United States of America (USA)

The long-standing efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine War were disturbed by the sudden outbreak of the U.S.-Israel-Iran War. The strikes carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran, and their broader spill-overs across the Middle East, have hindered the already difficult peace negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv. This escalation raises concerns about the extent to which the U.S.-Israel-Iran War could have on the broader geopolitical dynamics. This war risks diverting global attention away from efforts to resolve the Russia-Ukraine War and, at the same time, raises concerns about the extent to which it could reshape power dynamics and influence the trajectory of this war.

The strategic partnership between the United States (U.S.) and Israel has long demonstrated an exceptional ability to absorb and manage tactical divergences. Yet the developments accompanying the launch of the U.S. operation "Epic Fury," conducted in parallel with Israel’s "Visiting Lion" operation in late February 2026, have placed this alliance under an unprecedented test in the modern Middle East. Although this coordinated campaign initially achieved decisive operational successes, most notably the elimination of Iran’s Supreme Leader and the dismantling of the command structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the image of complete alignment projected by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conceals fundamental divergences in visions and objectives.   A careful reading of the historical trajectory of this relationship, alongside its current political constraints, suggests that a prolonged conflict will expose the sharp divergence in the strategic interests of the two capitals. As the confrontation shifts from rapid strikes to a complex regional war of attrition whose consequences extend beyond Washington and Tel Aviv, these differences are likely to evolve into deep structural fractures. This paper offers a strategic analysis of this emerging dynamic, arguing that the fundamental differences in the capacity to absorb economic repercussions, manage human losses, and navigate rigid electoral timelines will transform muted tactical disagreements into an overt strategic rift that will be increasingly difficult to contain or deny.

The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury in late February 2026, targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and seeking to remove its political leadership. Although the operation achieved its initial tactical objectives with high precision, it provoked an asymmetric retaliatory response from the remaining Iranian forces. This response took the form of a comprehensive blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical maritime artery for energy transport, triggering a severe global economic shock. Such disruption could propel the international system towards reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and accelerating the adoption of alternative domestic energy solutions, most notably nuclear power.   At the same time, global electricity demand is rising sharply, driven by the rapid expansion of advanced artificial intelligence infrastructure and high-performance computing facilities. This sudden disruption of fuel supplies places policymakers in major industrial economies under immediate economic and security pressures, while simultaneously exposing the profound consequences of closing the Strait. In this context, the present analysis examines the repercussions of the Strait of Hormuz's closure on global supply chains. It then develops a historical comparison with the oil price shocks of the 1970s, illustrating how those crises redirected states towards nuclear technology. The study concludes by analysing emerging regulatory and financial measures, as well as new geopolitical alignments, that are accelerating the global drive to construct nuclear reactors in 2026.

The United States and Israel's joint military campaign against Iran is upending the strategic order of the Middle East in ways that extend far beyond Tehran. The strikes have killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, targeted Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure, and triggered retaliatory Iranian attacks across the region. As the war enters its second week, a second and potentially more consequential shift is taking shape. With Iran's role as the dominant pole of regional opposition to Israel now in question, a new rivalry is hardening between Israel and Turkey, one that carries different stakes, different risks, and a far more unpredictable trajectory than the confrontation the current war was designed to resolve. Understanding this emerging fault line requires examining both the structural forces pushing the two states apart and the domestic political dynamics that risk turning competitive rhetoric into irreversible confrontation.

The United States entered the second week of its joint military campaign against Iran on March 7, 2026, having launched Operation Epic Fury alongside Israel on February 28. Within days, the conflict had killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, triggered Iranian retaliatory strikes across the Gulf, and drawn in regional powers from Bahrain to Lebanon. For the Republican Party, the war arrived at what was already an exceptionally precarious moment — one in which the historical forces of midterm politics, falling presidential approval, and a restless voter coalition had already conspired against them. The onset of a major, unpopular war has only deepened those vulnerabilities, and the question facing the GOP heading into November is no longer simply whether they will lose seats, but how many.

The U.S.-Israel and Iran War has affected the interests of many countries. In the last few days, China emerged as a significant player in these events. Beijing called for an immediate halt to the attacks by both sides and the protection of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, culminating with the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi pledging to send a special envoy to the Middle East for mediation.   Beijing has interconnected interests in the Middle East that are significantly affected by the war and will most likely reshape its strategic opportunities in the region, particularly in terms of energy security, trade routes, and diplomatic relations with key regional players. Beijing’s pragmatic foreign policy approach toward the region relies on protecting its economic interests and maintaining a strategic balance. So, the war could provide an opportunity for China to navigate new opportunities in the region and, consequently, expand its influence, particularly by strengthening ties with other oil-producing nations and increasing its investments in reconstruction efforts.   Likewise, China’s strategic partnership with Iran mainly revolves around oil supply and large-scale investments. The consequences of the war raise questions about the future of this relationship and the possibility that China may reshape its foreign policy toward Tehran if it faces a potential decline in Iran’s ability to sustain such interests as a result of the strain on its power after the war.

On Feb. 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a military campaign against Iran, striking more than 900 targets in the first 12 hours and killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The conflict is still raging, with strikes continuing across the country and the region destabilising by the day. Yet behind the missiles and fighter jets lies another revolution in how this war is being fought.   AI, the same technology that millions use daily to draft emails or summarise documents, has become a central instrument of lethal military power. Anthropic’s Claude AI model is embedded inside the Pentagon’s targeting and intelligence apparatus, processing satellite imagery, intercepted communications, and operational data to help commanders decide who to strike, where, and when.   What once required days of human analysis is now compressed into hours or minutes, enabling a pace of warfare that no prior generation of military planners could have executed. AI has been present on battlefields before, from drone guidance systems to satellite image analysis, but the Iran conflict represents its most expansive and consequential deployment to date, and the full implications of that scale are still unfolding.

The Feb. 28, 2026 United States–Israeli offensive against Iran represents the most consequential escalation in Gulf security dynamics in over a decade and introduces immediate, medium-term, and long-term risks to global energy stability. The strikes targeting senior leadership and strategic military infrastructure triggered Iranian retaliation across the Gulf region and sharply increased the probability of disruption to maritime energy flows, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz.   While physical supply outages remain limited at the time of writing, markets have responded by repricing geopolitical risk. Crude benchmarks surged on reopening, freight and insurance costs rose materially, and volatility spiked across commodities and currency markets. The core economic question is not whether prices react, they already have, but whether the conflict transitions from a risk-premium shock to a sustained supply disruption.   The Strait of Hormuz remains the central transmission channel. Roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil and more than one-third of seaborne liquefied natural gas pass through this chokepoint. Even temporary interference has outsized macroeconomic implications. Assessing the implications of the crisis requires examining immediate market reactions, potential disruption scenarios, medium-term supply responses, and the longer-term structural consequences for global energy security and macroeconomic stability.

The first quarter of 2026 marked a strategic turning point in the deployment of hard power and the management of geopolitical interaction. For decades, computing technologies remained largely confined to operational support roles, such as processing intelligence data or guiding precision munitions. January and February, however, witnessed a structural shift as military planning moved away from human-dependent decision cycles toward managing autonomous algorithmic kill chains. This transformation was formally articulated in the “Artificial Intelligence Acceleration Strategy” issued by the United States Department of War (DoW) on Jan. 9 2026. The directive aims to entrench American military dominance by rapidly integrating AI across warfighting, intelligence, and enterprise operations, while transforming the defence apparatus into what officials describe as an “AI-first” military structure.   This doctrine rested on strict operational parameters prioritising overwhelming lethality, rapid execution, and objective-driven systems that place mission success above all other considerations, deliberately excluding social and political variables from algorithmic decision cycles to ensure decisive superiority in battlefield decision-making. This shift was reflected in two unprecedented operations: the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during Operation Absolute Resolve in January 2026, and the decapitation strike targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during Operation Silent Holy City, conducted within Operation Epic Fury in February 2026.   These operations reflected the integration of large language models, dynamic data architectures, tactical assessment algorithms, and autonomous unmanned systems, fundamentally transforming the speed, precision, and geopolitical cost calculus of neutralising high-value targets. Together, they signal that AI has moved beyond a supporting analytical role to become a strategic architect of the battlespace and a driver of kinetic execution.

The military operations that unfolded over twelve days in June 2025 between Iran and Israel marked a sharp breakpoint in the trajectory of regional military balance. The confrontation resulted in a substantial erosion of Tehran’s military infrastructure and inflicted significant material losses. The depth of this operational failure was most evident in the near-total collapse of Iran’s integrated air-defence system, with confirmed intelligence assessments indicating that Israel succeeded in neutralising more than 80 surface-to-air missile batteries and destroying over 120 launch platforms. This effectively stripped Iranian airspace of its protective shield and imposed a state of absolute Israeli air superiority.   Amid this collapse, Tehran effectively lost its entire arsenal of the Russian-made S-300PMU2 (“S-300 PMU-2”) systems, which it had acquired in 2016 after protracted negotiations and at considerable financial cost. These systems were systematically destroyed between 2024 and 2025. Iran’s domestic air-defence industries, represented by the Bavar-373 and Khordad-15 systems, also demonstrated clear operational inadequacy when tested in a real combat environment.   This exposed a wide technological gap between Israel’s offensive capabilities and Iran’s defensive assets. The Iranian air-defence network failed to record the downing of a single manned Israeli fighter jet, and Iran’s ageing air force, reliant on pre-revolution legacy aircraft such as the F-14 Tomcat, the Phantom, and the Tiger, supplemented by 1990s-era MiG-29s, stood incapable of competing or deterring effectively.   This total inability to contest the battlespace not only underscored tactical failure but delivered a decisive blow to the strategic assumptions underpinning Iran’s defence doctrine for decades, particularly its reliance on “asymmetric missile deterrence” and hybrid layered-defence networks.   Confronted with a reality in which its missile capabilities were neutralised and its aerial shield dismantled, the Iranian leadership was compelled to adopt a “post-war reset” strategy, launching an urgent acquisition campaign aimed at closing the technological gap by turning eastward towards Russia and China to rebuild its lost deterrence.   The fundamental question that will shape the next phase in the Middle East remains: Can this “hybrid deterrence”, comprising domestic missiles alongside imported, only partially integrated weapon systems, endure against an adversary that has already demonstrated both the willingness and the capability to deliver devastating strikes deep inside Iran?

At the outset of 2026, the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape is undergoing a profound reconfiguration driven not only by the outcomes of decisive military engagements but also by the complex and protracted diplomatic process that followed the Twelve-Day War of June 2025. In this context, the return of Iranian and American negotiators to the bargaining tables in Muscat and Geneva does not represent a routine resumption of traditional diplomacy. Rather, it constitutes a tangible expression and an evolved application of a deeply rooted strategic doctrine within the Iranian political mindset, commonly referred to in strategic literature as Bazaar Diplomacy. This approach extends far beyond the superficial notion of commercial bargaining and functions as a doctrine of statecraft, carefully engineered to navigate power asymmetries and confront adversaries endowed with overwhelming military and economic superiority.   At its core, Bazaar diplomacy represents a structural departure from the linear Western models of conflict resolution, which are typically constrained by fixed timelines, electoral cycles, and an urgent drive to reach a comprehensive, final agreement that brings crises to a formal close. For the Iranian negotiator, by contrast, time is neither a neutral container nor an external constraint; it is the primary strategic commodity and the central objective of the process itself. This philosophy is grounded in the notion that sustained, circular engagement in protracted talks is not merely a means to an end but a tactical end in its own right. Such engagement provides essential political cover to absorb peak external pressure, restrains an adversary’s momentum toward military action, and creates critical temporal space to repair internal fractures.   In the current context of 2026, this strategy has assumed existential dimensions that extend beyond routine political manoeuvring. Following the extensive damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear and defensive infrastructure by U.S. and Israeli strikes in the previous year, and amid an economic collapse that has eroded the national currency and fuelled widespread protests, negotiations are no longer a matter of political discretion but a structural imperative for regime survival. Accordingly, Bazaar diplomacy functions as a refined mechanism of endurance. It deploys constructive ambiguity and offers technically reversible concessions, such as the temporary suspension of enrichment, in exchange for strategic and structural gains that are far more difficult to reverse, including sanctions relief and the entrenchment of economic interdependencies. The central question, therefore, is whether Bazaar diplomacy can ultimately deliver an agreement between Washington and Tehran.

The Chinese Government, on Feb. 14, 2026, issued decisions abolishing 100% of customs duties on exports from 53 African countries. This step marks a significant shift in the trajectory of Beijing’s historic relationship with the African continent. This relationship began 70 years ago with major infrastructure ventures such as the construction of the Tazara Railway in the 1970s. It gradually evolved into an increasingly intricate framework of reciprocal economic integration.     This evolution has been reflected in the substantial expansion of bilateral trade, which reached a historic high of USD 348.1 billion in 2025, with annual growth of 17.7%. Through this new tariff-exemption framework, Beijing is voluntarily relinquishing approximately USD 1.4 billion in annual customs revenue upon the regime’s implementation, a move that constitutes a long-term geoeconomic investment aimed at reinforcing the stability of supply chains. This shift may reshape the global trade landscape and further position the African continent at the centre of intensifying competition for industrial resources and clean-energy technologies.     Accordingly, this analysis examines the strategic dimensions of this new trade regime by focusing on the updated structural dynamics of bilateral trade and their actual impact on Africa’s trade balance; the global competition to secure supply chains for critical minerals and the resulting implications for local industrialisation ambitions; and, finally, an assessment of the countervailing economic and political strategies adopted by Western blocs as they seek to reposition themselves and respond to expanding influence across the continent.