Shadow Leverage Issue 2: The Ballistic Missile and Drone Dilemma

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 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.

The contemporary global economy is anchored in a tightly integrated digital and physical infrastructure, in which the continuity of international markets depends on an extensive network of submarine fibre-optic cables spanning approximately 1.3 million kilometres. This strategic architecture carries between 95 and 99% of intercontinental digital communications and constitutes the foundational layer for the settlement of daily financial transactions valued at roughly 10 trillion dollars. For decades, geopolitical analysis has prioritised the security of surface maritime corridors to safeguard the uninterrupted flow of conventional energy resources. Yet evolving realities indicate a decisive shift. The durability of the global economic system now hinges just as critically on protecting these submerged networks, which have emerged as indispensable arteries of global connectivity and financial stability.   This reality is especially visible in the Middle East, particularly across the Arabian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea, where the geographic corridors that govern trade flows and energy supply chains overlap with the main routes of global data transmission. The Strait of Hormuz, which is only 21 nautical miles wide, sits at the centre of this convergence. Around 21 million barrels of crude oil and one-third of global liquefied natural gas supplies pass through it each day. At the same time, 17 submarine cable systems run across its seabed, carrying nearly 30% of total international internet traffic. This intense concentration of physical and digital infrastructure within a narrow geographic space creates a severe security vulnerability. It exposes the global economy to systemic risks tied directly to regional instability.   These structural risks moved from theoretical assessment to operational reality with the outbreak of direct military confrontation in early 2026 between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, in what became known as Operation Epic Fury. These developments marked a fundamental shift in Iranian military doctrine. Faced with growing limits on its ability to disrupt surface energy flows through conventional means, Iran increasingly turned toward asymmetric threats. This shift is reflected in a move away from the traditional threat of closing maritime chokepoints to the deliberate targeting of submarine internet cable networks, using their disruption as a tool of deterrence and geopolitical pressure. It represents a calculated effort to exploit the physical vulnerabilities of civilian infrastructure to offset conventional power imbalances. In doing so, it introduces risks that extend well beyond the regional theatre and directly affect the foundations of the digital economy, in an era increasingly shaped by hybrid warfare and the militarisation of the maritime domain.   This emerging pattern of threat also creates what can be classified academically as a dual and simultaneous crisis. In such a scenario, the systematic disruption of submarine cables would paralyse global energy supply chains while simultaneously causing severe degradation across the digital infrastructure of the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe.   The immediate consequences would extend far beyond the loss of communications services for individuals. They would include major disruptions to electronic clearing systems that underpin sovereign wealth fund investments, as well as the paralysis of digital command-and-control centres operated by state-owned energy conglomerates. Such targeting would also disrupt military command-and-control networks and sever the communication channels needed to manage maritime navigation and to reroute vessels during crises. It would further undermine the artificial intelligence and cloud computing infrastructure on which many states in the region rely for their economic diversification strategies.   The plausibility of these threats is reinforced by recent material precedents that have exposed the infrastructure's real vulnerabilities. Most notable was the damage inflicted on Red Sea cable systems following the sinking of the Rubymar in 2024, followed by multiple line disruptions in the same region in September 2025. Together, these incidents underscore the fragility of these networks in the face of both accidental disruptions and deliberate acts of sabotage.   Building on these complex strategic and economic dynamics, this paper examines the implications of a large-scale attack targeting submarine communications infrastructure in the Arabian Gulf. It does so through a detailed assessment of the technical and military capabilities available to Iran to carry out physical sabotage operations beneath the seabed, alongside an analysis of the strategic motives driving this form of asymmetric escalation. By integrating recent historical precedents with updated data on regional and international levels of digital dependence, the paper seeks to assess the scale of the losses likely to result should such a scenario materialise.

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?

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump issued sharp criticism of Europe, and while migration policies were not his only focus, his remarks on the topic were particularly striking. His criticism came shortly after he announced a policy to “permanently pause migration from what he called ‘third world countries’” following a National Guard shooting in Washington, highlighting his framing of migration as both a domestic security and international issue. The latest U.S. National Security Strategy under the Trump administration closely links European security to its migration policies, warning of what it describes as "civilisational erasure" from uncontrolled immigration and EU policies, and calling on Europe to enforce stricter border controls, support "patriotic" parties, and become more self-reliant. This approach is widely seen as critical of mainstream European leadership and supportive of far-right movements.   At the same time, far-right sentiment is gaining traction across Europe, visible in the electoral successes of parties such as France's National Rally, Italy's Lega, and Germany's Alternative for Germany. While public discourse often frames migration as a threat to security and civilisation, Western countries overlook a crucial point, which is that migration can be a dividend, contributing to economic growth. With populations ageing faster than the global average and shortages of labour in highly skilled professions, the West is increasingly dependent on migrants. The question is what might happen if far-right agendas succeed in curbing migration, and whether Western economies and security could sustain themselves without it.