At this point, half of the articles in The High concern an orange-haired, deranged man. Oh well. Let’s talk about him anyway.
On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a series of missile strikes aimed at Tehran, more precisely at one man: the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
The operation, named by Washington as “Operation Epic Fury,” marked an American political phase characterised by uncertainty and violence. According to numerous reports, hundreds of strikes were aimed at military infrastructure, missile sites, air-defense systems, and important members of Iranian politics and the military.
As expected, such an attack expanded into a regional conflict, involving missiles, drones, the energy market, and reviving a long-lasting conflict in the Middle East.
The roots of the conflict go back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when a monarchist, pro-Western Iran transformed into a theocratic Islamic republic openly hostile to the US and Israel, as shown by the 1979 American embassy hostage crisis and Iranian support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. For decades, tensions rose around Iranian support for terrorist groups attacking Israel, its ballistic missile development, and its nuclear program.
The exhaustion of diplomatic efforts between Washington and Jerusalem to stop Tehran’s nuclear development is this conflict’s trigger. Both nations see a genuine threat in Iran as a nation with significant arms development. They argue that this conflict is a measure to prevent a bigger escalation in the near future, but Operation Absolute also had similar reasoning behind it.
In a short amount of time, the Americans were able to complete their key objectives: crippling the Iranian nuclear infrastructure and stopping the development of nuclear weapons. Moreover, they were able to “stabilise” the Middle East by saturating the Iranian regime, therefore limiting its support and influence across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, among others (therefore expanding their own influence). Lastly, Washington was able to kill numerous Iranian leaders, including the Supreme Leader. While this is clearly a blow to the regime, will it be enough to topple it?
Moving to Israel, we see a picture of a nation that bet big on this conflict. For Israel, Iran is the most dangerous strategic enemy due to its missile arsenal, nuclear program, and extensive support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah. For Israel, weakening Iran will reduce the support given to these militant groups, therefore taking away pressure from its military operations in Southern Lebanon and Palestine. Additionally, Jerusalem believed that hitting Iran hard now would limit its military power, thus making it a lesser threat in the region for the Jewish state. Lastly, Israel planned to revive the protests experienced between late 2025 and early 2026, therefore limiting the regime’s control over its own population and discouraging international interventions.
Many analysts expected the Ayatollahs’ regime to crumble following the assassination of various senior leaders. As of June 2026, this is clearly not the case.
The Iranian political system was directly built to withstand losses in leadership and attacks. The regime has a clear succession line, protecting the Revolutionary Guard, religious institutions, intelligence agencies, and political networks. Even though it is true that the regime has faced a major challenge and is certainly weakened, this will not force it to crumble.
Additionally, Iran has always promoted unity and nationalistic views. Even the protesters who opposed the regime before saw external intervention as an attack on their country. Throughout history, external threats to Iran have united the country under one objective: protecting its country, not dividing it, and this conflict does not challenge that trend.
Iran is a country surrounded by seas, mountains, and deserts, expanding over 1.6 million km². This ruled out any land invasion by Israel or the USA. Until now, Iran has been defending itself using missiles and drone strikes against Israel and American allies in the region, causing great distress to the global energy market. Moreover, it managed to close the Strait of Hormuz, further pressuring the energy market and forcing America into negotiating its reopening. Lastly, to ensure domestic unity and stability, it has maintained strong censorship and internet control, preventing any American-promoted uprising.
In this war, it is hard to determine a clear “winner” or “loser.” The USA believes it is the biggest winner, as it was able to hit Iran’s regime hard, cripple its army, and force it into negotiating its nuclear development. Iran says it is the winner, as it adequately defended itself from American attacks, blocked 80% of the energy market from functioning (even turning this into a major revenue stream), and did not instantly fall under American conditions.
Perhaps the closest thing to a winner here is Israel. It was able to cripple its biggest enemy’s army, expand deeper into Southern Lebanon, weaken the militant groups it is confronting, and increase its sphere of influence over the Middle East, with a weakened Iran losing power over, for example, Lebanon and Syria. However, it is not negligible that PM Netanyahu has faced severe external and internal criticism for starting an “unnecessary” conflict that has taken 20 Israeli lives, destroyed numerous households, and cost large amounts of money (principally to intercept Iranian missiles).
Even though there is no clear “winner,” it is simple to conclude that civilians were the main “losers” in this conflict. Numbers as high as 6,000 Iranians died during this short period of time. Moreover, the destruction of Iranian oil plants and nuclear infrastructure is very likely to create an energy shortage in the near future. Lastly, large numbers of Iranian houses, bridges, hospitals, and other infrastructure have been destroyed, thus creating significant public unrest.
As mentioned before, the economic consequences of closing the Strait of Hormuz are massive. Amid this oil shortage, prices are rising, making transportation more expensive and slowing the global economy. This hits LEDCs hardest; for instance, India, which has been forced to revert to biofuels to sustain its massive economy. Additionally, Middle Eastern investments have been hit hard, as uncertainty slows deals, decreases foreign investment, and creates financial instability that shakes countries’ economies.
The only positive outcome from this war might seem to be for the environment, as the world is “forced” to reduce its oil consumption. However, the reality is that the world cannot sustain 8 billion humans without relying on oil, resulting either in a rise in poverty (and deaths) or in the use of fuels that are even more harmful to the environment.
Another issue is the Iranian economy, already weakened by decades of sanctions and isolation. On top of that, the current missile strikes and infrastructural damage are predicted to further hinder the Iranian economy. Analysts predict that a prolonged war against the West will damage the Iranian economy significantly, ruling out the possibility of a prolonged conflict. However, Iran has found a new revenue stream through tolling the Strait of Hormuz; therefore, the future of this war is really uncertain and will greatly depend on Iran’s willingness to continue.
As of June 2026, a fragile ceasefire exists, although it is mostly a decision intended to maintain global image and restore Trump’s political image in the US. In reality, the US has stopped all its heavy attacks, but Israel is still attacking Southern Lebanon, and Iran is issuing ultimatum after ultimatum. Negotiations revolve around nuclear development and the reopening of Hormuz; however, both are red lines for Iran and the USA, therefore slowing any agreement.
Right now, it is hard to predict what will happen. Iran could retaliate massively against Israel, although this is the least likely scenario. The US could impose further sanctions on Iran, completely strangling its economy, but the Islamic country is already bypassing sanctions by trading with Russia and China. What will most likely happen is that both wear out fighting and decide to create a “ceasefire,” which will effectively act like a peace treaty. In that scenario, all the countries will renounce all their petitions and agree to settle back to pre-war decisions.
For many, this sounds like a waste of time, money, lives, and material, but can you name a war for which this is not the case?
In conclusion, Iran is “surprisingly” resisting a joint attack by the USA and Israel by taking an asymmetrical war approach, and having a regime much more solid than thought previously.
The USA came to destroy Iran militarily. In a way, they’re achieving this, as great numbers of military infrastructures and units have been destroyed; but the main threat(nuclear weapons) is still, well, a threat, despite Iran facing great setbacks due to the destruction of said infrastructure.
Israel is gaining more influence over the Middle East, and has accomplished one of its most important objectives: alleviating pressures from their fronts by limiting the support given to Hezbollah and Hamas.
The global economy suffers(but in a way that was already the case before), and so do the people(but even before the war, ~30,000 were executed in one month), so we can classify the situation as really bad(but it’s perhaps not the worst thing that the Big Donald has done).