost of modern warfare. The largest financial burden fell on the global economy, specifically non-belligerent, bystander oil-importing nations, totalling an estimated $1.41 trillion by 2030. Triggered by the 110-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz, this true burden lies in unproduced global output rather than the temporary oil-price spike, which ultimately nets to zero globally. Among the combatants, Iran absorbed an existential, structural blow equivalent to roughly 81% of its pre-war output, costing $305 billion by 2030, or $720 billion on a purchasing-power parity (PPP) basis. Locked out of international capital markets, its output gap fails to close by the end of the decade, triggering a step down to a permanently lower economic path. In contrast, the United States faces a heavily back-loaded bill ranging from $200 billion to $1.1 trillion by 2030. While structurally insulated from the immediate oil shock due to its net energy exporter status, this massive range in projections depends on whether standard cash-budgeting or full multi-decade liabilities—such as veteran care, war-debt interest, and budget ratchets—are present-valued. Meanwhile, Israel sustained a sharp but recoverable macroeconomic shock of $135 billion by 2030, equal to roughly a quarter of a single year's GDP. Advanced air defense mitigated physical destruction, concentrating the cost instead on reserve mobilisation, interception economics, and a transient output gap. Ultimately, this exclusive analysis details how the poorest bystander nations subsidised the conflict's macro cost, marking the 2026 war as one of the most economically disruptive events of the century.

The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) offers one of the most instructive case studies in contemporary political economy. In under three years, it transformed from a compressed, domestically isolated venue into a high-beta financial instrument that prices Middle Eastern geopolitical risk in real time. The period from October 2023 to June 2026 encompassed the gravest security shock in Israel's modern history; yet its benchmark indices delivered record returns, making it the world's fastest-rising equity market in 2024 and 2025, before pivoting abruptly into a sharp correction by mid-2026. This paradoxical trajectory poses a fundamental question: how does capital — foreign and domestic alike — respond when gun barrels intersect with trading screens, and why did the signals emanating from the sovereign bond market diverge so starkly from those of the equity market at the very same moment? This analysis traces the precise correlation between military and diplomatic events on the one hand, and capital flows and the sovereign risk premium on the other, exposing a new financial logic that now governs the pricing of existential risk.   Accordingly, this analysis sets out to disentangle three interlocking layers: first, the mechanics of the initial shock and the manner in which the state intervened to contain capital flight; second, the paradox of the war economy, in which sovereign downgrades coincided with an unprecedented equity rally; and third, the 2026 reversal that repriced geopolitical risk in the wake of diplomatic realignment — culminating in a forward-looking assessment of the market's probable trajectories through 2028.

By mid-2026, the US agricultural sector stands at a critical juncture where macroeconomic shocks intersect with geopolitical repercussions and sharp shifts in domestic trade policy. This has been reflected acutely in the traditional political alliances of rural America—which have historically constituted a formidable electoral stronghold for the Republican Party and, in particular, for President Donald Trump—as they undergo deep structural fractures that continue to widen, driven by the direct economic effects of stringent protectionist trade policies, disruptions to the regulatory framework governing biofuels, and regional conflicts that have combined to erode profit margins and undermine farmers’ confidence in the current system.   To understand the roots of this crisis, it is necessary to examine the nature of the implicit economic contract between the current Republican administration and its rural base. Historically, the government’s strategy rested on a two-dimensional approach: engineering stringent industrial tariffs to protect the domestic manufacturing base, while simultaneously attempting to insulate the agricultural sector from the adverse repercussions of these policies through the injection of exceptional federal support packages. However, the dynamics of 2025 and 2026 have undermined the wager on the sustainability of this equation. The economic strain generated by this dual approach translated into tangible political mobilisation, the effects of which were clearly reflected in opinion polls and primary-election indicators that came as a shock to the Republican camp.   Building on the foregoing, and with the crisis shifting from the economic sphere to the arena of electoral contestation, this analysis seeks to dissect the deep economic drivers that have produced the current state of agricultural frustration, evaluate the effectiveness of government measures in the areas of trade and energy, and assess the extent of the shift in the political calculations of rural voters. Drawing on a systematic reading of quantitative indicators and an examination of the results of the Iowa primary elections, this analysis attempts to anticipate the trajectory of this discontent: does it merely represent a temporary wave of backlash-driven anger, or is it laying the foundations for a broader political realignment capable of reshaping the balance of power in Washington ahead of the midterm elections?

Divisions among Iranian officials became increasingly evident in late April 2026. The hardline faction opposes making any concessions in the ongoing negotiations with the United States and insists that the nuclear programme be excluded entirely from the negotiating agenda. Another, even harder-line faction rejects entering negotiations altogether. By contrast, the moderate faction advocates engagement in nuclear negotiations while remaining committed to the principles of the Islamic Revolution. This camp recognises that negotiations could contribute to the partial lifting of sanctions and help alleviate the economic hardships facing citizens amid the country's continuing economic decline. It also views an end to the war as a strategic necessity, particularly given the strain placed on Iran's military capabilities and the loss of senior leadership figures.   These divisions have also become increasingly visible within the Iranian regime’s diplomatic apparatus. Contradictory statements were issued by members of the same Iranian delegation during a visit to Islamabad on 23–24 April 2026. These disagreements raise direct questions about the future trajectory of both the negotiations and the war, while highlighting the potential scenarios that could emerge from the growing divisions within the Iranian regime itself.

War is often fought on numerous battlefronts with state of warfare constantly evolving. In the case of the US-Israel-Iran War, drone and economic warfare are primarily tools of battle between the warring sides with the possibility extension to the seas following President Donald Trump’s proclamation of a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. Although the primary theater of war in this conflict has been the skies with an impending theater about to open in the seas of the Gulf, there is another more unconventional theater that has been operating since the beginning of the war, the theater of social media. Since the beginning of the war both the US and Iran have used memes and social media platforms such as X and Instagram as propaganda tools to attack each other’s credibility and shift the war narrative in their favor by engaging wider audiences.   The purpose of this analysis is to explore the idea behind how social media and memes opened a new theater of war between the US and Iran since the start of hostilities in February 2026 and its consequences. This exploration is based on the idea the use of social media and memes transforms the individual from a spectator to active participant in the conflict, while also normalizing violence through humor. Moreover, by transforming social media into a theater of war, the belligerents transform the concept of war into an aesthetic, especially through the US military and White House’s use of social media and memes.    

In recent years, European perceptions of Israel have undergone a noticeable shift, driven primarily by the war on Gaza following the events of 7 October 2023. What began as growing unease has gradually translated into a marked decline in public favourability across Europe, with many viewing Israel’s military response as disproportionately severe. This transformation in public sentiment, however, has not been immediately mirrored at the political level. European leaders have largely maintained a cautious and diplomatic posture, continuing to balance expressions of concern with longstanding commitments to “Israel’s right to self-defence”. That stance has begun to erode more recently. The regional escalation involving Iran has introduced direct economic and strategic pressures on Europe, prompting a more assertive, albeit still measured, response from policymakers. At the same time, political changes within Europe, including the emergence of leaders less firmly aligned with Israel, such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Péter Magyar, signal a gradual recalibration rather than a sudden rupture in policy.   This evolving landscape became particularly visible in late April 2026, when discussions emerged within the European Union around suspending the EU–Israel Association Agreement. Although the proposal did not advance, with key member states such as Germany and Italy blocking consensus, it nonetheless highlighted the extent to which previously unthinkable measures are now part of the policy debate. While the suspension of the agreement would carry significant economic consequences for Israel, its implementation remains constrained by the European Union’s (EU) internal political dynamics. Yet the inability to pursue this option does not imply a lack of leverage. The European Union retains a range of alternative instruments that can be deployed to exert pressure on Israel.

When governments shut down the internet, the standard justification is security, and the standard assumption is that the measure is temporary. Iran has tested both of those assumptions to their breaking point. Its nationwide internet blackout is now the longest ever imposed on an entire population, and Iranian authorities have simultaneously passed legislation making possession of a satellite internet terminal a criminal offence punishable by execution. These two facts are not separate policies responding to separate pressures. They are expressions of a single, long-prepared doctrine of information sovereignty, one in which connectivity is not a public utility to be temporarily suspended but a political instrument to be permanently controlled.   What Iran has built, and what it is now operating at scale for the first time, raises a question that extends well beyond its borders: when a state decides that controlling information is worth more than the economic cost of losing it, and the international system has no answer, what happens next?

The Israeli political system has undergone profound structural shifts following the launch of Operation Roaring Lion between Israel and Iran in late February 2026. This conflict marks a transition from traditional deterrence policies and proxy warfare to a doctrine of comprehensive confrontation and pre-emptive strikes targeting nuclear and military infrastructure deep inside Iran. These military developments have coincided with the approaching constitutional deadline for the twenty-sixth Knesset elections, due no later than October 2026, amid a politically fragile environment for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his governing coalition. The confrontation has unfolded at a time when the executive leadership is experiencing a decline in political support, shaped by the continuing repercussions of intelligence and security failures linked to the events of 7 October 2023.   These challenges are compounded by declining domestic economic indicators, sharp societal divisions over legislation mandating military conscription for ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the ongoing trajectory of judicial proceedings. In this context, analytical evidence suggests that the executive leadership is seeking to leverage the state of national emergency to consolidate cohesion within its right-wing electoral base and to affirm the centrality of the current leadership in managing security threats within a complex parliamentary system. The intersection of protracted military conflicts with democratic electoral cycles imposes complex structural pressures on voting behaviour and the prospects of incumbent leadership. The demands of national mobilisation increasingly intersect with deeply rooted crises of institutional trust in the public consciousness. This analysis examines electoral calculations before and after the outbreak of the confrontation, reviews historical precedents in which extended wars have shaped successive Israeli governments, and analyses the strategic and personal drivers of decision-making, culminating in an assessment of potential trajectories for the reconfiguration of the electoral landscape ahead of the 2026 vote.

At the outset of 2026, the global natural gas market underwent a profound structural shift that eroded much of the stability built over years of rebalancing in the aftermath of the 2022 European energy crisis. Markets had been advancing towards a phase of relative supply abundance, underpinned by expanding liquefaction capacity in the United States (US) and large-scale Qatari projects. This trajectory was abruptly reversed on Feb. 28, 2026, when Operation Epic Fury triggered the most severe energy shock to confront the international system in decades. The US-Israel-Iran War and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, removed nearly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas supply from circulation within days.   This paper analyses the structural transformations in the global natural gas market induced by the crisis, tracing supply and demand dynamics before and after the outbreak of the conflict. It further evaluates the implications for key actors within the international energy system, including countries most exposed to global gas market volatility, such as Egypt and Jordan.

On April 7, 2026, the United States (US) and Iran announced a temporary two-week ceasefire, following intensive diplomatic mediation led by Pakistan during a critical window of escalation. The conflict had erupted on Feb. 28, 2026, when the US and Israel launched coordinated military strikes targeting Iranian infrastructure. In response, Tehran moved to close the Strait of Hormuz to international commercial shipping, precipitating the most severe energy supply shock in modern market history.   The closure effectively paralysed approximately 20 million barrels per day that would ordinarily transit the Strait of Hormuz in peacetime, accounting for nearly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade. Under the terms of the ceasefire, Iran announced a conditional reopening of the strait, while the parties agreed to commence diplomatic talks in Islamabad on April 10. This analysis examines the full scope of the crisis and evaluates the prevailing oil price scenarios, drawing on lessons from comparable historical shocks to assess the fragility of the current environment and its potential trajectories.

A defence economy comprises the fiscal, industrial, and budgetary systems through which a state finances, maintains, and adjusts its military capacity. During peacetime, these systems tend to remain stable; in wartime, they become the main mechanism through which conflict transforms a nation’s economic structure. The escalation of Israeli military operations since October 2023 and the broader confrontation with Iran and its regional proxies have caused a defence-economy shift, leading to significant realignments in how the conflicting sides allocate public resources, incur debt, and prioritise expenditure.   This analysis examines how sustained military escalation has reshaped the defence economies of its three key actors: Israel, Iran and the United States. It assesses both short-term fiscal responses and longer-term budget trajectories, arguing that the conflict has not produced a temporary spending spike but a structural transformation, one that has widened deficits, crowded out civilian services, mobilised domestic defence industries, accelerated sovereign credit deterioration, and embedded elevated military spending into national budgets in ways that will persist well beyond any ceasefire. Across the Middle East, the boundaries between battlefield expenditure and national economic health have become increasingly difficult to separate.