The war that began with a joint US-Israeli military offensive against Iran is one of the most dangerous episodes in the current political context. This conflict is not an isolated event, but the result of increasing of tensions in the Middle East and a deep transformation of the international order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Factors that explain the offensive<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The military offensive responds, first, less to an immediate threat than to a strategic gamble aimed at weakening or even provoking regime change in Tehran, taking advantage of the perception of internal vulnerability of the Iranian political system. Indeed, in the months leading up to the attack, Iran had experienced a significant wave of protests motivated by a very deteriorating economic situation. These mobilizations revealed the erosion of the regime and fuelled the perception that there was a window of opportunity to put pressure on the Iranian government. In this context, the decision to attack cannot be understood as a strictly defensive response, but as a war of election based on a combination of strategic, political and even personal factors, insofar as it fits with the agendas of Donald Trump and Benyamin Netanyahu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, and from a geopolitical point of view, the conflict responds to a structural rivalry between Israel and the Islamic Republic that dates back decades. Israel has traditionally perceived the Iranian regime as an existential threat, especially because of its nuclear program and Tehran’s support for its proxies such as Hezbollah or Hamas. The United States has also maintained a conflictive relationship with Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which has made the country a central element of American concerns in the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the decision by the US to initiate the conflict is also explained by internal political factors. Donald Trump’s rising unpopularity and the need to strengthen his leadership may have influenced the adoption of a more aggressive position on the international stage, to consolidate executive power. However, this strategy has also generated tensions within the MAGA movement itself, where some consider that excessive involvement in international conflicts moves away from the priority of concentrating on the internal problems of the United States and the America First program <\/em> thanks to which Trump was re-elected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mission execution<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the military field, the offensive began with a massive campaign of air and naval strikes against strategic Iranian installations. Despite these initial blows and the death of the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian political system has not collapsed. The regime’s institutions, which maintain control of the repressive apparatus, have organized a military response aimed at prolonging the conflict and raising its cost to their adversaries. Indeed, although its military capabilities have been severely damaged, Iran still has a significant part of its missile arsenal and especially drones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the Iranian response is based on a strategy of regional escalation. Despite the damage inflicted on its military infrastructure, Iran has attacked targets in several Persian Gulf countries that host US military installations. Airports, energy facilities, desalination plants and data centres have been targeted in countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the conflict has also spread to Lebanon, where Israel has intensified strikes on targets linked to Hezbollah, turning the country into a secondary front in the war, raising fears of a new occupation like those of 1978 and 1982. So far, evacuation orders have forced the displacement of 750,000 people north of the Litani River, the symbolic border that delimits 8% of Lebanese territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This expansion of the conflict has significantly increased the risk of a generalized regional war in the Middle East. In addition, the temporary suspension of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz \u2013 one of the main transit points for global energy trade \u2013 has led to a significant increase in the price of oil. About one-fifth of the world’s traded oil transits this strait, so any disruption has immediate consequences on global energy markets. If the conflict were to continue, the rise in energy prices could trigger a new wave of global inflation and generate turbulence in the international economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, one of the most likely scenarios is the continuation of the regime under new leadership and further militarization of power, possibly under the growing influence of the Revolutionary Guards, as evidenced by the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei, who holds religious, political, and military power, as the new Supreme Guide, and is responsible for the harsh repression against protesters in January. The new leadership could therefore mean a tightening of internal repression and a more aggressive foreign policy aimed at strengthening the cohesion of the regime in the face of the external threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once again, European division (and marginality)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The European Union has been relegated to a secondary role. Its institutional position has been characterised by a reactive attitude focused on the defence of international law, calls for de-escalation and concern about the energy consequences of the conflict. The EU’s real capacity to influence the evolution of the war is very limited and, moreover, the conflict has exposed its internal divisions. Some governments have been closer to the position of the United States, as is the case of Germany and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom, while others have criticized the military operation as contrary to international law. The Spanish government, for example, has explicitly distanced itself from the offensive, preventing the use of the US bases of Rota and Mor\u00f3n.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also worth noting that the leaders of the two most powerful institutions of the European Union have publicly disagreed on the legitimacy of the war and how it should respond. While Commission President Ursula von der Leyen endorses GermanChancellor Friedrich Merz’s realpolitik<\/em>, Council President Ant\u00f3nio Costa has taken a position closer to that of Pedro S\u00e1nchez and warned of the serious consequences of abandoning the rule of law. He said the EU’s main mission is to defend the rules-based international order, while von der Leyen said security must become the EU’s organizing principle and suggested that the old-world order had become obsolete.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Europe, the conflict poses several simultaneous challenges. Firstly, the energy impact can seriously affect the economic competitiveness and purchasing power of citizens. Secondly, a possible internal destabilisation of Iran could generate new migratory flows towards neighbouring regions and towards the European continent. Finally, the crisis highlights the EU’s structural difficulties in acting as a coherent geopolitical actor in security matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The effects on international order and security<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The war is also part of a context of transformation of the global order, characterized by growing competition between great powers and a weakening of multilateral institutions. From a legal point of view, the legitimacy of military intervention has been the subject of controversy since international law limits the use of force to situations of self-defence or to operations authorized by the United Nations Security Council. The attacks on Iran have been justified with arguments of preventive security and the protection of civilian populations, but no evidence has been provided to support these claims. Nor has the mandatory authorization of the U.S. Congress been consulted or requested beforehand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As for the great powers, Russia has reacted cautiously. Despite maintaining close relations with Iran, the war in Ukraine limits its ability to intervene directly. However, the increase in the price of oil could benefit its economy. China has also taken a particularly cautious stance, as it relies heavily on energy imports from the Persian Gulf and sees the region as a key element for its international trade routes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In short, the war with Iran is much more than a regional military confrontation. The conflict reflects the tensions of an increasingly fragmented international system and highlights the growing competition among great powers to redefine the global balance of power. Despite the significant damage inflicted on the Iranian regime in the early days of the war, there is no guarantee that the conflict will lead to the collapse of Tehran’s political system or that the war will end quickly. On the contrary, the combination of regional escalation, geopolitical rivalries and internal uncertainties could turn this war into a source of prolonged instability with deep consequences for the international order for years to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Photography: Tehran, 3rd of March 2026. Hossein Zohrevand. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.<\/sub><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The war that began with a joint US-Israeli military offensive against Iran is one of the most dangerous episodes in the current political context. This conflict is not an isolated event, but the result of increasing of tensions in the Middle East and a deep transformation of the international order. Factors that explain the offensive The military offensive responds, first, less to an immediate threat than to a strategic gamble aimed at weakening or even provoking regime change in Tehran, taking advantage of the perception of internal vulnerability of the Iranian political system. Indeed, in the months leading up to\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":83253,"template":"","category_newspaper":[679],"segment":[],"subject":[],"class_list":["post-83270","newspaper","type-newspaper","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category_newspaper-679"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n\n\n\n