United States (U.S.)

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.

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 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 question of the West Bank has transcended its status as a mere component of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict to become a substantive test of the coherence of international law and the deterrence foundations upon which the post–Second World War international order was built.   On 9 February 2026, the Israeli Security Cabinet endorsed a package of extraordinary measures designed to consolidate Israeli control over the West Bank. The measures included rescinding the longstanding prohibition on the sale of land to Jews through the repeal of the Jordanian statute that barred the transfer of Palestinian property to Jewish purchasers; lifting the confidentiality of land registry records; transferring planning and construction powers in parts of Hebron from the Palestinian municipality to the Israeli Civil Administration; and broadening oversight and demolition authorities to extend into Areas A and B, which fall under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction in accordance with the Oslo Accords.   These decisions are likely to generate profound structural transformations in property registration and transfer regimes by permitting the public disclosure of landowners’ identities. Such disclosure opens the way for direct negotiations between Israeli purchasers and Palestinian proprietors, thereby facilitating a faster pace of acquisition and further entrenching settlement expansion throughout the West Bank.   In this context, the Israeli Settlement Council (Yesha) characterised the measures as “the most consequential in fifty-eight years,” portraying them as an effective governmental declaration of the restoration of the Land of Israel to its people. These moves do not represent an isolated incident; rather, they constitute one stage in an intensifying trajectory that, over the past two years, has fundamentally reshaped the conflict's underlying parameters, generating a transformed reality that necessitates analytical frameworks beyond traditional paradigms.

Since 2023, the uranium enrichment market has undergone its most profound structural transformation since the advent of the civilian nuclear era. After three decades characterised by persistent oversupply and the integration of Russian inventories with Western reactor fleets, the sector, valued at approximately $15.5 billion in 2025, now confronts a fundamentally altered geopolitical landscape. stems primarily from the fact that nearly 95% of global enrichment capacity is controlled by just four entities, placing Western supply chains under complex logistical and political pressures.     Central to this transformation is the evolution of what is known as the Separative Work Unit (SWU) from a readily available commodity into a strategic bottleneck capable of redrawing global energy maps. The market has shifted rapidly from a buyer-dominated structure to one characterised by seller leverage, amid an intensifying race to secure fuel for both conventional reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs), which require advanced uranium grades for which Western markets lack adequate commercial infrastructure.     Accordingly, this analysis explores the contours of the new enrichment landscape, examining the principal actors and evolving pricing dynamics, while projecting the profound implications of this transformation for global energy security.

December 2025 marked a structural shift in the global technological balance of power, as a state-backed Chinese industrial consortium, coordinated by Huawei, approved the operation of a functional prototype of an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography system at a facility in Shenzhen. This announcement dismantles a core assumption that has dominated geopolitical thinking in Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo over the past decade, namely that the extreme engineering complexity of EUV technology would permanently confine China behind a technological barrier, preventing it from advancing beyond the 7-nanometre threshold in leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing.   Western containment strategies were grounded in a firm conviction that the Dutch firm ASML’s monopoly over highly complex supply chains would guarantee the exclusion of the world’s second-largest economy from producing the advanced semiconductors required for artificial intelligence applications. The new Chinese prototype, however, has invalidated this assumption, not by replicating Western engineering paradigms, but by pursuing an alternative physical and engineering pathway, shaped by imperatives of national sovereignty and enabled by effectively unconstrained state capital.   This prototype, based on laser-driven plasma (LDP) technology, demonstrates that Chinese engineering teams have mastered the core physical principles of optical control at 13.5 nanometres. In doing so, they have moved beyond a phase long framed as one of "scientific impossibility", shifting the contest decisively into a new stage defined by engineering scale-up and operational viability. This development signals the end of an era of unipolar technological dominance. It inaugurates a new phase of dual ecosystems within the semiconductor industry. This transformation will require a comprehensive reassessment of the economic and security assumptions that have governed the sector for decades.

“We need it for defence.” With these words, U.S. President Donald Trump sought to frame Greenland as a question of national security. The island’s vast reserves of critical minerals and its strategic position in the Arctic have long made it geopolitically significant, yet Trump’s rhetoric elevated it into a symbol of broader American ambitions. This move prompted a rare joint statement by the leaders of seven NATO member states, who rejected any attempt to annex Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. Coming alongside U.S. actions elsewhere, including the removal of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and threats of intervention in other regions, these developments have fuelled growing concern within NATO that Washington is advancing a new international order driven primarily by its own interests. The prospect of Greenland’s annexation therefore raises serious questions not only about the future of the alliance, but also reveals Europe’s weakened position in the international system and its limited capacity to resist American pressure.

The United States dollar (USD) prominence as the main global reserve currency can be attributed to the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, which created a new international monetary order and directly linked major world currencies to the USD, which was itself pegged to gold at $35 per ounce. The USD quickly emerged as the primary medium of exchange for most commodity trades and international financial transactions as a result of this agreement, which concentrated trust and liquidity around the currency. In 1971, the Nixon Shock occurred when the United States (U.S.) ended direct USD–gold convertibility, weakening the USD. However, the scope and depth of U.S. financial markets and the petrodollar system - which mandated that oil exports be invoiced and paid in USD- made it incontrovertible, giving the U.S. “the exorbitant privilege”, as economist Valéry Giscard d’Estaing described it, of having substantial control over global monetary policy while financing trade and budget deficits.   It’s crucial to weigh this against factors that continue to uphold the USD’s hegemony though. The unmatched stability liquidity and depth of U.S. financial markets continue to attract global investors worldwide, preserving the USD’s position as the favored reserve asset. Since international trade, finance, and investment infrastructures are still heavily USD-centric, it is also challenging for alternative currencies to quickly replace the USD due to the vast global network effect that has been developed over decades. Moreover, the USD’s status as a “safe-haven” asset persists, particularly during periods of global uncertainty, sustaining demand.   Yet, this hegemonic status is now challenged structurally in ways increasingly understood as de-dollarization- that is, the deliberate reduction of the share of the USD in global trade invoicing, reserve holdings, and payment systems. Debates on the durability of U.S. monetary leadership have been ongoing for decades, but a number of forces have turned de-dollarization from an abstract concept into a global trend since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. That crisis exposed systemic vulnerabilities within USD-dependent financial networks, underscoring how U.S. monetary policy and financial shocks can transmit worldwide in destabilizing ways—especially across Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs).   This postwar order is increasingly under structural pressure from geopolitical fragmentation, rising U.S. debt, sanctions overreach, and the emergence of alternative payment systems. These pressures could lead to two different scenarios for the U.S. economy in a post-dollar world: a sudden collapse due to financial instability and inflation, or a gradual decline with persistently higher borrowing costs and the steady erosion of fiscal and geopolitical leverage. The latter is more likely but still represents a structural shift that redefines the balance of global economic power.

This investigative study adopts a rigorous, systematic analytical methodology to examine the true dimensions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wealth, illuminating substantial structural discrepancies between his officially declared income and his accumulated assets. Utilizing evidence-based financial investigation, the research identifies sustained and deliberate efforts to obscure financial transparency, primarily through sophisticated mechanisms such as offshore banking, the purchase of assets via shell or limited liability companies, and the use of aliases. Furthermore, the study deconstructs the institutional networks and patterns of quid pro quo influence that facilitate the continuous recirculation of privileges, economic benefits, and power among elite government officials and leading actors in the Israeli defense industry.   The study underscores the instrumental role of political crises, particularly The War on Gaza, as strategic junctures that enable the executive to maximize discretionary authority and circumvent traditional oversight mechanisms. Empirical findings indicate that Netanyahu directly benefited financially from the war by leveraging his expanded emergency powers to authorize high-value defense contracts outside standard competitive bidding processes. This approach resulted in an unprecedented windfall for defense sector entities closely associated with his inner circle. The war context also facilitated the diversion of public resources to support the interests of this network, ultimately institutionalizing mechanisms for influence-sharing among policymakers and leaders in the military-industrial complex. Consequently, the aggregate value of contracts executed during states of emergency surged dramatically, exemplifying the organic convergence of political and economic power within Netanyahu’s administration. The systematic exploitation of crises thus emerges as a central feature in the amplification of personal wealth and the consolidation of elite privileges within a closed governance structure.