By Mahder Nesibu

On Saturday, February 28, the United States, acting in close coordination with Israel, launched a series of military strikes against Iran, marking a dramatic escalation of a conflict that had been building for years. What began as a final, failed attempt at diplomatic negotiation has now become an open war between the U.S. and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. Sustained escalations are feared to be drawing in powers from across the Middle East and beyond, and threatening to destabilise an already fragile international order.

The conflict is, on its surface, a confrontation between two states. But its roots, its ripple effects, and its potential consequences extend far beyond the Persian Gulf. It is a war about nuclear ambitions, about regional dominance, about the future of the American-led order, and about who gets to shape the Middle East in the decades ahead.

How It Started: The Collapse of Diplomacy

The immediate trigger was the dissatisfaction of Washington in its negotiations with Tehran. By the account of U.S. officials, the talks, already described in muted terms as ill-fated, ultimately produced nothing. The concessions Washington sought from Iran proved unavailable, and the Trump administration, apparently concluding that diplomacy had run its course, moved to a military option. Iranians claimed that the U.S. “bombed the negotiating table,” suggesting that talks were in a better shape than portrayed.

The outcome, in retrospect, carried a certain inevitability. The history of U.S.-Iran negotiations is a long and troubled one. The most notable milestone, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saw Iran agree to limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, with the European Union, China, Russia, and the United States all party to the deal. But that agreement was unilaterally abandoned by President Trump during his first term, sending the two countries back toward confrontation. Years of subsequent efforts to revive the deal or broker a new arrangement have yielded little, and in Washington’s view, Tehran's nuclear programme has continued to advance.

For Israel, which has long argued for a military rather than diplomatic approach to Iran, the strikes represented a long-sought strategic objective. Israeli forces have been central to the campaign, striking Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure and, according to reports, systematically targeting Iran's senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been killed during the first wave of attacks just after eruption on February 28. The Israeli government has framed the campaign as an existential necessity.

The War's Goals: Regime Change

Publicly, Washington and Tel Aviv have failed to pinpoint what their exact desired outcome is.  But the apparent aim, to fundamentally alter the character of the Islamic Republic, to install leadership more amenable to Western and Israeli interests, and to permanently eliminate Iran's nuclear potential, amounts to regime change. President Trump has estimated the campaign will last approximately four to five weeks, a timeline that many analysts view with considerable scepticism given Iran's size, resilience, and the depth of its military capabilities.

Iran, for its part, has responded with its vast arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones, directed primarily at U.S. military bases and installations across the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Those strikes have been damaging, and they have also had unintended consequences: several Gulf states, including the UAE, have reported that Iranian munitions struck other targets, with some of those targets being civilian rather than American military facilities. The fallout has further complicated Iran's already strained relationships with many of its Gulf neighbours.

A Region Transformed: The Geopolitical Stakes

To understand why this conflict matters far beyond the immediate battlefield, it is necessary to understand the regional and global architecture that surrounds it.

Iran has spent decades building what is popularly called the Axis of Resistance, a network of allied state and non-state actors stretching from Lebanon to Yemen and beyond. Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese militant group, is said to have been its crown jewel. The Houthis in Yemen were among its most active partners. Syria under Bashar al-Assad was a key partner. Over the past two years, Israel has waged a sustained campaign to damage this alliance, and it has had significant success. Hezbollah has been badly degraded, Assad's government collapsed, and the Houthis have faced intense military pressure. The direct confrontation with Iran is, in many ways, a continuation of that campaign, according to analysts.

For the Gulf states, the picture is more complicated. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have spent years managing a tense but functional coexistence with Tehran, preferring diplomatic engagement over open conflict. Iran's strikes on Gulf territory have put that posture under severe strain, and both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi now face difficult choices about how far to align themselves with Washington in a conflict that is bringing the war to their doorsteps.

Qatar occupies an even more delicate position. Doha has historically maintained relatively warm ties with Tehran, and it hosts the largest U.S. air base in the region. Navigating that contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult.

The Great Power Dimension

No account of this conflict is complete without examining the broader great power context. Iran occupies an active position in the international system, maintaining close economic and military ties with both Russia and China, ties that have deepened considerably since the West's confrontation with Moscow over Ukraine. Russian and Chinese officials have thus far largely confined themselves to diplomatic signalling. However, both countries retain strong incentives to resist any outcome that leaves Tehran weakened or the Islamic Republic displaced.

For China in particular, which imports a significant share of its oil from Iran and has cultivated the relationship as part of its broader strategy of building alternatives to U.S.-dominated trade and security networks, a decisive American victory in Iran would be a significant geopolitical setback. Whether that calculation eventually draws Beijing into more active involvement, through diplomatic channels or arms supply, remains one of the central uncertainties of the conflict.

Russia, meanwhile, is watching closely. A United States that is simultaneously managing a war in the Middle East while maintaining pressure on Moscow over Ukraine is a United States that is stretched, and that dynamic, from the Kremlin's perspective, may have its own strategic value.

The Economic Shock: Oil, Gas, and the Strait of Hormuz

The economic consequences of the conflict are already being felt globally. Oil and natural gas prices have surged sharply as markets price in the disruption to Persian Gulf shipping. At the heart of those concerns is the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil supply flows. Iran has the capability to significantly disrupt or even temporarily close the strait, and the mere possibility of that scenario is enough to rattle global energy markets.

A prolonged conflict or blockade could drive energy prices to levels that would impose serious economic costs on Europe, Asia, and the developing world. Countries in the Global South that are already contending with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the inflationary shock of the Ukraine war, and the effects of climate change would face yet another destabilising blow.

The human costs, especially in Iran itself, are likely to be severe if the conflict continues at its current intensity.

Can Diplomacy Still Play a Role?

Against this backdrop, the question of whether international institutions can make a difference is both urgent and difficult to answer with confidence. The United Nations Security Council is, as always, constrained by the veto powers of its permanent members. With the U.S., positioned as a barrier to any decision that affects its military campaign, the Council's ability to act formally is limited. But the UN system may try and apply some sort of pressure on warring parties, though this option is more far-fetched than pragmatic. The U.S. lawmakers already signaled approval for Trump’s Iran attacks.

The fundamental challenge is that both sides, at least for now, appear to believe that their objectives can be achieved militarily. Washington and Tel Aviv have set ambitious war aims. Tehran, for all the damage it has absorbed, retains significant capacity to inflict damage and shows little sign of capitulating. In that environment, diplomatic efforts face stiff headwinds, yet they remain, perhaps, the only path to preventing a regional war from becoming something far worse.

Conclusion: An Uncertain Moment

The war between the United States, Israel, and Iran is far more than a bilateral confrontation. It is a test of the post-Cold War international order, of America's willingness and ability to use military force to reshape the Middle East, and of whether the institutional frameworks built to manage great power conflict can function under conditions of acute stress.

What happens in the coming weeks will matter for the people of Iran and the region, and for the broader architecture of international security.