The outbreak of large-scale hostilities between the United States, Israel, and Iran in late February 2026 has triggered one of the most serious security crises in the Middle East in decades. What began as coordinated air strikes against Iranian military and nuclear-related targets rapidly escalated into a multi-domain conflict involving missile warfare, maritime incidents, regional proxy mobilisation, and diplomatic confrontation across several theatres. The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the opening phase of the campaign dramatically transformed the political and strategic nature of the conflict. Rather than producing immediate political collapse in Tehran, the strike intensified domestic mobilisation inside Iran and hardened the resolve of Iranian military institutions. Within days, the confrontation had expanded beyond the immediate battlefield, affecting Gulf states hosting U.S. bases, drawing in regional proxy networks, and triggering responses from global actors including China and leading religious authorities in the Muslim world.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the crisis, examining the origins of the conflict, the strategic objectives of the main actors, the military dynamics shaping the battlefield, the competing narratives emerging from both sides, and the broader regional implications of a war that now threatens to reshape the Middle Eastern security environment.

The escalation began on 28 February 2026 when the United States and Israel launched a coordinated campaign of strikes across Iran under the operational framework known as Operation Epic Fury. The attacks targeted a wide range of sites including missile storage facilities, military bases, command centres, intelligence institutions, and infrastructure associated with Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iranian sources reported strikes against facilities linked to the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Intelligence, and the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, as well as military complexes such as Parchin. The strikes occurred despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. Mediators had indicated that negotiations had made notable progress, including proposals for strict monitoring and limitations on enriched uranium stockpiles. Washington justified the attacks through a combination of strategic arguments. American officials claimed the operation was intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, dismantle ballistic missile infrastructure, and weaken Iran’s support network for regional militant groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. At the same time, statements from both American and Israeli leaders suggested broader political ambitions, including the possibility of regime change in Tehran. The killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the opening strikes dramatically escalated the confrontation. The assassination transformed the military campaign into a political conflict centred on the survival of Iran’s governing system and triggered widespread mobilisation across Iranian society.

The United States and Israel appear to be pursuing several interconnected strategic objectives. The most immediate aim is the degradation of Iran’s military capabilities, particularly its ballistic missile programme, drone infrastructure, and naval assets in the Persian Gulf. These systems represent the core of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence strategy and are critical to its ability to threaten both Israel and U.S. military installations across the region. A second objective involves weakening Iran’s regional influence by disrupting its network of allied armed groups. Iran has spent decades cultivating proxy forces across the Middle East, and the destruction of command structures or supply routes could significantly affect Tehran’s ability to project power beyond its borders.

A third and more politically sensitive objective relates to regime stability inside Iran. Statements encouraging the Iranian population to challenge the existing government suggest that some policymakers view internal political change as a potential outcome of the campaign.

Iran’s strategic objectives differ significantly from those of its adversaries. Tehran appears primarily focused on demonstrating resilience and imposing costs on its opponents rather than achieving decisive military victory. Iranian leaders have framed the conflict as an act of aggression against Iranian sovereignty and emphasised the defence of national independence. Iran’s broader strategy is built around asymmetric warfare. Rather than attempting to match the technological superiority of American and Israeli forces directly, Tehran relies on ballistic missiles, drones, proxy forces, and maritime pressure to create multiple fronts of confrontation and complicate the strategic calculations of its adversaries. By sustaining attacks on regional bases and infrastructure, Iran aims to increase the economic and political costs of the war, particularly for the United States and its Gulf partners.

The conflict has been dominated by a sustained air campaign conducted primarily by the United States and Israel. Fighter aircraft and long-range strike platforms have carried out repeated waves of attacks against Iranian military infrastructure across multiple cities including Tehran, Isfahan, Karaj, and Qom.

These strikes have targeted command centres, missile launchers, radar installations, and facilities associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. By striking internal security structures such as the Basij and intelligence headquarters, the campaign appears designed not only to degrade military capabilities but also to weaken the regime’s internal control mechanisms.

From a military perspective, the air campaign reflects the technological advantages of the United States and Israel in precision-guided munitions, intelligence surveillance systems, and long-range strike capabilities. However, the geographical size of Iran and the dispersion of many military facilities complicate efforts to achieve rapid strategic results.

Iran’s primary response has centred on ballistic missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and U.S. assets across the region. Within the first days of the conflict, Iranian forces launched large numbers of ballistic missiles toward Israeli territory, triggering extensive use of Israel’s multi-layered air defence system.

Israel relies on a combination of defensive systems including Iron Dome for short-range rockets, David’s Sling for medium-range threats, and Arrow systems designed to intercept ballistic missiles. While these systems have successfully intercepted many incoming projectiles, sustained missile barrages pose a significant logistical challenge. Each interception requires expensive interceptor missiles, and prolonged attacks risk depleting available stocks. Iran’s missile capabilities therefore represent a central component of its strategy. Even if many missiles are intercepted, the cumulative pressure on Israeli air defences and civilian infrastructure creates both military and psychological effects.

Drone Warfare and Asymmetric Capabilities

Iran has also relied heavily on drone warfare, particularly through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy. Suicide drones have been used to target U.S. bases and military facilities across the Persian Gulf. These systems are relatively inexpensive compared to advanced missile systems and allow Iran to conduct persistent attacks with limited financial cost. The use of drones reflects a broader trend in modern warfare in which relatively low-cost unmanned systems can challenge sophisticated military platforms. By deploying large numbers of drones simultaneously, Iranian forces aim to saturate defensive systems and increase the probability of successful strikes.

The maritime domain represents another critical front in the conflict. Iranian naval units have reportedly targeted American naval assets and commercial shipping routes. The strategic significance of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz makes this dimension particularly important. Roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption to maritime traffic in this region could have immediate consequences for global energy markets. By threatening shipping lanes and naval vessels, Iran is able to exert pressure not only on its immediate adversaries but also on the wider international community.

Another significant military dimension involves the potential mobilisation of Iran-aligned armed groups across the region. Militias in Iraq have already threatened attacks on American forces stationed in the country. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi forces in Yemen represent additional potential theatres of escalation.

The activation of proxy forces would transform the conflict into a multi-front confrontation, forcing the United States and Israel to divide their attention across several geographic areas simultaneously.

Domestic Mobilisation and Strategic Narratives

Inside Iran, the conflict has been accompanied by large-scale public mobilisation. Nationwide vigils and mourning ceremonies following the death of Ayatollah Khamenei have been portrayed as evidence of national unity and resistance. Iranian officials have consistently framed the conflict as an act of aggression carried out by foreign powers seeking to impose political change on the country. Reports suggesting possible negotiations between Iranian officials and American intelligence services have been dismissed as psychological warfare. Iranian leaders have also issued strong warnings regarding potential escalation. Statements from Iranian military officials indicated that any attack on Iranian diplomatic missions abroad could trigger retaliation against Israeli embassies worldwide. Such declarations signal that Tehran is prepared to widen the conflict if it perceives further escalation.

The conflict has generated widespread concern among regional governments. Gulf states hosting American military bases have found themselves caught between their security partnerships with Washington and their desire to avoid direct confrontation with Iran. Missile strikes affecting cities in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait have demonstrated the vulnerability of critical infrastructure in the region. These incidents have raised fears about the security of energy facilities, desalination plants, and commercial hubs that underpin the economic stability of the Gulf. Global actors have also reacted to the escalation. China has called for respect for Iran’s sovereignty and urged all parties to cease military operations and return to diplomatic negotiations. Statements from religious authorities, including the office of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have warned that unilateral military action aimed at regime change could create a dangerous precedent in international relations. Within the United States, the conflict has also sparked debate regarding the legal authority of the president to initiate military action without formal congressional approval.

The long-term sustainability of the conflict remains uncertain. The United States possesses extensive military resources and the ability to maintain prolonged air and naval operations. However, political constraints and the risk of regional escalation could limit Washington’s willingness to sustain an open-ended campaign. Israel faces additional challenges. Although public support for the war remains strong, prolonged mobilisation of reservists and the high cost of missile defence systems could place significant strain on the country’s economy and military resources.

Iran, by contrast, is relying on a strategy designed to prolong the conflict and increase the costs for its adversaries. By combining missile attacks, drone warfare, proxy mobilisation, and maritime pressure, Tehran aims to demonstrate that it can sustain resistance despite facing technologically superior opponents.

The confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran has evolved into a complex and multi-layered conflict with far-reaching implications for the Middle East and the wider international system. The war now extends across several domains including air, missile, maritime, and proxy warfare. While the United States and Israel possess overwhelming technological and military advantages, Iran’s asymmetric strategy enables it to impose significant costs and prolong the confrontation. The involvement of regional actors and the vulnerability of global energy routes further increase the risks associated with continued escalation.

The conflict has therefore reached a critical stage in which military operations, political calculations, and diplomatic pressures intersect. Whether the war evolves into a prolonged regional confrontation or moves toward negotiated de-escalation will depend on the strategic decisions of the main actors in the coming weeks.

This report provides a strategic and military assessment of the emerging U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict. It evaluates the operational developments, competing narratives, and regional implications of the war, highlighting the risks of escalation and the broader impact on Middle Eastern security and global stability.

The U.S.–Israel–Iran War: Strategic and Military Dynamics


On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes across Iran, marking the most significant escalation between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. What began as a declared Israeli “pre-emptive strike” rapidly evolved into a full-scale American military campaign after President Donald Trump confirmed that “major combat operations” were underway. The operation targeted Iranian missile infrastructure, Revolutionary Guard facilities, naval assets and sites allegedly linked to Tehran’s nuclear programme.


Within hours, Iran retaliated with ballistic missile and drone launches toward Israel and reportedly against US military installations across the Gulf, including bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Airspace closures spread across the region. Emergency sirens sounded in Israel and Bahrain. Regional governments scrambled to avoid being drawn into a widening war. The conflict has now moved beyond a bilateral confrontation into a multi-theatre regional crisis with global implications for energy markets, maritime security and international diplomacy.
This report reconstructs how the war began, examines the strategic objectives of the principal actors, evaluates the risks of further escalation and outlines possible trajectories in the days ahead.




The conflict began before dawn when explosions were reported across Tehran, as well as in Isfahan, Qom, Karaj and Kermanshah. Smoke was seen rising over central districts of the Iranian capital. Iranian airspace was closed shortly thereafter. Israeli officials described the attack as a coordinated campaign aimed at degrading what they termed existential threats posed by Iran’s missile forces, nuclear infrastructure and proxy network.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel would “not sit idly by when the shadow of annihilation hovers over us,” framing the operation as necessary to prevent Iran from rebuilding underground nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities damaged during the June 2025 conflict. He stated that the joint campaign sought to remove the “existential threat” posed by what he called Iran’s “terror regime,” and suggested that the strikes would create conditions for the Iranian people to “take their destiny into their own hands.”


Shortly after Israeli confirmation, US President Donald Trump released an eight-minute video announcing that American forces had initiated “major combat operations” in Iran. He asserted that Washington’s objective was to eliminate imminent threats from the Iranian regime and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The campaign, according to Trump, would destroy Iran’s missile industry, annihilate its navy and neutralise its regional proxies. In an unprecedented move, he directly called on Iranian security forces to lay down their arms in exchange for immunity and urged Iranian citizens to overthrow their government once US operations concluded.


The Pentagon later identified the US campaign as “Operation Epic Fury,” signalling that Washington considers this not a limited punitive strike but a structured military operation with broader objectives.




Tehran vowed a “crushing” retaliation within hours. Iranian officials signalled that the path chosen by Israel and the United States would no longer be under their control. Ballistic missile launches toward Israel followed, triggering nationwide sirens and activating Israel’s multi-layered air defence systems. Explosions were heard in northern and central Israel as interceptor missiles engaged incoming projectiles.


More consequentially, reports emerged that Iranian missiles targeted US military installations across the Gulf region. These included Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, headquarters of US regional air operations; the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain; Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates; and facilities in Kuwait. Bahrain confirmed that a missile attack targeted the service centre associated with the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Airspace closures spread rapidly across Israel, Iran and Iraq, while Russia and Kuwait suspended flights in response to the unfolding crisis.


If confirmed in full, this marks a critical escalation threshold. For the first time in this cycle of confrontation, Iran has directly targeted US sovereign military infrastructure across multiple states simultaneously, expanding the conflict beyond a bilateral Israel-Iran exchange into a region-wide confrontation involving Gulf states.




The 28 February strikes did not emerge in isolation. They followed months of mounting tension after the June 2025 “12-Day War,” during which Israel and the United States targeted Iranian nuclear facilities. Although President Trump declared those sites “obliterated,” Iran subsequently restricted access to international inspectors and resumed aspects of enrichment activity. Diplomatic talks mediated by Oman continued into February 2026. Publicly, progress was described as constructive, yet Washington remained dissatisfied with Iran’s refusal to discuss ballistic missiles and its support for regional proxy forces.


In the days preceding the strikes, Trump had expressed frustration with negotiations and warned of “bad things” if an agreement was not reached within weeks. A significant US military build-up in the Gulf — including aircraft carriers, guided missile destroyers, fighters and air defence systems — signalled that military action was being prepared as a credible option.


From Israel’s perspective, the weakening of Iran’s air defences during the previous war and the internal unrest inside Iran created what it likely assessed as a temporary window of opportunity. Netanyahu repeatedly opposed any agreement limited solely to nuclear enrichment, insisting that missile capabilities and proxy networks must be addressed simultaneously.



Military Objectives and Political Messaging


The rhetoric accompanying the strikes suggests a campaign that blends military degradation with political signalling. Trump’s language went beyond deterrence or punishment. His call for regime change and appeals directly to Iranian security forces indicate that Washington is attempting to combine military pressure with psychological and political warfare.


Netanyahu similarly framed the operation as one that could enable the Iranian people to overthrow their rulers. Israeli intelligence services launched Farsi-language communication channels targeting Iranian citizens, reinforcing the narrative that the conflict is directed at the regime rather than the population.


Tehran, however, has historically demonstrated resilience under external pressure. Previous external attacks have often strengthened regime cohesion rather than weakened it. Moreover, if Iranian casualties among senior leadership or Revolutionary Guard structures are confirmed, the regime may perceive existential stakes, reducing the likelihood of restraint.




The conflict has now crossed several escalation thresholds. Direct US military involvement against Iranian territory, Iranian missile launches against Israel, and reported Iranian strikes on US bases collectively mark a shift from shadow war dynamics to overt interstate conflict.


Several immediate risks stand out. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows, remains vulnerable. Any attempt by Iran to disrupt maritime traffic could trigger a dramatic spike in energy prices. Gulf states hosting US bases face internal security risks and political strain as they balance alliance obligations with domestic stability.


Proxy activation is another major variable. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi militias, and Houthi forces in Yemen could expand the battlefield. Lebanon’s prime minister has already warned against being dragged into regional “adventures,” reflecting concern that Hezbollah involvement could trigger devastating retaliation.


Casualty levels will be decisive. If US personnel suffer significant losses, Washington may escalate further with expanded strikes targeting leadership decapitation or broader military infrastructure. Conversely, limited casualties could allow for calibrated responses designed to avoid uncontrolled escalation.




The immediate regional consequences include airspace closures, evacuation planning and emergency protocols in Gulf capitals. Energy markets are already on alert. Military traffic has been observed over Iraqi airspace, and missile interceptions have been reported across multiple theatres.


Globally, this confrontation places the United States in a direct war with Iran, something successive administrations have sought to avoid for decades. It tests US defence industrial capacity, already strained by commitments in Ukraine and support for Israel. It also places China and Russia in complex strategic positions, particularly given China’s energy dependence on Gulf supplies and Russia’s interest in reshaping regional security balances.
The diplomatic track appears effectively suspended. Even if backchannel communication continues, the trust deficit has widened dramatically. Calls for restraint from European and Gulf states are likely to intensify, yet their leverage may be limited in the face of active hostilities.




The events of 28 February 2026 represent more than another episode in the long US-Iran confrontation. They signal the opening of a new phase in which overt, multi-theatre military exchanges have replaced indirect confrontation and proxy engagement. The strategic objectives declared by Washington and Jerusalem extend beyond deterrence toward degradation of regime capabilities and even political transformation.


Whether this becomes a prolonged regional war or remains a contained but intense campaign will depend primarily on the scale and lethality of Iran’s retaliation, the resilience of US regional infrastructure, and the political calculus in Washington and Tehran in the coming days.


The Middle East has entered a highly unstable moment. The next 48 hours will determine whether the region steps back from the brink or accelerates toward a wider and potentially protracted war.



On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes across Iran, triggering immediate retaliation and expanding the conflict beyond bilateral confrontation. Iranian missiles targeted Israeli cities and reportedly struck US military installations in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, marking a dangerous regional escalation. With airspace closures, rising energy risks and rhetoric pointing toward regime change, the crisis now threatens to reshape Middle Eastern security dynamics and draw multiple actors into a broader war

US–Israel Strike Iran: War Erupts Across the Gulf


The current confrontation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran represents one of the most volatile strategic moments in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq War. Unlike previous crises, this escalation is unfolding under conditions of profound ambiguity. Washington has assembled the largest American military presence in the region in more than two decades. Tehran is openly preparing for a regional war. Israel has shifted from caution to advocacy for decisive action. Gulf states are hedging. Turkey is actively lobbying against conflict. Meanwhile, domestic unrest inside Iran has re-intensified, and the regime is simultaneously weakened and hardened.

What makes this moment particularly dangerous is not simply the scale of military preparations but the absence of strategic clarity. The United States appears uncertain about its ultimate objective. Iran is uncertain about American intent. Regional powers are recalibrating their positions in real time. Each actor is operating under assumptions about the other’s red lines that may no longer hold. The risk is not premeditated total war, but miscalculation born of misperception.

This report assesses the structural drivers of escalation, the strategic objectives of the principal actors, the regional power calculus, and the plausible trajectories of conflict. It argues that war remains avoidable, but that the erosion of deterrence clarity and the politicisation of credibility have dramatically increased the risk of a limited strike spiralling into a broader confrontation.




The most striking feature of the current crisis is the absence of a clearly articulated American war aim. President Trump has offered multiple, sometimes contradictory rationales for potential action against Iran: preventing nuclear proliferation, punishing the regime for massacring protesters, curbing ballistic missile capabilities, dismantling proxy networks, and even regime change. At different moments he has claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme has already been “obliterated,” while simultaneously warning that it is close to acquiring bomb-grade material. These inconsistencies have not only confused observers but also narrowed diplomatic space.

The United States has deployed two carrier strike groups, more than two hundred aircraft, aerial refuelling tankers, AWACS platforms, missile defence systems, and additional regional assets. This build-up is substantial but not yet configured for a large-scale ground invasion or full regime change campaign. It is consistent with either a sustained air campaign or a series of limited strikes designed to coerce concessions. However, military posture alone does not reveal political intent.

The central dilemma for Washington is credibility. Having threatened retaliation for the regime’s mass killing of protesters and having assembled an immense armada, backing down without visible gains would risk political embarrassment and perceived weakness. Yet launching a strike without a defined political end state risks strategic drift. The United States has faced similar dilemmas before, but rarely under such overt ambiguity.

Trump’s past experiences may be shaping his assumptions. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani did not trigger uncontrollable escalation. The June 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities were followed by limited retaliation. The Venezuela operation was executed without major blowback. These precedents may have reinforced a belief that calibrated force can be employed without enduring consequences. The danger lies in assuming that past restraint guarantees future restraint.



Iran’s Strategic Posture: Survival Through Endurance



Tehran’s strategic objective is regime survival. Unlike external observers who interpret its behaviour as ideological adventurism, the Islamic Republic’s recent conduct has been calibrated and cost-conscious. During previous confrontations with Israel and the United States, Iranian retaliation was choreographed to avoid triggering uncontrollable escalation. Advance warnings were reportedly transmitted before certain strikes. This pattern of restraint, however, may now be interpreted in Washington as weakness.

The regime’s internal condition complicates its calculus. The January massacres, in which thousands—possibly tens of thousands—were killed, have deepened societal fracture. Universities have again become epicentres of protest. Newspapers are testing red lines. Minority regions exhibit secessionist rhetoric. Yet the coercive machinery of the state remains intact. No major security defections have occurred. Succession contingencies are in place. Ali Larijani has emerged as a central coordinating figure, managing strategic portfolios across diplomacy and security.

Iran’s leadership perceives that if it capitulates on core pillars—enrichment rights, missile capability, regional alliances—it risks death by incremental concession. From Tehran’s perspective, concessions invite further demands. This belief reduces flexibility in negotiations. If war is perceived as existential, the regime may choose maximal escalation rather than limited retaliation.

Iran retains significant strike options. It can target U.S. bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE. It can activate Iraqi militias. It can mobilise Houthi maritime disruption in the Red Sea. It can target Israeli infrastructure directly. It can threaten the Strait of Hormuz. It can launch cyber campaigns against financial and energy infrastructure. While its conventional military is inferior, its asymmetric toolkit remains substantial.

Iran’s strategic logic is not to defeat the United States militarily, but to impose costs that erode American domestic support and international legitimacy. Survival framed as victory remains its guiding principle.



The Regional Calculus: Between Fear and Opportunity



The regional response to potential war is fragmented and fluid. Israel has shifted from initial caution to active encouragement of American action. Israeli leaders fear that a limited nuclear deal would stabilise the Iranian regime and squander leverage created by recent weakening. With improved American defensive deployments in the region, Israeli confidence in sustaining Iranian retaliation has grown.

Saudi Arabia’s position is more nuanced. Initially resistant to strikes, Riyadh now appears conditionally prepared to engage in planning if conflict proceeds. The kingdom fears both uncontrolled escalation and an Iranian recovery facilitated by sanctions relief. It seeks influence over any post-conflict settlement while avoiding becoming the primary battleground.

Turkey remains opposed to war. Sharing a long border with Iran and fearing refugee flows and regional destabilisation, Ankara prefers phased diplomacy. Turkish leadership has expanded its regional clout following developments in Syria and seeks to position itself as mediator rather than combatant.

Qatar and Oman continue to facilitate diplomatic channels. Gulf states are wary of energy infrastructure targeting and Hormuz disruption. None seek open regional war, but several are calculating the potential redistribution of power should Iran weaken further.

This moment therefore represents not only a U.S.–Iran confrontation but a regional rebalancing episode. A weakened Iran could reshape influence structures across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Chaos is feared—but it also creates opportunity.



Energy, Global Markets, and Great Power Variables



The Strait of Hormuz remains a central strategic lever. Even partial disruption could trigger energy price spikes, inflationary pressures, and global market instability. Attacks on Saudi or Emirati infrastructure could magnify economic shock. Such consequences would rapidly reverberate into American domestic politics.

China absorbs the majority of Iran’s oil exports and would oppose regime collapse, though likely without direct military involvement. Russia may exploit escalation to divert Western attention from Ukraine and could provide material or intelligence support short of direct engagement. Neither Beijing nor Moscow is likely to enter open war on Iran’s behalf, but both may seek to leverage instability.

The broader revisionist alignment among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea introduces complexity into escalation calculations, particularly in cyber and intelligence domains.






A limited American strike targeting IRGC leadership or missile infrastructure could be followed by calibrated Iranian retaliation and renewed negotiations. This remains the most likely near-term pathway if force is employed.

A sustained multi-week air campaign aimed at degrading Iran’s military capacity carries greater escalation risk. Iranian leadership may perceive such action as existential and respond regionally.

An attempt at decapitation or overt regime change would likely trigger maximum Iranian response and potentially broader regional mobilisation.

Alternatively, negotiations could produce a face-saving limited nuclear understanding that reduces immediate tensions while leaving core disagreements unresolved.

The most dangerous scenario is not deliberate total war but escalation spiral following misjudged proportionality or unexpected casualties.

Domestic Political Constraints

American public opinion shows limited appetite for war. Iranian society is fractured but deeply nationalist. External intervention could unify segments of the population around the regime, even among critics. Regional populations are fatigued by conflict. Political leaders must weigh domestic consequences against strategic ambition.

Trump’s own political identity as critic of “forever wars” complicates sustained engagement. A short, decisive operation aligns with his instincts; a prolonged campaign contradicts them.




The confrontation between the United States and Iran stands at a moment of profound uncertainty. The structural incentives for limited force exist: credibility preservation, coercive leverage, regional lobbying. Yet the structural disincentives for sustained war remain powerful: economic cost, domestic opposition, energy shock, and geopolitical overextension.

The central risk is miscalculation. Washington may overestimate Iranian restraint based on past patterns. Tehran may underestimate American willingness to escalate under credibility pressure. Regional actors may misread the limits of U.S. engagement. Each side believes it understands the other’s red lines; none can be certain those lines still apply.

War is not inevitable. It is also not implausible. The coming days will reveal whether strategic ambiguity resolves into diplomacy, limited force, or uncontrolled escalation. The costs of full-scale war are prohibitive for all actors. Whether those costs are correctly perceived may determine whether this moment becomes another managed crisis—or a transformative regional conflict.


This report examines the accelerating confrontation between the United States and Iran as both sides move closer to a potentially transformative conflict. Drawing on expert analyses, regional perspectives, and recent strategic developments, it explores the motivations driving Washington and Tehran, the risks of miscalculation, and the strategic logic shaping possible military scenarios.  It assesses Iran’s likely strike zones, America’s operational options, the role of regional and global powers, and the fragile domestic landscapes influencing decision-making in both capitals. Ultimately, the report argues that the crisis is defined less by inevitability than by ambiguity: unclear objectives, escalating coercion, and shrinking diplomatic space are creating a volatile environment in which misjudgment — rather than deliberate grand strategy — could ignite the next major Middle Eastern war.

Playing with Fire: America, Iran, and the Next Middle East War

A Negotiation That Nearly Didn’t Happen


The confirmation that the United States and Iran will meet in Oman on Friday should not be mistaken for diplomatic momentum. Rather, it underscores how close the process came to collapse and how fragile the entire enterprise remains. For much of Wednesday, senior officials in Washington and Tehran openly contradicted one another on whether talks would even take place, where they would be held, and what they would cover. One Western diplomat described the episode succinctly as “negotiations about negotiations.”
The talks were initially expected to take place in Turkey, before Iran insisted on relocating them to Muscat and excluding regional participants. According to US officials cited by Axios, Washington responded with an ultimatum. “We told them it is this or nothing,” one senior official said. “They said, ‘Okay, then nothing.’” At that point, the diplomatic track appeared effectively dead.
What revived it was not a breakthrough between Washington and Tehran, but pressure from the region. At least nine Arab and Muslim governments — including Gulf states that host US military bases — urged the White House not to walk away. A US official acknowledged that the administration agreed to proceed largely “to be respectful” of allied concerns, even as skepticism about Iran’s intentions remained high.


The venue ultimately reverted to Oman, a country Iran regards as a trusted interlocutor and which has quietly mediated previous rounds of US–Iran engagement. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed the meeting would take place in Muscat at 10 a.m., thanking Oman for “making all necessary arrangements.”

A Clash Over Scope: Nuclear File or Comprehensive Deal?


At the heart of the near-collapse lies a fundamental disagreement over scope. Iran insists that any talks must be confined strictly to the nuclear file. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Tehran’s ballistic missile program is “off the table,” describing it as a core pillar of national defense. Iranian media has repeatedly stressed that the negotiations will focus on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear energy program” and the lifting of sanctions, and nothing more.
Washington’s position is the opposite. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated bluntly that a nuclear-only discussion is insufficient. “I think in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful, they will have to include certain things,” Rubio said, listing Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, its support for armed groups across the region, and its treatment of protesters alongside nuclear issues. He added: “I’m not sure you can reach a deal with these guys. But we’re going to try to find out.”


This mismatch is not a procedural dispute; it reflects incompatible strategic priorities. For Iran, missiles and regional allies form the backbone of deterrence. For the United States, leaving those capabilities untouched risks repeating past cycles of temporary de-escalation followed by renewed confrontation.

Trump’s Coercive Diplomacy and the Shadow of Force


Hovering over the talks is the explicit threat of military action. President Donald Trump has adopted an unusually direct tone in recent remarks. Asked whether Iran’s supreme leader should be concerned, Trump replied: “He should be very worried.” He claimed that US intelligence had uncovered Iranian efforts to rebuild nuclear facilities after last year’s strikes and warned that further attempts would trigger “very bad things.”


These threats are backed by an extensive military buildup. The USS USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is operating in the Arabian Sea alongside destroyers equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Additional US naval assets are positioned in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and near the Strait of Hormuz. According to US officials, this posture is intended both to deter Iran and to ensure Washington can act rapidly if diplomacy fails.
The risk of escalation is not theoretical. On Tuesday, a US F-35 shot down an Iranian Shahed drone that US Central Command said had approached the Abraham Lincoln “aggressively.” Hours later, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats threatened to board a US-flagged tanker transiting the Strait of Hormuz, before US naval escorts intervened.


Iran’s Counter-Messaging: Deterrence, Not Capitulation


Iran has responded to US pressure with deliberate deterrence signaling. Senior adviser to the supreme leader Ali Akbar Velayati declared that Iran is “fully prepared to stand against any foreign threat and enemy,” particularly the United States and Israel. Armed Forces Chief Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi claimed Iran has shifted toward a more offensive posture following last year’s war, warning that any miscalculation would provoke a “rapid and decisive” response.


Iranian military officials have been unusually explicit about regional vulnerabilities. Army spokesperson Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia warned that Iran has “easy access to US bases” across the Middle East and that any conflict would expand far beyond Iran’s borders. He emphasized that Iran’s armed forces are prepared for both diplomacy and war, and that it is Washington that must choose between compromise and confrontation.
Iran has also publicized upgrades to its ballistic missile forces and the integration of 1,000 strategic drones into operational units. Despite losses during the 2025 conflict, US and Israeli assessments indicate that Iran retains thousands of short- and medium-range missiles. Even conservative estimates suggest Iran could target US bases and allied infrastructure across the region within minutes of a conflict beginning.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Energy Dimension


The stakes extend well beyond security calculations. The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most critical energy chokepoint, with roughly 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transiting it daily — about one-fifth of global consumption — alongside nearly 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas trade.


Markets are already reacting to diplomatic volatility. When talks were confirmed, Brent crude fell to around $68 per barrel. When reports emerged that negotiations might collapse, prices jumped by more than 3 percent in a single session. Analysts at Citi warned that while diplomatic signals have temporarily eased risk premiums, “upside risks remain embedded,” noting that traders continue to pay for protection against sharp price spikes.
Regional governments understand these risks acutely. Gulf states hosting US forces fear that even limited clashes could provoke Iranian retaliation against shipping or energy infrastructure, triggering global economic fallout.

Iran’s Internal Vulnerability: The Regime Survival Factor


Behind Tehran’s defiance lies deep internal anxiety. Intelligence assessments cited by Reuters indicate that senior Iranian officials have warned Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that public anger following the recent crackdown has reached a point where “fear is no longer a deterrent.” Human rights groups estimate that more than 6,000 protesters were killed during the unrest, with some projections placing the toll significantly higher.
Officials fear that a US strike could reignite nationwide protests and “inflict irreparable damage to the political establishment.” This concern helps explain Iran’s contradictory posture: projecting strength abroad while cautiously reopening diplomatic channels to buy time and avert escalation.


President Masoud Pezeshkian captured this duality when he said Iran was ready for negotiations, but only “in an environment free from threats and unreasonable expectations.” Iranian diplomats have floated limited nuclear concessions, including reducing enrichment levels or transferring roughly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. Yet Khamenei has repeatedly described enrichment itself as a “red line,” calling a nuclear program without it “practically worthless.”

Washington’s Dilemma: Coercion Without Collapse


For the United States, the strategic space is narrowing. Maintaining a large forward military presence in the Middle East costs well over $1 billion per month and diverts resources from other priorities, including competition with China. Yet a limited strike risks triggering precisely the regional escalation Washington’s allies fear.


Arab League officials have warned explicitly against a return to war, arguing that the region, exhausted by years of conflict, cannot absorb another destabilizing confrontation. Even Israel, while skeptical of diplomacy, has privately urged Washington to ensure that any engagement does not constrain future military options.

Conclusion: Negotiating Under Strategic Fatigue


What distinguishes the current US–Iran talks is not optimism, but exhaustion. Diplomacy is proceeding not because trust exists, but because all alternatives appear worse. A narrow nuclear-only deal risks repeating past cycles of temporary calm followed by renewed crisis. A comprehensive agreement strikes at the heart of Iran’s deterrence doctrine and, in Tehran’s view, its regime survival.


The meeting in Muscat may succeed in establishing a channel, slowing escalation, and buying time. But it is taking place under the shadow of war, shaped less by confidence than by mutual fear of what follows if diplomacy finally collapses.


The central question, therefore, is not whether Washington and Tehran can reach an agreement this week. It is whether diplomacy, conducted under coercion, internal fragility, and regional fatigue, can still prevent the Middle East from sliding into a conflict whose costs everyone understands — and no one believes they could ultimately control.



This report examines the fragile return of US–Iran negotiations amid escalating military pressure, regional mediation, and deep mutual mistrust. It analyses how diplomacy has resumed not as a sign of de-escalation, but as a last-ditch effort to avert a wider conflict, as both sides test each other’s red lines on nuclear constraints, missiles, regional influence, and internal repression. The report situates the talks within Iran’s internal unrest, the US military buildup in the region, and mounting fears among regional states that miscalculation could trigger an uncontrollable war stretching far beyond Iran itself.

When Diplomacy Meets Deterrence: Inside the Latest US–Iran Standoff



Iran entered 2026 confronting a convergence of crises unprecedented since the consolidation of the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution. Large-scale domestic unrest, intensifying international isolation, and renewed military pressure from Israel and the United States have transformed Iran from a persistent regional challenger into a focal point of global strategic risk. The protests that erupted on 28 December 2025, initially triggered by economic collapse, rapidly evolved into the most sustained nationwide uprising in years. Simultaneously, the military balance established after the June 2025 Israeli–U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear and missile infrastructure has proven fragile, with both sides signaling readiness for renewed confrontation.

This report argues that a renewed U.S.–Israeli strike would not simply represent another episode in the long conflict between Iran and its adversaries. Instead, it would interact with Iran’s internal crisis to reshape regional power dynamics, accelerate nuclear opacity, and impose substantial costs on global energy markets and the wider world economy. The intersection of repression at home and coercion from abroad produces a volatile strategic environment in which miscalculation carries systemic consequences.



Domestic Crisis and the Political Economy of Protest



The December 2025 protests were rooted in structural economic decline rather than isolated political grievances. Inflation exceeded 40 percent, food prices rose faster than wages, and the Iranian rial reached record lows against the dollar. Youth unemployment remained above 20 percent, while electricity and water shortages became chronic in urban and rural areas alike. Energy scarcity had become so acute that President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly floated the idea of relocating the capital from Tehran due to water stress and power failures.

What distinguished the 2025–26 protests from earlier cycles was the breadth of participation. Demonstrations initially led by shopkeepers expanded to include students, industrial workers, and minority communities in Kurdish and Baluchi regions. According to open-source monitoring by the Institute for the Study of War, protest activity peaked between 7 and 8 January 2026 across much of Iran’s territory, including Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, and Ahvaz. This geographic spread suggested that grievances were national rather than sectional.

The state response was markedly harsher than in previous protest waves. A nationwide internet shutdown imposed on 8 January curtailed information flows and coincided with intensified repression. Norway-based Iran Human Rights recorded at least 3,428 deaths by mid-January, while the Human Rights Activists News Agency placed the figure at 3,919, with approximately 25,000 arrests. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei acknowledged “several thousand” deaths, an implicit confirmation of the scale of violence. Independent estimates citing medical sources suggested fatalities could exceed 10,000, although verification remains impossible due to the communications blackout.

The regime’s actions indicate that it no longer views protest as a manageable political problem but as a security threat to be eliminated through force. The designation of demonstrators as “terrorists” and the rapid judicial processing of detainees underscore a shift from containment to deterrence through fear. This approach has restored surface stability but at the cost of legitimacy. Political authority now rests almost entirely on the coercive apparatus of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij militia, and intelligence services.

This reliance on repression masks elite unease. Succession debates surrounding the 86-year-old Khamenei have intensified, and divisions persist between those advocating limited economic reform and those committed to ideological rigidity. Yet there have been no verified defections within the security forces. As long as the IRGC remains cohesive, regime survival is probable, but the social contract has fractured. Iran’s leadership governs a population that increasingly views the state as predatory rather than protective.



Strategic Context After the June 2025 War



The June 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran, in which the United States intervened with deep-penetration strikes, altered regional deterrence. Israeli attacks targeted missile bases, nuclear facilities, senior IRGC officers, and nuclear scientists. U.S. strikes reportedly used massive ordnance to destroy underground enrichment infrastructure. The conflict killed nearly 700 Iranian civilians and 25 Israelis.

From Israel’s perspective, the war demonstrated its ability to penetrate Iranian air defenses and intelligence networks. From Tehran’s perspective, survival itself constituted victory. Iran retained the capacity to strike Israel, forcing millions into shelters and inflicting unprecedented damage on residential areas. More importantly, Iran’s nuclear program was degraded but not eliminated. International inspectors have not regained access to key sites, and more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium remain unaccounted for.

The outcome produced a paradoxical deterrence environment. Israel interprets the war as proof that preemptive strikes work; Iran interprets it as proof that endurance works. This dual lesson encourages escalation. Israel’s “mowing the lawn” doctrine of periodic strikes is reinforced, while Iran’s incentive shifts toward opacity and dispersal rather than compliance.



Military Signaling and the Risk of Escalation



In early 2026, U.S. force posture in the Middle East expanded to levels comparable to mid-2025. Aircraft carriers, refueling aircraft, and ISR platforms redeployed to the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean. Reports indicated that at least 482 aircraft, including more than 400 combat planes, were positioned across CENTCOM and EUCOM areas of responsibility. President Donald Trump publicly referred to an “armada” approaching Iran and warned that intervention remained an option if repression continued.

Iran responded by closing airspace temporarily, moving senior leadership to secure facilities, and issuing warnings that U.S. bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Iraq would be legitimate targets. The IRGC emphasized its ballistic missile arsenal and asymmetric naval capabilities. Tehran also increased security budgets, raising combined allocations for the IRGC, intelligence services, judiciary, and police from approximately $6.9 billion to $8.2 billion.

These actions constitute a classical security dilemma. Each side’s deterrent posture is interpreted by the other as preparation for attack. Communication channels remain nominally open, but the political environment is increasingly hostile to compromise. Statements from U.S. officials frame military options as leverage, while Iranian rhetoric frames resistance as survival. The probability of misinterpretation or unintended escalation rises as deployments intensify.




A renewed U.S.–Israeli strike on Iran would reverberate through global energy markets. Iran produces approximately 3.2 million barrels of oil per day and exports between 1.3 and 1.6 million barrels, primarily to China. More consequential than Iranian production itself is the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 21 million barrels of oil transit daily, representing about one-fifth of global consumption and nearly one-third of seaborne oil trade.

During the June 2025 conflict, tanker movements through the Gulf declined sharply, and Brent crude briefly exceeded $100 per barrel. Even limited strikes would likely trigger a risk premium similar to the aftermath of the 2019 Abqaiq attack, when prices rose nearly 15 percent in a single day. A prolonged conflict could push prices significantly higher, potentially above $120 per barrel, depending on the scale of disruption.

For Europe, which remains vulnerable after reducing dependence on Russian gas, a Gulf crisis would undermine diversification strategies. Higher oil prices would translate into higher LNG prices, as gas markets remain indexed to oil in several long-term contracts. Import costs would rise for energy-intensive industries, deepening recessionary pressures. For emerging markets, particularly in South Asia and Africa, higher energy prices would strain fiscal balances and exacerbate food insecurity, as fertilizer and transport costs increase.

Shipping insurance premiums in the Gulf and Red Sea would rise sharply. The Red Sea corridor already faces Houthi attacks linked to Iran. An escalation could divert trade around the Cape of Good Hope, increasing transit times and costs for Europe–Asia trade by up to 40 percent. The Suez Canal, which handles approximately 12 percent of global trade, would suffer revenue losses, further destabilizing Egypt’s economy.

Financial markets would likely respond with capital flight from emerging economies, rising gold prices, and increased volatility in currencies tied to energy imports. China, as Iran’s largest oil customer, would face a strategic dilemma between securing supplies and avoiding secondary sanctions. This would further complicate U.S.–China relations and deepen fragmentation of global trade.



Nuclear Nonproliferation and Strategic Stability



Military strikes would not resolve uncertainties surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. On the contrary, they would incentivize concealment. Without inspectors on the ground, verification would be impossible. Historical precedent suggests that states subjected to attack rarely abandon sensitive programs; instead, they disperse and harden them.

Iran’s current position is ambiguous. Enrichment appears halted at some sites, but the fate of stockpiles and expertise remains unknown. A strike that fails to secure fissile material would increase the probability that Iran emerges as a latent nuclear state outside institutional oversight. This would undermine the global nonproliferation regime and encourage regional hedging behavior by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.




Externally imposed military pressure would likely consolidate hardline control. Nationalism would overshadow reformist narratives, and opposition groups, already fragmented, would struggle to coordinate. Reza Pahlavi’s symbolic leadership resonates abroad but lacks organizational depth inside Iran. Progressive networks rooted in labor unions and civil society remain suppressed.

Historical experience suggests that war environments empower security institutions. The IRGC, already dominant economically and politically, would expand its role further. This would reduce the likelihood of negotiated political reform and entrench militarization of governance.

At the same time, repression alone cannot resolve Iran’s economic crisis. Subsidy reforms and limited stipends, such as the proposed $7 monthly payment announced in January 2026, are insufficient to offset inflation and unemployment. The regime thus faces a dilemma: repression secures short-term control but deepens long-term instability.




Iran’s regional network has been weakened since 2023. Hezbollah suffered severe losses, and Syrian infrastructure remains degraded. The Houthis, however, retain significant capacity and have demonstrated the ability to disrupt Red Sea shipping. A strike on Iran would almost certainly provoke retaliation through these proxies, expanding the conflict geographically.

Such retaliation would not only target Israel but also U.S. and allied interests across the Gulf. This would draw in regional states that currently seek neutrality, including Oman, Qatar, and Turkey, and could destabilize Iraq and Lebanon further.

Conclusion

Iran’s crisis is no longer solely an internal matter or a regional dispute. It has become a node of systemic risk linking domestic repression, nuclear ambiguity, and global energy security. A U.S.–Israeli strike would degrade certain military capabilities but would not resolve Iran’s political economy or strategic identity. Instead, it would likely entrench authoritarianism, fragment nonproliferation efforts, and destabilize energy markets at a time of fragile global recovery.

The central danger lies not in one decisive war but in a cycle of episodic strikes, retaliation, and repression that locks Iran, the Middle East, and the global economy into chronic volatility. The strategic question is not whether pressure should be applied but whether it is being applied in a way that produces stability rather than compounding disorder. At present, the trajectory points toward the latter.

Iran stands at a strategic breaking point. How external actors respond will shape not only the country’s future but also the structure of regional order and the resilience of the global economy in the years ahead.



As tensions with Iran approach a breaking point, this report explores what a U.S.–Israeli military strike would mean for global energy flows, financial markets, and international order. It argues that conflict would not remain regional: disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could trigger oil price shocks, inflation spikes, and strategic realignments from Europe to Asia. The study connects Iran’s internal crisis with external military risks, showing how domestic unrest, nuclear escalation, and great-power competition are converging into a single global threat.

War on Iran: Energy Shock and Global Order

Executive Summary

Greenland has become a focal point of intensifying great-power competition between the United States, Russia, and China, while simultaneously triggering the most severe internal crisis in the transatlantic alliance since the Cold War. President Donald Trump’s renewed insistence that the United States must acquire Greenland—accompanied by threats of economic coercion against European allies—has transformed what was once a marginal diplomatic controversy into a systemic test of NATO, European strategic autonomy, and the rules-based international order.

Although Greenland’s strategic relevance is shaped by geography, natural resources, and climate change, the present crisis cannot be understood without reference to broader geopolitical dynamics. Russia seeks to consolidate military dominance across the Arctic littoral. China aims to secure long-term access to critical minerals and polar shipping routes as part of its global connectivity strategy. The United States increasingly frames Greenland as a linchpin in preventing Eurasian rivals from consolidating influence in the High North. Europe, caught between alliance loyalty and sovereignty defence, faces unprecedented pressure.

This policy brief argues that Greenland is not merely a territorial question but a manifestation of geoeconomic rivalry and alliance transformation. It illustrates the shift from cooperative security to transactional dominance and from multilateralism to coercive economic statecraft. While military annexation remains unlikely, the normalization of pressure against Denmark risks weakening NATO cohesion and emboldening authoritarian challengers. Europe must therefore respond through a calibrated mix of deterrence, legal clarity, and strategic investment in Arctic governance, while preserving cooperation with Washington on Ukraine and broader security priorities.

1. Greenland’s Strategic Value in a Multipolar Arctic

Greenland covers approximately 2.16 million square kilometres and hosts a population of just 56,000. Its strategic relevance is rooted in its position between North America and Eurasia. During the Cold War, Greenland functioned as a critical forward outpost for early warning systems against Soviet missile launches. Today, the Pituffik Space Base remains integral to the US missile defence architecture and to NORAD’s radar and satellite tracking systems.

Climate change has magnified this importance. Arctic sea ice has declined by roughly 13 percent per decade since satellite monitoring began in 1979. According to the Arctic Council, summer ice-free conditions may become routine by the 2030s. This development is transforming the Arctic into a navigable maritime space. The Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coast can reduce shipping distances between Shanghai and Rotterdam by approximately 40 percent compared to the Suez Canal. While Greenland lies west of this corridor, it occupies a strategic position near emerging transpolar routes that bypass Russian-controlled waters.

Greenland is also relevant in the global competition for critical raw materials. The US Geological Survey estimates that Greenland hosts some of the world’s largest undeveloped rare earth element deposits. Rare earths are essential for wind turbines, electric vehicles, semiconductors, and military technologies such as radar systems and missile guidance. China currently controls roughly 60 percent of global rare earth mining and over 85 percent of processing capacity. The EU imports around 98 percent of its rare earths from China, while the US relies on China for roughly 70 percent of its supply.

However, resource potential does not automatically translate into strategic leverage. Mining in Greenland is constrained by environmental regulations, permafrost, limited infrastructure, and high extraction costs. According to industry estimates, Arctic mining projects are two to three times more expensive than comparable projects in temperate climates. At present, only two commercial mining projects operate in Greenland, and several major ventures have been suspended due to financial and ecological concerns.

From a purely rational standpoint, the United States could secure access to Greenland’s strategic assets through existing agreements with Denmark and Greenlandic authorities. The insistence on sovereignty therefore reflects broader geopolitical motivations tied to great-power rivalry.

2. Russia’s Arctic Strategy and the Militarization of the High North

Russia has declared the Arctic a core national interest and has invested heavily in military and economic infrastructure along its northern coast. Approximately 20 percent of Russia’s GDP and over 70 percent of its oil and gas exports originate from Arctic regions. Since 2014, Moscow has reopened or built more than 50 military facilities north of the Arctic Circle, including airfields, radar stations, and missile bases.

Russia’s Northern Fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk, controls the majority of Russia’s sea-based nuclear deterrent. The fleet operates around 40 percent of Russia’s strategic submarines and has expanded its Arctic patrols. In 2024 alone, Russia conducted more than 30 major Arctic military exercises, involving strategic bombers and hypersonic missile tests.

Moscow also seeks to control Arctic maritime traffic. Under Russian law, foreign vessels must request permission to transit the Northern Sea Route and accept Russian pilotage. This legal claim is disputed by NATO states but increasingly enforced in practice. China has supported Russia’s position diplomatically, reinforcing a shared challenge to Western interpretations of freedom of navigation.

From Russia’s perspective, Greenland represents a potential vulnerability in NATO’s northern flank. If the United States were to destabilize relations with Denmark or Europe over Greenland, Russia would benefit strategically by weakening NATO unity. Russian media and diplomatic channels have consistently framed the crisis as evidence of Western hypocrisy on territorial sovereignty, drawing parallels with Crimea and Ukraine.

The Arctic is therefore not a peripheral theatre but an integral part of Russia’s deterrence posture and its global confrontation with the West.

3. China’s Arctic Ambitions and Resource Strategy

China defines itself as a “near-Arctic state” and has integrated polar governance into its Belt and Road Initiative through the concept of a “Polar Silk Road.” Chinese shipping company COSCO began experimental Arctic transits in 2013, and by 2024 had completed more than 40 commercial voyages through northern routes.

China’s interests in Greenland are primarily economic but have strategic implications. Between 2012 and 2019, Chinese firms attempted to invest in airports, mining projects, and infrastructure on the island. Although most initiatives were blocked by Danish authorities due to security concerns, Beijing retains interest in Greenlandic rare earths and uranium.

China currently processes the majority of global rare earths and has demonstrated willingness to weaponize supply chains, most notably in disputes with Japan and Lithuania. In 2025, China restricted exports of gallium and germanium to states aligned with US technology controls, illustrating how mineral dependency can be transformed into political leverage.

Beijing also views Arctic governance as an arena to reshape international norms. It supports a more inclusive Arctic regime that dilutes the influence of the Arctic Eight and legitimizes non-Arctic stakeholders. For China, Greenland offers not only minerals but also symbolic access to polar affairs traditionally dominated by Western states.

If the United States were to assert sovereignty over Greenland, China would likely portray the move as proof that territorial revisionism is not limited to authoritarian powers. This would weaken Western credibility when condemning Chinese actions in the South China Sea or Taiwan.

4. The US Turn to Geoeconomics and Coercive Alliance Management

The Greenland dispute reflects a broader transformation of US foreign policy toward geoeconomic coercion. Under Trump’s second term, tariffs and market access are used to extract political concessions. On 17 January 2026, Trump announced that imports from Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, the UK, Norway, Sweden, and Finland would face a 10 percent tariff, rising to 25 percent by June unless an agreement was reached on “the complete and total purchase of Greenland.”

These eight countries account for approximately €520 billion in annual exports to the US, representing about 2.8 percent of EU GDP. Economic modelling by the Kiel Institute suggests that a 10 percent tariff would reduce EU GDP by around 0.04 percent and US GDP by 0.02 percent. A 25 percent tariff would double those figures. The economic damage is therefore manageable, but the political precedent is not.

The use of tariffs to force territorial concessions marks a radical departure from alliance norms. It signals a shift from collective security to transactional hierarchy. The logic is explicitly mercantilist: Greenland is framed as an asset whose control will generate wealth, minerals, and leverage over China and Russia.

This approach risks transforming NATO from a community of defence into a system of dependency. It also undermines US claims to defend sovereignty and territorial integrity elsewhere, especially in Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific.

5. Europe’s Strategic Dilemma

European responses have been forceful in rhetoric but cautious in substance. France, Germany, and Denmark have condemned US pressure as intimidation. The EU has explored retaliation using its €93 billion counter-tariff list and its Anti-Coercion Instrument, adopted in 2023 to counter economic coercion.

However, Europe’s dependence on US military assets limits escalation. The US supplies key intelligence, satellite reconnaissance, and missile defence components used to support Ukraine. Europe purchases approximately 60 percent of its advanced air-defence interceptors from US manufacturers. Retaliation over Greenland could therefore weaken Europe’s own security posture.

Internal divisions further complicate matters. Poland and Hungary have expressed reluctance to confront Washington. Britain must balance its bilateral trade agreement with the US against solidarity with Europe. Germany and France advocate firmness but fear a trade war.

This reveals a structural asymmetry. Europe remains an economic superpower but a military dependent. The Greenland crisis exposes the strategic cost of that imbalance.

6. International Law, NATO, and Alliance Credibility

From the standpoint of international law, any forcible acquisition of Greenland would constitute aggression under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and violate the principle of self-determination. Territorial conquest is prohibited, and any annexation would be legally void.

Denmark would have the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter and could request collective assistance. NATO’s Article 5 would theoretically apply even if the attacker were a member state, since the treaty does not exempt internal aggression. Politically, however, NATO was never designed to deter its hegemon.

The EU’s mutual assistance clause under Article 42(7) TEU could be invoked, though its applicability to Greenland remains legally contested because Greenland is an Overseas Country and Territory rather than EU territory. Regardless of interpretation, the central issue would be political will, not legal nuance.

If the United States were to use force against Greenland, NATO’s normative foundation would collapse. Even without force, sustained coercion already weakens alliance trust and credibility.

7. Greenland’s Agency and Local Constraints

Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose integration into the United States. A 2025 poll showed that 85 percent rejected becoming part of the US. Roughly 90 percent of Greenland’s population is Inuit, and political identity is closely tied to indigenous self-rule and environmental protection.

Greenland remains economically dependent on Denmark, which provides approximately $700 million annually in subsidies, equal to around 20 percent of Greenland’s GDP. Public employment accounts for nearly half of all jobs. This dependence limits Greenland’s immediate capacity for economic diversification and makes EU and Danish support critical.

Any attempt to bypass local consent would violate Greenland’s legal right to self-determination and reinforce perceptions of neo-imperialism.

8. Strategic Implications

The Greenland crisis illustrates three structural trends. First, alliance relations are becoming conditional on political compliance. Second, geoeconomics is replacing multilateralism as a tool of influence. Third, Europe’s strategic vulnerability is no longer abstract but immediate.

Russia benefits from any weakening of NATO cohesion. China gains rhetorical ammunition against Western claims of rule-based order. The United States risks losing moral authority while pursuing marginal strategic gains.

Greenland thus functions as a stress test for Arctic governance, NATO solidarity, and the EU’s capacity to act as a geoeconomic power.

Conclusion

Greenland is not simply about minerals or missile radars. It is about the future of alliance politics in an era of great-power rivalry and geoeconomic coercion. The United States may never annex Greenland, but the normalization of pressure against Denmark already damages trust, law, and institutional credibility.

Europe must pursue a calibrated strategy that combines legal clarity, economic preparedness, and strategic investment in Arctic security while preserving cooperation with Washington on Ukraine and deterrence against Russia. Failure to respond coherently will encourage authoritarian challengers and weaken the very principles Europe seeks to defend.

Greenland has become the symbol of a deeper transformation: from partnership to pressure, from law to leverage, and from alliance to transaction. How this crisis is managed will shape not only Arctic security but the long-term structure of the transatlantic relationship.

The United States may yet gain influence over an island. In doing so, it risks losing the trust of a continent.


Greenland has emerged as an unlikely flashpoint in global politics. This report explores how US pressure over Greenland is reshaping transatlantic relations, accelerating Europe’s turn toward economic security, and intensifying competition with China and Russia in the Arctic. It shows how a dispute over sovereignty risks undermining NATO, weaponising trade, and eroding the rules-based order at a moment of mounting geopolitical instability.

Greenland and the End of Illusions in the Transatlantic Alliance

Nearly four years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the conflict remains unresolved and continues to shape the European security environment. Russia currently occupies approximately 20 percent of Ukrainian territory, having expanded its control by more than four thousand square kilometers in 2024. Hostilities persist across multiple fronts, with Russia maintaining pressure through ground operations and aerial strikes, while Ukraine continues to employ long-range drone attacks against Russian military and energy-related infrastructure. The war has resulted in significant human and economic costs, including more than 53,000 civilian casualties, millions of displaced persons, and sustained humanitarian needs.
At the diplomatic level, renewed engagement by the administration of Donald Trump has placed negotiations back at the center of international attention. A U.S.-backed draft peace proposal discussed in Geneva outlines a framework for ending the conflict, though several key elements—including territorial arrangements and security guarantees—remain undefined. Ukrainian officials have indicated conditional openness to discussions, while emphasizing the importance of enforceable security mechanisms. Russia has stated that it will not accept revisions that depart from its stated positions, particularly regarding Ukrainian neutrality and control over contested territories. As of January 2026, direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow have not resumed.


These diplomatic initiatives have coincided with an escalation in military activity. In early January, Russia carried out large-scale drone and missile strikes against Kyiv and other regions, damaging residential areas and critical infrastructure. In the capital, the attacks disrupted electricity, water, and heating supplies, affecting thousands of buildings during a period of sub-zero temperatures. Similar strikes in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia resulted in widespread power outages. Ukrainian authorities have described these attacks as part of a broader campaign targeting energy infrastructure, a pattern observed during previous winter periods of the conflict.
A notable development during this period was Russia’s use of the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile against a target in western Ukraine, near the European Union border. This marked the second confirmed use of the system during the war. Ukrainian assessments suggested that the missile carried non-explosive or conventional payloads. While the operational impact appeared limited, the strike drew attention due to its proximity to NATO territory and its potential signaling function. European leaders described the use of the missile as escalatory, while analysts widely interpreted it as a demonstration of capability rather than a battlefield necessity.


Parallel to these developments, several European states have taken steps to clarify their positions on postwar security arrangements for Ukraine. France and the United Kingdom have announced their readiness to contribute troops to a multinational force in the event of a ceasefire. In support of this possibility, the UK government allocated £200 million from its 2026 defense budget to prepare its armed forces for potential deployment, including investments in communications, mobility, and counter-drone systems. These measures are part of broader discussions among a group of Ukraine’s partners, often referred to as the “Coalition of the Willing,” regarding post-conflict stabilization and monitoring mechanisms, potentially under U.S. leadership.


Russia has responded critically to these initiatives. Officials in Moscow have reiterated that any Western military presence in Ukraine would be unacceptable and have warned that foreign troops would be regarded as legitimate military targets. Statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry, including those by spokesperson Maria Zakharova, have characterized European plans as militarizing the conflict rather than contributing to its resolution. These positions reflect long-standing Russian objections to NATO or NATO-associated deployments in Ukraine and underscore the challenges facing any post-ceasefire security framework.


On the battlefield, Russia continues to pursue incremental advances, particularly in eastern and southeastern Ukraine. While no decisive breakthrough has occurred, sustained pressure has resulted in localized gains. Russia’s ability to maintain force levels has increasingly relied on recruitment from regions outside major urban centers, including several ethnic republics. Analysts note that casualty patterns suggest disproportionate impacts on certain regions, raising questions about the long-term social and demographic effects within Russia.
Ukraine, for its part, faces ongoing military, political, and economic constraints. Defending extended frontlines has required difficult trade-offs, and internal governance challenges have emerged amid leadership changes and anti-corruption investigations. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has reiterated that Ukraine’s long-term security would require a large and well-equipped standing force, reflecting concerns about the durability of any future settlement. Discussions about elections under wartime conditions have also highlighted domestic pressures, though no concrete timetable has been established.


Internationally, the conflict continues to influence global economic and strategic alignments. Despite sanctions, Russia has maintained energy exports to several non-Western partners, while European governments pursue longer-term diversification strategies. In the United States, bipartisan discussions have resumed around additional sanctions, including potential secondary measures targeting countries that purchase Russian oil and gas. Senator Lindsey Graham has indicated that the White House supports advancing related legislation, though its final scope remains under discussion.


Overall, the situation in early 2026 reflects a complex interaction between diplomacy and continued military confrontation. Negotiations are proceeding in parallel with intensified strikes and military signaling, suggesting that coercive pressure remains a central component of the conflict dynamics. European governments are increasingly framing the war in terms of long-term security planning, while Russia continues to emphasize red lines related to foreign military involvement in Ukraine. The United States remains a key intermediary, though its precise role in post-conflict arrangements is still being defined.


As a result, the conflict stands at a point where multiple pathways remain possible, ranging from a negotiated ceasefire with limited guarantees to continued hostilities shaped by gradual escalation and deterrence. The outcome will have significant implications not only for Ukraine but also for the broader European security order that has evolved since the end of the Cold War.



This report examines the state of the Russia–Ukraine war in early 2026, analysing ongoing military operations, renewed diplomatic efforts, and evolving European security responses. It assesses the interaction between battlefield dynamics and peace initiatives, the implications of proposed postwar security arrangements, and the broader consequences for the European security order amid continued escalation and strategic uncertainty.

The Russia–Ukraine War in 2026: Military Pressure and Diplomatic Uncertainty

Iran has entered one of the most consequential moments in its modern political history. What began in late December as protests driven by the collapse of the national currency and soaring inflation has rapidly transformed into a nationwide confrontation over political legitimacy, sovereignty, and the future of the state. The breadth, persistence, and radicalisation of the current demonstrations distinguish them sharply from previous waves of unrest. For the first time since 1979, large segments of Iranian society are openly articulating the end of the Islamic Republic not as a slogan of protest, but as a political inevitability.

The demonstrations have spread across dozens of cities and provinces, encompassing the capital, provincial centres, ethnic minority regions, and historically regime-aligned constituencies such as bazaar merchants. This geographical and social diffusion has undermined the authorities’ long-standing narrative that unrest is confined to marginal groups or externally manipulated actors. The protest movement reflects an accumulated exhaustion with intersecting crises: economic collapse, political repression, environmental degradation, corruption, and a pervasive sense of stolen futures. These pressures have converged into a collective judgement that the existing system is structurally incapable of renewal.

At the centre of the regime’s response stands 

, whose first public remarks following the largest protests reaffirmed a familiar and uncompromising posture. He offered no concession, no acknowledgment of political responsibility, and no signal of reform. Instead, he doubled down on a worldview forged during the Islamic Revolution and reinforced over four decades: that concession equals collapse. In this logic, the Shah’s downfall remains the ultimate cautionary tale. As a result, dialogue is framed as weakness, dissent as foreign sabotage, and repression as existential defence. This ideological rigidity explains why a growing number of Iranians have concluded that the Islamic Republic cannot be reformed from within.

The regime’s operational response has combined selective restraint with escalating coercion. In Tehran, where the symbolic and international costs of mass bloodshed are highest, security forces initially appeared unusually cautious, avoiding direct confrontation with enormous crowds. Outside the capital, however, repression has been swift and lethal. Verified reports from western and Kurdish-majority provinces describe live fire, mass arrests, and rising casualties. This asymmetry is not accidental; it reflects a calculated effort to manage visibility while suppressing momentum where scrutiny is lower.

A defining feature of the current crackdown has been the near-total communications blackout. Internet access, mobile networks, landlines, banking systems, and even satellite communications have been disrupted simultaneously. This represents a qualitative escalation in the regime’s use of “internet warfare,” aimed not only at disrupting protest coordination but also at isolating society psychologically and monopolising the narrative. Past experience suggests that such blackouts often coincide with intensified violence, heightening fears that repression may deepen further as information flows remain constrained.

External pressure has added a volatile layer to the regime’s calculations. 

 has repeatedly warned that the United States would respond forcefully if Iranian authorities engage in mass killings of protesters. These statements, delivered against the backdrop of last year’s direct US-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and the regional weakening of Tehran’s allies, have injected deterrence without clarity. The result has been strategic ambiguity: enough pressure to influence behaviour in high-visibility areas, but insufficient commitment to offer protesters a clear sense of protection or outcome. This ambiguity appears to have encouraged a strategy of delay by Tehran—buying time, exhausting demonstrators, and calibrating repression below thresholds that might provoke external intervention.

Within this fluid environment, the opposition landscape remains fragmented and largely leaderless by design. Decades of repression have eliminated institutional opposition inside the country, while exile politics have struggled to coalesce into a unified alternative. Yet legitimacy has unmistakably shifted to the streets. Protesters are no longer waiting for authorised representatives; they are asserting political agency directly.

 has re-emerged as a highly visible and deeply polarising figure. Chants invoking his name reflect less a mass endorsement of monarchy than a symbolic rejection of the present system and a search for recognisable leadership. Pahlavi’s insistence that he does not seek coronation, but rather a transitional role leading to a referendum, underscores this ambiguity. At the same time, other figures—political prisoners, civil society activists, technocrats, and professionals—are widely viewed as potential contributors to a post-Islamic Republic order, should conditions allow them to act.

Against this backdrop, several broad scenarios are now being actively debated by analysts and actors alike. The first is an escalation of repression. In this trajectory, the regime concludes that force is the only remaining instrument of control, deploying the full weight of the security apparatus, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, to crush dissent. Such an outcome might restore surface order in the short term, but it would deepen the regime’s legitimacy crisis, intensify internal fractures, and store up the conditions for future upheaval.

A second scenario centres on internal consolidation around the security establishment. Faced with sustained unrest and an ageing supreme leader, the system could tilt further toward overt or de facto dominance by the Revolutionary Guards. This path could lead either to heightened confrontation with external powers or to a pragmatic bargain aimed at preserving elite survival through significant shifts in foreign and security policy. Either way, it would mark a fundamental transformation of the Islamic Republic’s character, even if its name endured.

A third possibility involves systemic mutation after the departure of Khamenei. Whether through succession or negotiated adjustment, new leadership figures might seek to stabilise the country through controlled change. Yet the texts consistently suggest that incremental reform within a theological framework fundamentally disconnected from society has exhausted its credibility. Any post-Khamenei continuity would therefore still represent an irreversible break from the past, not a return to equilibrium.

The fourth, and increasingly discussed, scenario moves beyond the Islamic Republic altogether. In this trajectory, political transition emerges outside the regime’s institutional framework, driven by sustained popular mobilisation and elite fragmentation. This path carries both opportunity and risk. Iran possesses resilient state institutions, deep human capital, and a powerful attachment to territorial integrity, all of which could facilitate a managed transition. At the same time, unresolved ethnic tensions, secessionist movements, economic collapse, and external interference pose serious dangers if the process becomes violent or chaotic.

What unites these scenarios is a shared recognition that Iran has crossed a threshold. The Islamic Republic may still command coercive power, but its foundational myths—protection from war, moral governance, revolutionary legitimacy—have been punctured by events over the past year. Missiles striking Iranian cities, economic freefall, and the spectacle of a leadership isolated from its own society have stripped away the aura of invincibility that once sustained the system.

The central risk now is not collapse per se, but an unmanaged transition shaped by fear, fragmentation, or external agendas rather than Iranian agency. For international actors, particularly those claiming to support the Iranian people, the challenge will be to balance pressure on the regime with a clear commitment to Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. For Iranians themselves, the task ahead is unprecedented: to transform mass rejection into a credible political future.

Iran has entered a liminal moment once imagined but rarely believed possible. The outcome remains uncertain, but one conclusion is increasingly difficult to avoid. As a political project capable of commanding consent, the Islamic Republic has reached its end. The struggle that now unfolds is over what replaces it, and whether that transformation can occur without sacrificing the country’s cohesion, dignity, and future.

This report analyses Iran’s January 2026 protest wave as a systemic political rupture rather than a cyclical episode of unrest. Drawing exclusively on contemporaneous reporting and analysis, it examines the drivers of nationwide mobilisation, the regime’s calibrated use of repression and information blackouts, the role of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s uncompromising posture, and the impact of external pressure from the United States. The article also assesses emerging transition scenarios—from intensified crackdown to post–Islamic Republic pathways—highlighting the risks and possibilities facing Iran at a moment when the existing political order has lost its capacity to command legitimacy.

Iran at the Breaking Point: Protest Dynamics and Plausible Scenarios Ahead

The reimposition of United Nations sanctions on Iran in September 2025 has intensified the confrontation between Tehran and Jerusalem. What had already been a volatile conflict following the 12-day war in June has now entered a new and highly unstable phase. Israel has raised its security alert, warning of the risk of Iranian miscalculation, while Tehran has responded with defiance, threatening both Israel and the United States, hinting at expanding its missile range, and accelerating executions of alleged Mossad agents. Against this backdrop, broader geopolitical currents—most notably China’s quiet support for Iran’s missile and air-defense rehabilitation and Russia’s diplomatic protection—complicate efforts to stabilize the situation. This paper examines the strategic dynamics now at play, the shifting military and intelligence balance, and the diplomatic and domestic pressures shaping both Iran and Israel.

The Nuclear File and the Collapse of the JCPOA Framework

The 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is today an empty shell. The United States’ withdrawal in 2018 set in motion a steady unraveling, and by 2025 the International Atomic Energy Agency was reporting Iranian uranium stockpiles of more than 8,400 kilograms, including roughly 409 kilograms enriched to 60 percent—just short of weapons grade. The European powers, after years of reluctance, finally invoked the snapback mechanism in late August, restoring the full weight of UN sanctions before the provision expired. This decision was motivated by Iran’s continued non-compliance and the risk that Russia, assuming the presidency of the Security Council, would block future action.

Iran now faces a dilemma. Within parliament, hardliners are pressing for withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and for ending cooperation with the IAEA, a course of action that would be interpreted internationally as a clear signal of weaponization. The government has so far balanced this rhetoric with ambiguity, suggesting that it might continue to engage in diplomacy while publicly downplaying the sanctions’ impact. Yet the damage to its economy is already evident, with the rial plummeting to an all-time low and inflation climbing above 40 percent. Israel, for its part, insists that Iran could break out to a nuclear weapon within a year if it chooses, a timeline made more troubling by the lack of international inspections at key facilities since the summer strikes.

Military Dynamics: Missiles, Air Defense, and the Balance of Power

The June 2025 conflict revealed both Iran’s growing missile capability and Israel’s enduring defensive strengths. Iran launched over 500 ballistic missiles and 1,100 drones at Israeli territory. While most were intercepted, more than thirty missiles and one drone struck populated areas, killing thirty-one Israelis, injuring thousands, and displacing over 13,000. These attacks exposed the limits of Israel’s multilayered defense architecture, even as the IDF’s strikes on Iranian nuclear, military, and leadership targets were widely portrayed as devastating.

In response to these vulnerabilities, Iran has begun hinting that it will extend the range of its missiles beyond the current self-imposed limit of 2,000 kilometers. Iranian commanders argue that deeper launch sites in the country’s eastern provinces, made necessary after Israeli raids on western facilities, require longer-range missiles. This posture directly threatens not only Israel but potentially European targets.

Reports of discreet Chinese shipments of advanced components, including solid-fuel precursors, guidance systems, and HQ-9B surface-to-air missile systems, suggest that Iran’s missile and air-defense capabilities may be recovering more quickly than expected. For Israel, this creates a serious dilemma. Striking Iranian targets supplied by Russia carries familiar risks, but striking Chinese consignments could trigger a major geopolitical rupture with Beijing. Consequently, Israel is likely to rely on covert sabotage and backchannel diplomacy to limit China’s role while accelerating its own missile defense programs, including Arrow upgrades and directed-energy systems.

Intelligence and Espionage: A Growing Gray-Zone Conflict

Parallel to the open military confrontation is an intensifying intelligence war. Iran has executed at least ten individuals accused of working with Mossad in recent months, including Bahman Choobi-asl, described as one of Israel’s most important spies in the country. Tehran claimed that Choobi-asl, a database specialist, provided Mossad with access to government systems, data centers, and information about telecommunications and electronics imports. His execution followed a string of similar cases, underscoring Iran’s reliance on high-profile hangings to demonstrate vigilance and deter collaboration.

In Israel, authorities are confronting a surge in Iranian recruitment attempts. Hundreds of citizens recently received phone calls in Hebrew, allegedly from Iranian intelligence, offering “competitive salaries” for espionage. Other efforts have taken place through Telegram and other social media platforms, often with cryptocurrency payments. Arrests of Israelis suspected of espionage—including a dual American-Israeli, Yaakov Perl, who allegedly surveilled senior officials on Iran’s behalf—reflect the success of Tehran’s mass, low-cost recruitment tactics. These efforts appear designed not to recruit elite operatives but to cast a wide net, overwhelming Israel’s counterintelligence apparatus and extracting whatever intelligence is feasible.

Internally, Iran is grappling with acute economic strain and political hardening. The snapback sanctions affect all major sectors, from energy and banking to arms procurement. The rial’s freefall has worsened purchasing power, and ordinary Iranians expect higher prices and shortages. Although reformist outlets warn of crisis, hardliners celebrate the JCPOA’s demise as proof of their long-standing critique that engagement with the West was a “pure loss.” In this atmosphere, executions have surged, not only of alleged spies but also of dissidents and protesters. Human rights groups estimate that over 1,000 people have been executed in 2025, a pace unseen since the end of the Iran–Iraq war in 1988. This resort to repression reflects both the regime’s fragility and its unwillingness to compromise.

For Israel, the period since the June war has been one of heightened vigilance and deliberate signaling. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the UN General Assembly emphasized that Israel had crippled Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, while warning against international recognition of a Palestinian state. His speech portrayed the conflict as existential, casting Iran’s “terror axis” as a global menace. Israeli officials stress that, despite recent setbacks, Iran remains a powerful adversary capable of rebuilding its programs.

Operationally, Israel has adopted a multi-pronged approach: intensifying intelligence-gathering to detect Iranian rebuilding, applying diplomatic pressure on Russia and China to curtail support, and accelerating its technological edge through missile-defense innovation. Domestically, it has expanded prison capacity for Iranian-linked spies and issued repeated public advisories to guard against recruitment schemes.

The United States and European powers remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but their options are limited. Washington urges Tehran to accept direct talks, while Britain, France, and Germany call for restraint alongside the sanctions. Russia and China reject the legality of the snapback and deepen their partnerships with Iran, with Moscow signing a $25 billion nuclear deal and Beijing continuing to import Iranian oil at discounted prices. Regional states, particularly in the Gulf, share Israel’s concerns over Iran’s missile arsenal but tread cautiously, wary of escalation and of jeopardizing economic ties with China.

The conflict could take several forms in the months ahead. The most likely outcome is managed confrontation: sanctions will bite unevenly, Iran will rebuild selectively, and both sides will continue espionage and covert actions without escalating into full war. However, the risk of an escalatory spiral remains real. A miscalculated strike or assassination could lead to renewed missile barrages and potentially draw in the United States, given Tehran’s explicit warnings.

A more optimistic but less probable scenario involves a diplomatic holding pattern, with backchannel talks mediated by Oman or Qatar leading to partial monitoring arrangements. Conversely, a darker scenario would see Iran pursue nuclear breakout, reducing transparency and enriching further, betting that the West is too divided to respond forcefully. In each case, ambiguity about the true state of Iran’s nuclear facilities complicates decision-making, creating conditions for crisis mismanagement.

The confrontation between Iran and Israel in late 2025 has entered a dangerous and unpredictable phase. The snapback sanctions mark the end of the JCPOA era and the beginning of a new period of coercion and resistance. Iran faces mounting economic pressure and international isolation but remains determined to expand its missile capabilities and deter further Israeli strikes. Israel, though confident in its military edge, must prepare for the possibility that Iran could rebuild faster than expected, especially with Chinese assistance.

At the heart of the crisis lies uncertainty: uncertainty about the extent of damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear program, about Tehran’s willingness to escalate, and about the international community’s capacity to enforce sanctions. This ambiguity makes miscalculation more likely. Without a credible diplomatic framework or reliable inspection regime, both sides may increasingly act on worst-case assumptions, raising the risk of renewed confrontation.

In this fragile environment, effective policy must combine credible deterrence with pragmatic avenues for de-escalation. For the West, this means strict sanctions enforcement coupled with narrowly framed monitoring-for-relief proposals. For Israel, it requires balancing overt deterrence with covert disruption, while avoiding entanglement with Beijing. For Iran, the path forward is fraught: defiance may buy time domestically, but it risks deeper economic collapse and potentially devastating strikes. What is certain is that the coming months will determine whether the confrontation remains contained or escalates into another round of open war.

This article provides a detailed foreign policy analysis of the escalating confrontation between Iran and Israel following the reimposition of UN snapback sanctions in September 2025. It examines the collapse of the JCPOA nuclear framework, Iran’s accelerating executions of alleged Mossad agents, Israel’s heightened security posture, and the broader geopolitical role of Russia and China. The analysis highlights the interplay of military, intelligence, and domestic pressures shaping both states, while underscoring the risks of miscalculation and renewed conflict in the absence of diplomacy or effective monitoring.

Iran–Israel Confrontation after the UN Snapback Sanctions

After nearly three hours of closed-door talks in Alaska on August 15, Trump and Putin emerged to describe their meeting as “productive” but reported no concrete agreements. President Trump said “some headway” was made on ending the Ukraine war, but insisted “there’s no deal until there’s a deal,” signaling that discussions would continue. He publicly urged Ukraine’s president to “make a deal” with Russia, noting only that Kyiv must negotiate “security guarantees” and possibly territorial compromises. In a shift of position, Trump announced on social media that negotiators should “go directly to a Peace Agreement… and not a mere Ceasefire,” aligning with Putin’s preference. Putin likewise reported “we have reached an understanding” and stressed that both sides agreed Ukraine’s security must be “ensured”. Neither leader gave details or took press questions. Putin offered support for Trump’s claim of election interference and invited him to a future summit in Moscow, to which Trump replied “we’ll speak… and probably see you again very soon,” prompting Putin to quip “next time in Moscow”

Official statements from each side thus consisted mostly of broad mutual assurances. Trump’s team emphasized the idea of a three-way “peace summit” with Ukraine, and announced he would call NATO and Ukrainian leaders next. Putin’s aides (via TASS) confirmed no agreement on a ceasefire but stressed the importance of diplomacy without preconditions. In summary, both presidents portrayed the talks as constructive, but no formal accords or ceasefires were announced.

Media Coverage and Expert Analysis (Unofficial Takeaways)

News coverage emphasized that the summit yielded no breakthrough. Journalists noted that Trump’s deference to Putin (red carpet greeting, enthusiastic applause) contrasted with his limited gains on Ukraine, calling it a “PR victory for Putin”. On social media and commentary, experts warned Trump had “been played” by Putin and urged the U.S. to intensify pressure on Russia. Cold War historian Sergey Radchenko commented that “Putin…basically won this round because he got something for nothing,” though he noted Trump did not outright abandon Ukraine. Chatham House analysts observed that Alaska left Moscow’s aggression unchecked and likely emboldened Putin: one senior fellow wrote that Trump “walked away empty-handed” while Putin returned “with a smile on his face,” noting the meeting gave Russia a diplomatic lift.

Most media reported that Trump publicly softened his stance on Ukraine’s demands (dropping the ceasefire precondition) with little clarity on what concessions Russia offered. Coverage highlighted ongoing U.S. and Ukrainian military strikes during the talks as evidence of the war’s continuation. Conservative commentators in the West saw a missed opportunity, while others viewed Trump’s outreach as a bold effort to broker peace (noting he has taken credit for past agreements). Overall, analysts agreed the summit was largely symbolic – affirming the idea of dialogue but not resolving anything substantive.

International Reactions (NATO, EU, China, etc.)

Global leaders reacted cautiously. NATO allies reiterated support for Ukraine and insisted on maintaining sanctions. In a joint statement, European leaders (UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc.) insisted “Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees” and that “no limitations” be placed on its armed forces or NATO aspirations. UK PM Keir Starmer hailed Trump’s engagement as “bringing us closer than ever to ending Russia’s illegal war,” praising security pledges while vowing to “keep tightening the screws on [Putin’s] war machine” through sanctions. France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz likewise underscored that any peace deal must protect Ukrainian sovereignty and should be achieved with Western unity. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni called it “a glimmer of hope” to discuss peace and highlighted NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, while European Commission President von der Leyen emphasized working “closely with President Zelenskiy and the United States to reach a just and lasting peace”. NATO ministers (e.g. Norway’s Eide, Czech Republic’s Cernochova) stressed continuing and even intensifying pressure on Russia, warning Putin will exploit any Western fissures.

China offered a cautious welcome: its foreign ministry praised U.S.-Russia dialogue as “conducive to peaceful settlement” and said it “hopes to see progress in the political resolution of the Ukraine crisis”. Officially Beijing said it “supports all efforts conducive to peaceful settlement” and that all parties should participate in negotiations. Chinese analysts noted the summit’s symbolism and warned Beijing will carefully watch how any U.S.-Russia détente reshapes global power dynamics.

Several non-Western and regional players weighed in. India’s foreign ministry commended both leaders’ “pursuit of peace” and said “dialogue and diplomacy” must end the conflict. In Central Europe, Hungarian PM Orbán applauded the meeting as making “the world a safer place than it was yesterday”, reflecting Budapest’s typically Russia-friendly stance. By contrast, Polish and Baltic officials warned that Putin only seeks territorial gains, insisting Western unity remain “decisive” for Ukraine’s future.

Reaction in the U.S. split sharply along partisan lines. Democrats expressed alarm. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (Foreign Relations ranking Democrat) said “Trump appears to have been played yet again by Vladimir Putin,” condemning Trump for rolling out a red carpet to a “murderous dictator” and getting “nothing concrete in return”. Senator Jack Reed (Armed Services ranking Democrat) urged that the U.S. join allies in imposing “tough, targeted new sanctions” instead of “caving to Putin”. Many Democratic commentators felt Trump’s embrace of Putin undermined U.S. credibility on Ukraine.

Among Republicans and Trump allies, the tone was more muted or supportive. Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) noted Trump’s previous peace deals in other conflicts and expressed confidence Trump would “rise to the challenge” in Ukraine. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said she was “cautiously optimistic” by the summit’s signals, emphasizing that Ukraine “must be part of any negotiated settlement” and that its consent is crucial. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a Trump ally, praised Trump for holding the meeting and said he was “very proud” of the initiative. Graham even offered hope the war could end “well before Christmas” if a trilateral Trump–Putin–Zelenskiy summit takes place as planned. Some on the right felt that the simple act of dialogue was a success; conservative commentator Charlie Kirk declared it “a great thing”.

Across U.S. media, commentators debated the wisdom of Trump’s approach. Progressives warned that the summit risked abandoning Ukraine, while pro-Trump outlets hailed it as a bold peace effort. Crucially, Trump's campaign staff has since shifted focus to capitalizing on his new “diplomat” image and touted potential future meetings (Trump publicly mentioned he might meet Putin again in Moscow).

Within Russia, officials and state media framed the summit as a victory for Moscow’s narrative. Senior lawmakers praised the meeting as evidence of Russia’s “desire for peace” and depicted it as a diplomatic coup. Andrei Klishas (a Putin ally in parliament) lauded the talks as a triumph for Russia and a defeat for Ukraine’s approach. Former President Dmitry Medvedev called the summit a proof that Russia can hold talks “without conditions,” emphasizing that Moscow’s demands (such as a complete settlement, not just a ceasefire) were vindicated.

Russian state TV highlighted the ceremony and fanfare – a rare positive portrayal of Putin on foreign soil. Channel One’s anchors noted Trump’s red carpet treatment and suggested the two leaders had “obviously agreed about a lot of things,” even if those details were unstated. Kremlin commentators said the summit opened talks on a “new architecture” of security in Europe. Some in the pro-war press adopted a more cautious tone: one prominent blogger (Old Miner) noted that beyond “strong remarks,” the meeting produced no visible results and warned that Russia could resume attacks, giving Trump reason to “interrupt the negotiation process”.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov immediately briefed allies on the outcome. He spoke to Turkey and Hungary about the summit and emphasized that Russia invited discussions of peace on its terms. Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán (a Putin ally) praised the summit similarly to Klishas. In Russia’s domestic politics, hardliners celebrated that no new sanctions were announced and that Trump appeared to be conceding to Russian demands, while others cautioned that the true costs would depend on how the war unfolds.

The summit set the stage for imminent follow-up diplomacy. President Trump invited Ukrainian President Zelenskiy to Washington on Monday, August 18, and this meeting will include key European leader. Reuters reports that UK PM Starmer, France’s Macron, Germany’s Merz, Italy’s Meloni, and Commission President von der Leyen plan to join Zelenskiy for talks with Trump. This is intended to “shore up” Zelenskiy’s hand as the U.S. presses for a quick negotiated peace. German Chancellor Merz confirmed that a trilateral summit with Putin will be sought “as soon as possible” after the Washington meeting. He said leaders are looking at swapping small occupied areas for formal peace, an idea Trump raised, and stressed that Ukraine’s fate should not be decided by force.

U.S. policy signals also shifted subtly. Trump announced he would pause new tariffs on China for buying Russian oil “for now,” saying his progress with Putin made them unnecessary immediately. This suggests trade tensions with China may be temporarily de-emphasized in light of new Russian engagement. Meanwhile, European officials reiterated that U.S. security commitments to Ukraine are expected – both Merz and Meloni stressed exploring NATO-like guarantees, and Washington has indicated it “stands ready” to participate in such guarantees. At the same time, U.S. and NATO sources indicated they will keep up sanctions pressure: Norwegian Foreign Minister Eide called for intensifying pressure on Russia, and EU leaders pledged continued sanctions (working on a 19th package) if Russia does not cease aggression.

In summary, the Alaska meeting yielded no immediate policy changes or ceasefire, but it reshuffled diplomatic dynamics. Ukraine’s leaders and NATO allies are mobilizing to reinforce unity and press for security guarantees before any deal is struck. Trump’s outreach, meanwhile, has emboldened Putin’s rhetoric and prompted both U.S. and European officials to clarify that a settlement must honor Ukraine’s interests. Future steps will include intense trilateral negotiations (including a planned Trump–Putin–Zelensky summit) and debates over territorial compromises vs. continued military pressure. As analyst commentary noted, the coming days will reveal whether this dialogue yields progress or simply reinforces Russia’s current war aims.

The August 15 Alaska summit between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was marked by symbolism and cautious dialogue rather than concrete results. While both leaders described the talks as “productive,” no ceasefire or formal agreements were reached, though Trump signalled a shift toward pursuing a comprehensive peace deal. The meeting drew mixed reactions worldwide: NATO allies and EU leaders reaffirmed unwavering support for Ukraine, China welcomed dialogue, and Russia framed the summit as a diplomatic success. Domestically, U.S. reactions were polarized along partisan lines, while Russian officials celebrated the optics of engagement. Looking ahead, Trump has invited Ukraine and European leaders to Washington, with discussions expected to lay the groundwork for a potential trilateral summit with Putin.

Alaska Summit: Trump and Putin Open Dialogue but Deliver No Breakthrough

The war in Ukraine, now stretching well beyond 1,260 days, remains intense across multiple fronts. In Zaporizhia, Ukrainian forces such as the 128th Mountain Assault Brigade have been pushed deeper from the front line due to persistent Russian drone surveillance and precision artillery fire. Danger zones currently extend up to 15 kilometres from the line of contact, but could expand to as much as 60 kilometres as Russia deploys additional mid-range drones. This would place logistics hubs, artillery positions, and troop concentrations far from the immediate battlefield under sustained threat. The pace of fighting remains uneven, with central Zaporizhia relatively quiet while the western and eastern flanks are experiencing heavy clashes, particularly near Huliapole. Russian forces are pushing forward in these areas, often relying on poorly trained and under-equipped units, yet achieving incremental territorial gains.

Ukraine has sought to counter these advances through the use of Shersh drones, which have a 3.5-metre wingspan, an eight-kilogram payload capacity, and a strike range of 50 to 60 kilometres. These drones are more precise and resistant to jamming than their Russian Molniya counterparts, marking a shift toward more accurate deep-strike capabilities. Both sides are racing to integrate AI targeting into drone operations, signalling a technological shift that is likely to influence the battlefield within the next year. Meanwhile, Russian air and missile strikes continue to hit Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, and Donetsk. Moscow has claimed the capture of Yablunivka in Donetsk and the downing of hundreds of Ukrainian drones in a single night, while Ukraine has demonstrated its ability to strike deep into Russian-occupied territories and across the border into Belgorod, Sochi, and Saratov.

While some Western analysts continue to portray Russia’s eastern offensive as merely tactical in nature—aimed at capturing dozens of villages without significantly altering the broader strategic picture—the reality is considerably more alarming. Over the past two years, Russia has methodically positioned its forces to threaten or potentially encircle four major population clusters in eastern Ukraine. These include Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad, with a pre-war combined population of approximately 110,000; Kostiantynivka, Chasiv Yar, and Toretsk, with around 100,000 residents; Siversk and surrounding settlements, with roughly 15,000 inhabitants; and Kupiansk along with the so-called pocket east of the Oskil River, home to about 50,000 people before the war.

In these regions, Russian troops have achieved partial encirclements, in some cases forming 270-degree siege positions by capturing hundreds of smaller settlements. This tactic mirrors the approach used successfully in Bakhmut, Kurakhove, and Avdiivka, where prolonged pressure eventually collapsed Ukrainian supply lines. A further advance of only a few kilometres in these sectors would be sufficient to cut off an estimated 1,000 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory from resupply, enabling rapid occupation. Such a breakthrough would bring Moscow significantly closer to controlling the entire Donbas, leaving only Sloviansk and Kramatorsk within reach of Russian drones and artillery. It would also enable a broad crossing of the Oskil River in Kharkiv Oblast, potentially setting the stage for a renewed push on Kharkiv city through a pincer movement from the north and east. Freed-up forces in Donetsk could then be redirected toward a southward offensive into Zaporizhzhia, or even in the direction of Dnipro. Analysts warn that this scenario could materialise within six months unless Ukraine and its allies substantially increase the delivery of arms, bolster infantry strength, and demonstrate greater political resolve.

In Kherson, Russia is intensifying its efforts to split the city by targeting a vital bridge and threatening key access roads with drones. The approximately 2,000 residents who remain on the city’s southern island face increasing isolation, and local hospitals are under heavy strain as civilian casualties mount from ongoing attacks.

Western defence experts have underscored the urgent need for Ukraine to adopt a fully integrated, multi-layered air defence network. At present, Ukraine relies on a patchwork of modern Western systems, Soviet-era platforms, and improvised solutions, all of which suffer from limited interoperability. A NATO-integrated network would unify radar, sensors, and AI-based threat prioritisation, enabling the use of costly interceptors only against high-value threats while deploying cheaper countermeasures to neutralise mass drone swarms. Proponents of such an approach emphasise the need not only to intercept incoming attacks but also to strike at Russian launch sites preemptively, shifting the focus from targeting the arrows to disabling the archers. This system could eventually be linked to NATO’s own eastern-flank defences, offering enduring protection even after a formal ceasefire.

Diplomatic Developments and the Alaska Summit

United States President Donald Trump has announced his intention to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on 15 August 2025, with the White House indicating it is “open” to including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Kremlin, however, has thus far resisted such a trilateral format, favouring a bilateral engagement. According to reports, Putin’s proposal would see Russia halt hostilities in exchange for Ukraine ceding all occupied territories plus additional Ukrainian-held areas in Donetsk—roughly one-fifth of Ukraine’s landmass. Trump has publicly floated the idea of potential territory swaps, a concept firmly rejected by Ukraine and its European allies, who maintain that peace cannot be based on territorial concessions and that Ukraine must be present at the negotiating table.

European leaders from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland, and the European Commission have issued a joint statement opposing any changes to borders by force. European officials have also presented a counterproposal that calls for a ceasefire before territorial discussions, reciprocal de-escalation measures, and robust security guarantees for Ukraine.

Ukraine continues to accuse Russia of forcibly deporting more than 19,500 children, with some estimates exceeding 35,000. Many of these children are listed in an online adoption catalogue maintained by Russian authorities, complete with personal details. Kyiv has described this as state-organised child trafficking, warning of exploitation and forced assimilation. In Kharkiv alone, more than 3,000 civilians have been killed since 2022. Local authorities are documenting missile and drone debris for potential war crimes trials. There is also concern over sanctions evasion, as some captured Russian weapons still contain foreign-made components.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has voiced support for long-term political solutions, welcoming US–Russia dialogue while reinforcing the durability of Sino-Russian ties. Putin is expected to visit Beijing in September, further underscoring the strategic partnership between the two powers.

Several potential trajectories could shape the conflict’s outcome. An unconditional Russian ceasefire remains highly unlikely. A pragmatic pause in fighting could emerge in the form of a winter ceasefire that locks in current Russian territorial gains. Alternatively, sustained Western aid could allow Ukraine to maintain a prolonged defensive posture, preventing further losses. In a more pessimistic scenario, Western disengagement could enable Russia to achieve significant territorial advances, including a breakthrough in the Donbas. There is also the possibility of a prolonged conflict eroding Moscow’s political and economic stability, leading to a strategic failure for Russia. The newly integrated battlefield analysis suggests that without urgent Western escalation in arms and manpower support, the likelihood of a significant Ukrainian territorial loss will grow considerably in the coming months.

The next six months will be pivotal. The Alaska summit could either reinforce Ukraine’s position—if Kyiv is included—or legitimise Russian gains, thereby undermining the rules-based international order. On the battlefield, Russia’s methodical encirclement of key eastern cities could result in a strategic breakthrough unless Western capitals commit to a substantial material surge in weapons, ammunition, and trained personnel. The evolution of drone warfare, continued artillery dominance, and high-stakes political manoeuvring will define the next phase of the conflict, with consequences likely to extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders and deeply affect NATO’s eastern security architecture.

This report provides an in-depth assessment of the evolving war in Ukraine, integrating frontline military developments, the potential for Russian strategic breakthroughs in the Donbas, and the geopolitical stakes of the upcoming Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. It examines encirclement risks in key eastern cities, the growing role of drone warfare, NATO’s air defence gap, humanitarian concerns, and the diplomatic struggle over Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The analysis underscores the next six months as a decisive period that could redefine both the battlefield and the broader European security order.

Ukraine at the Crossroads: Strategic Risks & Diplomatic Tensions


Relations between Azerbaijan and Russia have entered a significant period of tension, triggered by a series of incidents that have deeply affected diplomatic, legal, and political dynamics between the two nations. Recent events, including the tragic downing of an Azerbaijani passenger plane, violent police operations in Russia, and the increasingly assertive foreign policy pursued by Azerbaijan, have all contributed to a growing divide. As Azerbaijan strengthens its sovereignty, diversifies its international relations, and asserts itself as a regional power, the Kremlin has responded with both passive and aggressive tactics, further complicating bilateral ties.
This report presents a comprehensive overview of the escalating tensions between Azerbaijan and Russia, based on a detailed analysis of recent incidents and developments. It outlines key events that have shaped the current crisis, assesses the diplomatic and legal fallout, and explores the broader geopolitical implications.

The Downing of AZAL Flight 8243: A Catalyst for Tension


The turning point in the deteriorating relationship between Azerbaijan and Russia occurred on December 25, 2024, when Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, an Embraer 190, was downed by Russian air defense systems. The flight, en route from Baku to Grozny, was diverted and crashed near Aktau, Kazakhstan, after being struck by missiles fired by a Russian air defense system. The incident resulted in the deaths of 38 passengers and crew members, with 29 others injured.


Azerbaijan has consistently maintained that the aircraft was shot down by Russian air defense systems, an assertion supported by evidence such as the recovery of missile fragments from the wreckage. Russian officials, however, initially downplayed the incident, with Moscow admitting that air defense systems were active on the day of the crash but stopping short of acknowledging responsibility. Despite a public apology from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Azerbaijan demanded an official acknowledgment of the incident, compensation for victims, and accountability for those responsible.


In July 2025, new evidence emerged, suggesting that the missile strike was not a mistake but part of a broader strategy. According to a report published by Azerbaijani media outlet Minval Politika, the order to shoot down the plane came directly from Major General Alexander Tolopilo, then commander of the 51st Air Defense Division of Russia's Southern Military District. The report also revealed that technical deficiencies in the air defense system contributed to the missile strike. Despite internal findings contradicting the official Russian version, Tolopilo was not held accountable and was instead promoted.


The Deaths of the Safarov Brothers: An Escalation in Violence

This report delves into the escalating tensions between Azerbaijan and Russia, driven by key events like the downing of an Azerbaijani passenger plane and the deaths of Azerbaijani nationals in Russian custody. It explores Azerbaijan's growing independence and its move to strengthen ties with Turkey, the EU, and Ukraine. The report also highlights the broader geopolitical shifts in the South Caucasus, with Russia's influence waning and Azerbaijan positioning itself as a key player in the region.       Ask ChatGPT

Research

The U.S.–Israel–Iran War: Strategic and Military Dynamics

Playing with Fire: America, Iran, and the Next Middle East War

Commentary