The Grind

Prologue — The Night Everything Changed

In the night of February 27 to 28, 2026, the sky above Tehran lit up with a glow that the city's oldest residents had never seen before. It was not a storm. It was the beginning of a war that, within a matter of weeks, would redraw the geopolitical map of the world.

At 3:17 a.m. local time, the first American-Israeli strikes hit simultaneously — the nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow, ballistic missile bases, command centers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Iranian air defense infrastructure. The operation bore a name that said much about the ambitions of its architects: "Epic Fury."

Within the first hours of the conflict, news would ripple through the corridors of power in Washington and Jerusalem, then spread like wildfire across the globe: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, 86, had been killed.

What no one could foresee that morning was that this strike would not end the conflict — it would transform it into something far larger, far more dangerous, and far harder to stop.

More than a month later, the toll is that of a systemic crisis without precedent since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Strait of Hormuz is under Iranian control. Tolls there are denominated in yuan. Europe faces fuel shortages. NATO is fracturing. And the world watches, powerless, as an international order crumbles — one that may not survive this war.

I — The Roots of an Inevitable War?

To understand how we got here, we must look well beyond February 28. The war engulfing the Middle East today was not born of an isolated incident or a diplomatic misunderstanding. It is the product of four decades of accumulated tensions, broken promises, crossed red lines, and strategic calculations that, through relentless collision, ultimately made conflict inevitable.

The Poisoned Legacy of 1979

It all begins — or rather, it all breaks — in 1979. The Iranian Islamic Revolution overnight transforms one of the pillars of American strategy in the Middle East — the Shah's Iran, the Gulf's gendarme — into Washington's sworn enemy. The hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, lasting 444 days, seals a rupture that will never truly be repaired.

Yet before 1979, Iran and Israel maintained cooperative relations. Iran was Israel's largest oil supplier. Israeli officers trained SAVAK, the Shah's secret police. The revolution swept all of that away. By 1982, Tehran was helping to create Hezbollah in Lebanon, laying the first stones of what would become the "Axis of Resistance" — a proxy network stretching from Beirut to Sanaa.

The Nuclear Doom Loop

Iran's nuclear program became, over the years, the crystallization point of all tensions. Launched in the 1950s under Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program, it survived the revolution, the Iran-Iraq War, and decades of sanctions.

The 2015 deal — the JCPOA — had seemed to offer a way out. In exchange for strict limits on its nuclear program, Iran received sanctions relief. For a time, the IAEA certified Iranian compliance. But in May 2018, Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the agreement and reimposed "maximum pressure."

Iran's response was methodical and progressive: exceeding enrichment limits, accumulating uranium to 60%, restricting IAEA access. By 2024-2025, experts estimated that Tehran possessed enough enriched uranium for several nuclear weapons. The threshold had been crossed.

The Shadow War Goes Open

Meanwhile, the "shadow war" between Israel and Iran had intensified dramatically. Stuxnet in 2010. Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. Mossad's infiltration of Iran's nuclear archives in 2018. Hundreds of Israeli strikes in Syria to prevent Iranian military entrenchment.

In April 2024, Iran crossed a threshold by launching more than 300 drones and missiles directly from its territory against Israel. Israel's response was measured, but the taboo of direct confrontation was broken.

Then came June 2025 and the "Twelve-Day War." Israel launched Operation "Rising Lion" against Iranian nuclear and missile sites. Iran retaliated with ballistic missile strikes on Israeli cities. That conflict, which could have been the final act, was in reality only the intermission.

The Assad Factor

An event often underestimated in analyzing the conflict is the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. For Iran, the loss of Syria is a major strategic disaster. The entire land corridor linking Tehran to Lebanese Hezbollah collapses. Decades of military and diplomatic investment go up in smoke. The "Axis of Resistance" loses its backbone.

This defeat likely convinced part of the Iranian establishment that time was working against them, and that only a radical demonstration of force could reverse the dynamic. In Washington and Jerusalem, the opposite reasoning prevailed: strike before Iran rebuilds its capabilities.

The Failure of Diplomacy

The Iran-USA negotiations of early 2026 never had a real chance of succeeding. Positions were too far apart, mistrust too deep, and the balance of power too skewed. Tehran refused to dismantle its nuclear program without security guarantees. Washington refused to give those guarantees without prior dismantlement.

The impasse was total. And behind the scenes, military planners on both sides were preparing for the post-failure scenario.

II — Operation Epic Fury: Anatomy of a Strike

The Plan

The February 28, 2026 operation was no improvisation. It was the fruit of months, perhaps years, of joint planning between American and Israeli military staffs. Targets had been carefully selected to maximize strategic impact while limiting — at least in theory — the risks of uncontrolled escalation.

The strikes targeted four categories of objectives:

The Execution

The first waves of strikes were carried out by American F-35 and F-22 stealth aircraft, supported by B-2 Spirit bombers dropping 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs specifically designed to penetrate underground installations like Fordow. Israeli forces brought their intimate knowledge of the terrain, acquired through decades of clandestine operations.

Khamenei's death in the opening hours of the conflict was confirmed by Western intelligence within 48 hours. The Supreme Leader, who had ruled Iran since 1989, was the most symbolic and strategic target of the operation. His disappearance created an immediate power vacuum in a country already in shock.

The Initial Toll

Estimates vary considerably depending on the source. Iran's Health Ministry reported 2,076 deaths in the first weeks. U.S. estimates, citing satellite imagery and intelligence, spoke of over 6,000 dead. Nuclear facilities had been severely damaged, but IAEA experts warned: total destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would take months, perhaps years, and nothing guaranteed that Tehran would not attempt to rebuild in secret.

III — Iran's Retaliation: When the Weak Strike the Strong

What American and Israeli planners may have underestimated was Iran's capacity to retaliate in a multidimensional and asymmetric manner. Deprived of conventional air superiority, Tehran activated every lever of its asymmetric warfare doctrine.

Missiles and Drones

Within hours of the first strikes, Iran launched waves of ballistic missiles and drones against Israel and U.S. bases across the region. The numbers speak for themselves: 34 dead and 6,548 wounded in Israel; 15 dead and 348 wounded among U.S. forces. Israeli air defenses — Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow — intercepted the majority of projectiles, but not all. Those that breached the defensive curtain caused considerable damage.

U.S. bases in Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain were also targeted. In Iraq, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) — pro-Iranian militias integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus — deployed inside Iran itself to support Iranian forces, a sign of the depth of the alliance between Tehran and its Iraqi allies.

The Strait of Hormuz: The Ultimate Weapon

But Iran's most devastating retaliation was not military — it was geoeconomic. By taking control of the Strait of Hormuz and instituting tolls denominated in yuan, Tehran struck a direct blow at the heart of the international financial system.

The Strait of Hormuz is no ordinary passage. Approximately 20 to 30% of global oil consumption transits through this 33-kilometer-wide chokepoint. Every day, nearly 21 million barrels of oil pass through it. By controlling this passage, Iran held the world economy hostage.

But it was the choice of the yuan as the toll currency that sent a shockwave through Washington. It was a direct challenge to petrodollar hegemony — the system that, since the 1974 agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia, has required oil to be denominated in dollars, thereby guaranteeing structural demand for the American currency.

Activating the Proxies

The "Axis of Resistance" entered the war in a coordinated fashion:

The Houthis in Yemen resumed their attacks on Red Sea shipping and launched missiles at Israel, reopening a front that was believed to be dormant.

Hezbollah in Lebanon intensified its operations, triggering an escalation that turned into a full-scale Israeli-Lebanese war in 2026 — 1,318 dead to date.

Iranian-backed Iraqi militias multiplied attacks on American positions, forcing Washington to thin out other fronts.

This proxy strategy allows Iran to project power far beyond its borders while maintaining plausible distance from the most sensitive operations.

IV — NATO: The Alliance That No Longer Knows What It Is

Article 5, the Great Absentee

One of the first questions after February 28 was that of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty — the mutual defense clause stipulating that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Article 5 was not invoked. Since no NATO territory was directly attacked, the alliance did not collectively engage.

Secretary General Mark Rutte thanked Trump for coordination, but this half-hearted response said much about the state of the Alliance. NATO, born to counter the Soviet threat, now finds itself facing a conflict that falls outside its traditional area of responsibility, and whose members share neither the analysis nor the objectives.

Europe: Between Moral Opposition and Fragmented Action

European public opinion is massively opposed to the strikes. In Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, majorities condemn the intervention. Protests multiplied across European capitals. But behind this principled opposition, European governments act in a fragmented, even contradictory manner.

France deployed nearly its entire surface fleet — a rare peacetime naval mobilization. The official objective: protect French interests and nationals in the region. But the deployment also sends a strategic message: France intends to shape the course of events, even as it disapproves of how they were initiated.

The United Kingdom, more aligned with Washington, authorized the use of its bases to strike Iranian missile sites. A choice that provoked massive demonstrations in London and heated parliamentary debates.

Spain, which refused to participate, found itself threatened by Trump with having "all trade cut off" — a threat that created a major transatlantic crisis and reminded everyone that the American alliance is not a given.

Greece, in a gesture of regional solidarity, deployed Patriot missiles to protect Bulgaria, assuming its air defense — an example of European cooperation that contrasts with political divisions.

Cyprus: The Breaking Point

A drone struck the British base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, transforming the Mediterranean island into a flashpoint. The European military deployments that followed reignited Greco-Turkish tensions, reminding us that NATO still bears the scars of its internal divisions. Ankara reportedly considered sending F-16s to northern Cyprus — a scenario that, just a few years ago, would have been unthinkable between two Alliance members.

Turkey: The Uncomfortable Ally

Turkey finds itself in a position that diplomats politely describe as "complex." One soldier and two Turkish civilians were killed. Drones were shot down over Erbil, near the U.S. consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan. Ankara balances between its Atlantic obligations, its regional interests, and the Kurdish dynamic that runs through all its relations with its neighbors.

President Erdoğan, master of precarious balance, neither condemned nor openly supported the strikes. This calculated ambiguity reflects Turkey's own position: a country that is neither fully West nor fully East, and intends to profit from both.

Europe's Political Fractures

Far-right parties are divided: some support the intervention on anti-Islamist grounds, others oppose it on national sovereignty and anti-American interference grounds. The Progressive International condemned both the United States and Israel simultaneously.

On the economic front, warnings multiply. Christine Lagarde, president of the ECB, warned that the war had a "material impact" on inflation. Shell's CEO warned that Europe could face fuel shortages as early as April. European markets reacted nervously, with TTF gas prices surging and stock indices plummeting.

V — Arab Countries: Caught Between Hammer and Anvil

The Gulf on the Front Line

The Gulf states find themselves in the most paradoxical situation of their modern history. Beneficiaries of American security for decades, they are now the targets of Iranian retaliation. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) held an emergency meeting, but divisions among members emerged into the open.

The United Arab Emirates paid a heavy toll: 12 dead, 169 wounded. Iranian missiles "hardened support" from Abu Dhabi for the American-Israeli campaign. But this support is not unanimous. An Emirati billionaire publicly defied Trump in a statement that went around the world: "Who gave you the authority to drag our region into war?" This phrase captures the sentiment of many Gulf residents: that of being collateral victims of a war they did not choose.

Qatar saw four of its soldiers killed. QatarEnergy declared force majeure on LNG, and the Ras Laffan Industrial City — one of the world's largest natural gas liquefaction complexes — was attacked. The consequences for the global gas market were immediate.

Kuwait suffered a drone strike on March 1, killing 9 and wounding 109. Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, experienced "rare civil unrest" and its government cracked down on pro-strike celebrations — a sign that Bahrain's predominantly Shia population does not share its Sunni government's position.

Saudi Arabia, finally, occupies an ambiguous position. The Iranian ambassador denied strikes on Saudi oil, but the United States ordered the evacuation of its embassy staff in Riyadh. The kingdom, which signed a rapprochement agreement with Iran in 2023 under Chinese mediation, finds itself caught between its historic alliance with Washington and its desire not to be drawn into a devastating conflict.

Iraq: The Collateral Battlefield

Iraq pays a heavy toll for its geographic and political position. 25 dead, 80 wounded. The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) — the Shia militias that played a crucial role in the fight against ISIS — deployed inside Iran to support Iranian forces. Massive protests erupted near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, echoing the scenes of January 2020 after Soleimani's assassination.

Iraq is the country that best embodies the dilemma of the contemporary Middle East: a weak state, divided in its allegiances, unable to control its own territory, and condemned to suffer the consequences of conflicts played out above its head.

Egypt: An Economy in Peril

President Sisi declared a "state of near-emergency." Suez Canal revenues — vital to the Egyptian economy — are in freefall. Tourism, another economic pillar, is collapsing. Remittances from Egyptian workers in the Gulf are threatened. Egypt, already weakened by years of economic difficulties, sees its situation deteriorate at an alarming pace.

Lebanon and Yemen: The Secondary Fronts

In Lebanon, the Prime Minister vowed not to let the country be "dragged into war." But Israeli strikes on Hezbollah intensified, triggering a war that has already killed 1,318 people. Lebanon, already on the brink of economic and political collapse, absolutely cannot afford another conflict.

In Yemen, the Houthis entered the conflict with missile attacks on Israel and the resumption of attacks on Red Sea shipping. For a country already ravaged by a decade of civil war, this is an additional escalation that will only worsen the humanitarian catastrophe.

VI — Asia: The World Watches, and Calculates

China: Strategic Patience

Beijing observes the conflict with a calculated restraint that says much about its worldview. The official statement from the Foreign Ministry — "The world cannot return to the law of the jungle" — is a classic of Chinese diplomacy: a principled condemnation that commits to nothing concrete.

But behind this facade, China draws considerable strategic advantages from the conflict. According to the Financial Times, "China's leaders hunt for strategic gains from the U.S. quagmire in Iran." And the facts bear them out.

The institution of yuan-denominated tolls at the Strait of Hormuz is a major geoeconomic victory for Beijing. Every ship that pays its toll in yuan strengthens the internationalization of the Chinese currency and weakens the dollar. This is a process that, just a few years ago, would have seemed impossible — and which today unfolds before the world's eyes.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) issued an official statement on the situation, a sign that China intends to mobilize its Eurasian partners around a common position. Meanwhile, Chinese supply chains are disrupted — "stranded footwear and stuffed warehouses," according to trade reports — but Beijing seems willing to accept these short-term costs for long-term strategic gains.

India: The Triple Threat

If China calculates, India suffers. New Delhi is one of the most vulnerable countries to the conflict, and for three reasons.

First, energy. India imports the majority of its oil, and much of it transits through the Strait of Hormuz. The disruption of supplies directly threatens the country's energy security. Washington granted New Delhi a waiver to buy Russian oil — a concession that says much about the priority the United States places on Indian stability.

Second, remittances. Nearly $50 billion in repatriated earnings from Indian workers in the Gulf are at risk. These transfers are vital to the Indian economy and to millions of families.

Third, the diaspora. 9 million Indian workers live in the Middle East. Their safety has become a national priority, and mass evacuations are underway. Images of Indian workers waiting in overheated airports moved the entire country.

Japan and South Korea: The Embarrassed Allies

In Japan, 75% of the public opposes the strikes, according to a Jiji Press poll. 52% oppose the deployment of Self-Defense Forces. In a powerful symbolic gesture, the Israeli embassy refused to receive the anti-war statement from atomic bomb survivors — a refusal that provoked outrage in Japan, where the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains vivid.

In South Korea, the KOSPI triggered circuit breakers. Washington is pressing Seoul to redeploy the THAAD system to the Middle East — a demand that puts the South Korean government in a delicate position, between its allied obligations and public opinion.

Southeast Asia and Australia: The Collateral Effects

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) warns that Asian growth "could slow sharply." Asian LNG prices hit three-year peaks. Sri Lanka implements a four-day workweek to save energy. The Philippines declares an energy emergency. Australia relaxes fuel standards.

Across Asia, the Iranian conflict is felt. It is proof that in a globalized world, no war is truly local.

VII — Russia: The Quiet Winner

Strategic Advantages

If any country can be called a "winner" in this conflict, it is Russia. And it has done so without firing a single shot.

According to a detailed analysis by the Atlantic Council, Moscow draws three major advantages from the war:

First, European energy vulnerability. Low gas storage levels in Europe increase dependence on alternatives — and Russia is one of the few suppliers capable of filling the gap. European commitments to phase out Russian energy are under pressure.

Second, the advantage on the oil market. India and China are importing record volumes of discounted Russian crude. Western sanctions, which were meant to suffocate the Russian economy, are circumvented by Asian demand — demand that the Iranian conflict further reinforces.

Third, and perhaps most importantly: American distraction. According to Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, the conflict is becoming "a Russia-Ukraine proxy war." Every dollar, every missile, every American soldier sent to the Middle East is a resource not available for Ukraine.

The Diplomatic Signal

Remarkably, Russia did not veto any UN resolutions against Iran. This silence is deafening. By not protecting Tehran at the Security Council, Moscow sends a clear message: the Russo-Iranian alliance has its limits, and Russia is not prepared to burn its bridges for a partner that, after all, supplies drones for Ukraine but does not share all its interests.

Paradoxically, the disruption of the Iranian drone supply chain to Russia may be a minor inconvenience for Moscow — an acceptable price given the strategic advantages the conflict provides.

VIII — Energy Markets: The World Holds Its Breath

The Strait of Hormuz, the Ultimate Geopolitical Weapon

Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz is the most significant geoeconomic event since the 1973 oil shock. By instituting yuan-denominated tolls, Tehran is not merely monetizing its control — it is challenging the very foundation of the international financial system.

The petrodollar, the system that has required oil to be denominated in dollars since the 1974 agreements, is the cornerstone of American economic power. It guarantees structural demand for the dollar, allows the United States to finance its deficits at favorable rates, and gives Washington considerable geopolitical leverage.

If other oil producers follow Iran's example — and nothing guarantees they won't — the system could begin to crack. It is an existential risk for the Western economic order.

The Impact on Prices

The consequences for markets are immediate and brutal. Brent crude surges. California gas exceeds $5 per gallon. British energy bills could rise by £160. European TTF gas prices spike, fueling fears of an energy crisis similar to that of 2022.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns of an energy crisis, stagflation, and recession risks. The OECD predicts the conflict will "push U.S. inflation sharply higher." Central banks worldwide face a cornelian dilemma: fight inflation by raising rates, at the risk of worsening recession, or support growth at the risk of letting inflation spiral.

The Cascading Consequences

The impact extends far beyond energy. Civil aviation experiences its greatest disruption since the COVID-19 pandemic. Emirates, British Airways, Lufthansa, Qatar Airways — all suspend or reroute flights. The skies over the Middle East, among the world's busiest, have become a no-fly zone.

Commodities surge. Sulfur, urea, helium — essential products for semiconductors and agriculture — see their prices explode. The World Food Programme (WFP) warns of a potential 2022-style food crisis, which would hit the poorest countries first.

IX — International Law: The World Order in Question

The UN Security Council

Resolution 2817 of the Security Council, demanding that Iran halt its attacks on Gulf states, was adopted with a record number of votes against Tehran. Neither Russia nor China used their veto — an unprecedented fact that testifies to Iran's diplomatic isolation.

But this resolution says nothing about the legality of the initial American-Israeli strikes. And that is where the heart of the debate lies.

The Debate on the Legality of the Strikes

Many international law experts are categorical: the February 28 strikes were illegal.

"Neither preemptive nor legal, U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran have blown up international law," writes a collective of legal scholars in The Conversation. The journal Jurist summarizes the situation in three words: "No Authorization, No Imminence, No Plan."

The Lemkin Institute, specializing in the prevention of genocide and mass crimes, issued a "Red Flag Alert: War of Aggression" — a term that, in the vocabulary of international law, is not trivial.

The debate centers on the concept of "preventive war." International law authorizes self-defense in case of armed attack (Article 51 of the UN Charter) or, according to some interpretations, in case of an imminent threat. But did Iran intend to attack imminently? The evidence presented by Washington and Jerusalem is contested. Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned citing "no imminent threat" — a resignation that fueled the debate over the legality of the intervention.

The U.S. War Powers Act

In the United States, the legal debate is compounded by a constitutional one. Congress has not authorized the use of force against Iran. Two attempts to limit presidential power failed: S.J.Res.104 in the Senate (47-53) and H.Con.Res.38 in the House (212-219). But these close votes testify to a deep division within the American political class.

Ceasefire Diplomacy

Iran received a 15-point ceasefire proposal from the United States, transmitted via Pakistan. Tehran rejected it. The White House claims to be "very close" to achieving its main objectives, but this assertion is contested by many analysts who point out that the initial goals — neutralizing Iran's nuclear program and decapitating the regime — are far from being achieved.

The Global South

The Global South has largely condemned the intervention. "'Imperialist undertones': Global South condemns U.S.-Israeli war with Iran," headlines The Guardian. South African President Ramaphosa called for dialogue. India, Brazil, South Africa — the voices of the Global South grow louder in denouncing what they perceive as a double standard: does international law apply equally to all?

X — Public Opinion: The World Says No

Polls paint an unambiguous picture of global public opinion.

In the United States, between 59% and 75% of the population opposes the war, according to CNN and Reuters/Ipsos polls. This is massive opposition, reminiscent of that which developed during the Iraq War. Even among Iranian-Americans, 49.3% oppose the conflict, according to a survey by NIAC and the Quincy Institute.

In Japan, 75% of respondents oppose the strikes. In Germany, the majority is similarly opposed. The notable exception: in Israel, 82% of the population supports the operation, according to the Israel Democracy Institute — support explained by the existential threat that Iran represents for the Jewish state.

These numbers are not trivial. In democracies, public opinion ultimately weighs on political decisions. And if the war drags on, domestic pressure could become a determining factor.

Epilogue — What World After?

Three Scenarios

Structural Implications

Beyond the scenarios, this conflict potentially marks a historic turning point. Six structural implications are emerging:

1. NATO fragmentation is accelerating. European nations act independently while publicly opposing the war. The Atlantic Alliance emerges weakened from this ordeal.

2. China's strategic advantage is strengthening. American overextension and yuan-denominated Hormuz tolls consolidate Beijing's position in the Sino-American competition.

3. Russia's gain is real. High energy prices and distracted American attention directly benefit Moscow.

4. The weaponization of energy reaches a new level. Iranian control of Hormuz and the de-dollarization of tolls threaten the petrodollar system.

5. The erosion of international law accelerates. The debate over the legality of preventive strikes will redefine international norms for decades to come.

6. Nuclear proliferation risk increases. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt may now pursue their own nuclear capabilities, believing that only atomic deterrence can protect them.

The World of Tomorrow

This conflict may mark the end of an era. The post-World War II international order, already weakened by China's rise, the war in Ukraine, and the gradual withdrawal of the United States from its role as global policeman, suffers a shock whose consequences will be felt for generations.

The rise of the yuan as an energy exchange currency, the fragmentation of the West, and the resurgence of bloc logic sketch the contours of a multipolar and unstable world — a world where rules are no longer written by a single power, but negotiated — or imposed — by several.

This uncertainty may be the most troubling sign of all.