“President Trump has also been very consistent. Crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent upon Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons. It is common sense,” Marco Rubio, video clip posted on X by Thomas Keith.

“Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear,”—General David Petraeus, former head of US Central Command, replied when CNN asked about the vulnerability of Iran’s nuclear installations [10 January 2010].

A sweeping and brutal military onslaught launched by the United States and Israel against Iran has thrust the Middle East into a new era of direct conflict, with profound and perilous ramifications for global peace and economic stability.

On 28 February 2026, joint US and Israeli forces initiated coordinated strikes deep inside Iranian territory, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and targeting Iran’s military infrastructure in what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US officials described as a necessary offensive against “imminent threats.”

Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities and US military bases across the Gulf, escalating violence into a region-wide war, which, until the time of writing, continues unabated, also involving fights in Beirut between Hezbollah and Israeli forces.

The latest phase of confrontation in the Middle East has crossed a dangerous threshold. What began as calibrated shadow hostilities has now unfolded into direct and devastating military assaults, with the United States firmly backing Israel’s expanded strikes deep inside Iranian territory and also using its forces on the ground, in the air, and at sea.

The consequences of joint US-Israeli attacks are no longer confined to Tehran, Tel Aviv, or Washington. They are reverberating across oil markets, shipping lanes, financial systems, and diplomatic corridors, threatening not merely regional stability but world peace and the fragile equilibrium of the global economy.

Israeli forces, with overt American logistical, intelligence, and strategic support, have intensified attacks targeting Iran’s military installations, missile infrastructure, nuclear-linked facilities, and many civilians. Washington has justified its backing under the familiar language of deterrence and pre-emption, arguing that the strikes aim to neutralise imminent threats.

Tehran, however, has responded with missile and drone attacks, declaring the assault an act of war and vowing sustained retaliation. The exchange has transformed what was once proxy conflict into confrontation between two heavily armed states, with the United States positioned on one side without furnishing any credible evidence of an “imminent threat.”

A disruption in Gulf energy exports does not remain a regional problem; it cascades into supply chains, manufacturing costs, and household budgets thousands of miles away. Inflationary spikes

A disruption in Gulf energy exports does not remain a regional problem; it cascades into supply chains, manufacturing costs, and household budgets thousands of miles away. Inflationary spikes

The escalation has already widened beyond the immediate theatre. Iran-aligned groups in Lebanon and elsewhere have entered the fray, opening additional fronts and heightening the risk of a multi-layered regional war. Gulf states, long anxious about becoming collateral arenas, now find themselves on edge. Military bases hosting American forces across the region are on heightened alert. Each retaliatory strike narrows the space for diplomacy and increases the probability of miscalculation.

While missiles travel across borders, markets respond instantly. Oil prices have surged as traders factor in the possibility of disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime artery through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. Even the threat of restricted passage through that chokepoint is enough to send shockwaves through global energy markets.

Insurance premiums for shipping have climbed sharply. Tanker traffic has slowed. Speculation about prolonged instability has pushed crude benchmarks upward, reviving inflationary fears at a time when many economies are still grappling with post-pandemic vulnerabilities and debt burdens.

For energy-importing nations, especially in Asia and parts of Europe, the implications are immediate and painful. Higher oil and gas prices translate into rising transport costs, elevated food prices, and renewed cost-of-living pressures. Central banks that were cautiously easing monetary tightening now face renewed dilemmas.

Financial markets, already sensitive to geopolitical risk, have turned volatile. Investors are shifting towards safe-haven assets, while emerging markets fear capital outflows. The world economy, still uneven in its recovery, cannot easily absorb another sustained energy shock.

Beyond economics lies the deeper question of global order. The open alignment of the United States with Israel’s offensive posture against Iran has sharpened geopolitical fault lines. China has called for restraint and dialogue, positioning itself as an advocate of diplomatic resolution.

Russia has criticised the escalation, warning of destabilisation and humanitarian fallout. The diplomatic divide underscores a broader contest over influence in West Asia, a region that sits at the intersection of energy security, trade routes, and strategic rivalries.

For decades, the rhetoric of preemption and deterrence has been invoked to justify military interventions in the Middle East. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that force, once unleashed, rarely remains confined to its stated objectives. Retaliation breeds counter-retaliation. Proxy actors become direct participants. Civilian populations bear the brunt. Infrastructure is degraded. Reconstruction costs multiply. Political polarisation deepens. The cycle becomes self-perpetuating.

Iran’s internal dynamics add another layer of unpredictability. External attack often consolidates domestic hardline positions, marginalising voices that advocate engagement. Nationalist sentiment rises in the face of foreign aggression, narrowing political space for compromise.

In Israel, security narratives dominate political discourse, reinforcing a belief that overwhelming force ensures survival. In Washington, electoral calculations intersect with strategic commitments, complicating prospects for de-escalation.

The humanitarian dimension is equally troubling. Civilian casualties mount with each strike. Critical facilities risk damage. Displacement increases in border areas. The psychological toll across societies already fatigued by years of instability cannot be quantified in economic indicators. A prolonged conflict would strain aid systems and potentially trigger wider refugee flows, compounding pressures on neighbouring states.

What makes the present moment particularly perilous is the convergence of military escalation and economic fragility. The global system is deeply interconnected. A disruption in Gulf energy exports does not remain a regional problem; it cascades into supply chains, manufacturing costs, and household budgets thousands of miles away. Inflationary spikes in one region ripple outward. Political instability feeds economic anxiety, which in turn influences electoral outcomes and foreign policy choices elsewhere.

Those working with Trump, overtly or covertly, must never forget lessons from our own history utter military humiliations and dismemberment of a geographical entity in 1971

Those working with Trump, overtly or covertly, must never forget lessons from our own history utter military humiliations and dismemberment of a geographical entity in 1971

The central paradox is stark. Actions justified as measures to enhance security risk undermine the very stability they claim to defend. An expanding war between Israel and Iran, backed decisively by the United States, does not merely redraw military lines; it unsettles global markets, intensifies geopolitical rivalries, and erodes the norms that restrain interstate conflict. Once great powers become directly entangled, the margin for error shrinks dramatically.

World peace, already strained by conflicts in other theatres, cannot easily absorb another sustained confrontation involving major regional actors and a superpower. Diplomacy, though weakened, remains the only viable path to contain the spiral.

Without urgent de-escalation, the present trajectory points towards a prolonged and economically destabilising conflict with consequences extending far beyond the Middle East. The world now stands at a juncture where restraint is not a sign of weakness but of strategic prudence.

Continued military escalation may satisfy immediate political calculations, but its cumulative cost, measured in lives lost, markets shaken, and global trust diminished, will be borne far more widely than the battlefield suggests.

The American presidents and generals engaged in creating war hysteria since 9/11 are ardent followers of Machiavelli’s famous advice in The Prince: “a wise ruler invents enemies and then slays them to control his own subjects.” The United States, desiring continuation of its military presence in many Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain, is now bent upon destroying and dismembering Iran.

What is unfolding today cannot be understood merely as another regional war triggered by immediate security calculations. It is part of a longer historical pattern in which military confrontation is repeatedly employed as an instrument of global strategy.

Since the end of the Cold War, the language of “imminent threats”, “pre-emptive defence”, and “counterterrorism” has often served as the political vocabulary through which interventionist policies are legitimised.

Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria were all justified through similar narratives of urgent necessity. Yet, viewed together, they reveal a broader architecture of militarised geopolitics in which force becomes the preferred tool for reshaping regions rich in energy resources and strategic transit routes.

The present assault on Ira,n therefore, fits into a continuum rather than standing as an isolated episode. The war psychosis of America against Iran is not new; it started with the fall of the Shah and the ‘Islamic Revolution’ in February 1979.

The geo-political interests of neo-imperialists to control world resources, muzzle hostile governments, and eradicate radical elements keep on shifting. In 2010, the United States’ favourite targets were Pakistan, Iran, and Yemen.

In 2026, through operations in Iran, Venezuela, and elsewhere, they want to create an apparition for re-emerging Russia, oil-rich Iran, democratic India, nuclear Pakistan, and socialist China. The recent assertions of Marco Rubio reaffirm the sinister purpose—keeping alive the so-called ‘Islamic threat’ for the ‘New Great Game’.

Pakistan’s civil and military leadership should not ignore the emerging new deadly tentacles of the New Great Game, in which the attack on Iran is part of a greater design. It is aimed at the Balkanisation of Iran, establishing an independent Kurdistan and then Greater Balochistan.

Dr Sachithanandam Sathananthan, in his article The Great Game Continues, opines that the ultimate goal of the New Great Game is: “Perpetuating Washington’s leverage to intervene in Pakistan to distance Islamabad from Beijing and exploit energy resources abundantly found in Balochistan and, in the long run, perhaps derail the US administration’s well-laid plans to bring Afghanistan to heel and to dominate Central Asia and its oil-rich Caspian Sea Basin.”

History lessons are very clear for present leaders and the military establishment of Pakistan: Those who are playing into the hands of Trump must remember the end of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Zia-ul-Haq imperialist forces, not only invent and slay enemies but also “create” friends and then discard them.

Washington always wants a “yes-man”, whether in the form of Musharraf, Zardari, Kayani, Nawaz, or now Shehbaz. It aims to have nothing less than a firm foothold in Pakistan that complements its strategic objectives in Central Asia. It has always discarded leaders who refused to “obey” (literally), brilliantly exposed by William R Polk in Violent Politics (2007).

Those working with Trump, overtly or covertly, must never forget lessons from our own history utter military humiliations and dismemberment of a geographical entity in 1971. The solution lies in defeating warmongers with the support of the masses and not becoming part of an anti-people agenda of the late neo-colonialists.

© The Friday Times