Global conflict continues to escalate (Sophia Capobianco)
By Richard Clark
On February 28, 2026, Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, was assassinated in a joint airstrike operation by the United States and Israel as part of a broader campaign of missile and air attacks on Tehran and other strategic targets in Iran. This act of aggression marks the beginning of a new era in geopolitical warfare in the 21st century.
In hindsight, the military capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January seemed to be a precursor to this sort of abrupt military action, signaling a greater willingness to directly remove leaders deemed hostile by the United States. The message this sends to the world is clear: the U.S. military is willing to act outside of long-standing norms in international law to fulfill its strategic interests and the interests of its allies.
Immediate action was taken by Iran following this attack. According to reporting by the New York Times, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared the killing of Khamenei “an act of war.” The Iranian military retaliated to this attack by launching waves of drones and ballistic missiles at Gulf states hosting U.S. air bases, including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain. In the immediate aftermath of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death, sources within the area, including the Middle East Institute and Iran International, reported that Iran’s leadership had entered a period of internal uncertainty. This uncertainty resolved after Iran’s Assembly of Experts held an election from March 3 to 8, and on March 9 announced Mojtaba Khamenei, the 56-year-old son of the assassinated Supreme Leader, as the Islamic Republic’s third supreme leader. It should be noted that there is current speculation on Mojtaba’s safety as, according to reporting by Al Jazeera, he has not appeared in public since being named supreme leader and his inaugural message was read on state media without his face or voice.
Broader regional disruption is sure to come to the Middle East in the coming months. CNBC reports that the Strait of Hormuz, which according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration carries roughly 20 to 25 percent of the world’s crude oil trade, has been closed by the government of Iran, and, per military orders, any vessel traveling through it will be shot down. This blockage has already affected oil prices globally. According to reporting by Bloomberg, the price of crude oil has risen above $100 for the first time in four years as gas prices increase worldwide.
President Trump has asked allied countries to help ships pass through Iran’s defenses. In an interview with the financial times the President stated that, “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,”… “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.” At this time, no ally countries have provided this assistance to the US.
In terms of long-term geopolitical changes, there are a few takeaways that can be reasonably speculated on. This escalation is likely to harden rival blocs, with the United States on one side and powers like Russia and China on the other, as neutral countries are pushed to pick sides. The economic decline of multinational hubs in the Middle East, such as Dubai, is also likely after this attack. According to the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, around 85 to 90 percent of Dubai’s population are foreign nationals. They will likely flee if the UAE remains under attack. Militarily, the biggest of these changes may be the renewed proliferation of nuclear arms among countries that see themselves as enemies of the United States.
The United States has shown that it is fully prepared to take unprompted or preventive military action against non-nuclear countries like Iran and Venezuela, and it is likely this will cause states that are worried about their sovereignty to conclude that nuclear weapons are necessary to avoid Western coercion or regime change. Look at North Korea, which has maintained its global independence as an ideologically socialist totalitarian state that actively opposes the West. This independence from Western interference can be attributed to its stock of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, which it tests routinely in defiance of international pressure and sanctions.
It is important to note that Iran has signed multiple treaties agreeing not to develop weapons of mass destruction, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (it should be noted the CTBT treaty was not ratified in the United States despite 187 countries agreeing to it). Following the attacks on Iran and Venezuela, the message is clear: there are nuclear-armed countries (the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, Israel, and North Korea) that possess real sovereignty in the sense that they are largely insulated from direct regime-change attacks, and then there are lesser states that do not.
Global powers have begun to weigh in as the sides of this conflict begin to take shape. At the time of reporting, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, in a Joint E3 Leaders’ Statement released on March 1, 2026, have already committed to “take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action.” Conversely, Russia and China have issued strong condemnations of the attack, with President Vladimir Putin calling the killing of Khamenei “a cynical violation of all norms of human morality and international law,” according to statements released through Russian state channels.
It is no exaggeration to say we are closer to a direct great-power confrontation than at any time since the Cold War. The war in Ukraine has only become more deadly; a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that total casualties on both sides have exceeded one million people. At the same time, China has, more than ever, been given geopolitical justification—at least in its own narrative—to consider seizing Taiwan and tightening control over Hong Kong, as international conflict with the West increases and Beijing frames national security as ever more dire.
The danger to civilian life in these war zones is extreme, and the precedent of ruthless attacks on civilians has already been set by the United States and Israel in various campaigns across the Middle East. Iran is not innocent in this respect either, as the BBC reports civilian infrastructure being targeted in the retaliation attacks in the Gulf. For a sense of scale when analyzing the potential for violence in these places, it’s important to look back at the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Research from Brown University’s Costs of War project suggests that over 400,000 civilians were killed in these wars, alongside millions more indirect deaths from the broader effects of the conflict. This war with Iran is set to be potentially magnitudes larger and has the capacity, if it spirals into regional or global war, to lead to the deaths of millions, combatants and non-combatants alike. This danger to civilian life and infrastructure has already been seen in the U.S missile strike in Minab, which targeted a girl’s elementary school killing more than 160 people. According to an Amnesty International report from March 8, most of those killed were schoolgirls. Also, in a report from March 11, the World Health Organization reported that at least 18 hospitals and health facilities have been struck since the start of the conflict. Civilian infrastructure in the Gulf states is also susceptible to this danger as, according to reporting by Reuters on March 16, Dubai International Airport was forced to temporarily suspend flights following a drone incident that sparked a nearby fire.
From Washington’s perspective, the security of Israel and key regional partners is central to this conflict. The fact that this was a joint operation with Israel is sure to affect the geopolitical consequences of this event. Israel has repeatedly shown a blatant disregard for civilian life in its offensive measures related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has dramatically affected the country’s global reputation. Israel’s conduct in this conflict has been documented in numerous human rights reports and casualty counts over the years. Reports by the United Nations and Amnesty International describe patterns of large-scale bombardment of densely populated areas, systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, and repeated strikes on schools, hospitals, refugee camps, and aid convoys, even when these sites were clearly marked, or their coordinates had been shared in advance.
Some prominent legal scholars and UN experts, such as those in the “Gaza Genocide: A Collective Crime” report released by the UN in October 2025, argue that the scale, intensity, and discriminatory nature of these attacks meet the criteria for crimes against humanity and may constitute genocide against the Palestinian people, particularly considering dehumanizing rhetoric, forced displacement, and the deliberate creation of conditions incompatible with civilian life. The same governments now insisting that their actions in Iran are about “defending democracy” and “regional stability” are deeply entangled in enabling and arming a state whose military conduct has become a global symbol of impunity, collective punishment, and the erosion of the most basic norms meant to protect non-combatants in war. This is likely to permeate the narrative around this conflict as things progress and will likely be used to galvanize indifferent countries against the United States in this war.
It is important to keep in mind that American citizens occupy an important role in America’s military machine. The acceptance of these actions by the American people largely determines the military’s ability to continue them. These attacks were committed without the direct consent of Congress and without any meaningful democratic consent from the American people, who had no opportunity to debate or vote on this escalation in advance. Though it may be too late to avoid escalation entirely, it is important to realize that the American people may still have the power to shape this conflict away from total war if enough people stand against it, demand accountability, and refuse to normalize this behavior from their government.
