By late March 2026, the US and Israeli war against Iran had evolved into the most dangerous Middle Eastern conflict in decades. What began with the Israeli assassination of Iran’s supreme leader on 28 February 2026 and Washington’s simultaneous long-range strikes, has exploded into an interlocking multi-front confrontation stretching from the Persian Gulf to Lebanon, from the Strait of Hormuz to the eastern Mediterranean, and into the very heart of US domestic politics.
The war is causing new tensions and divisions among European and Nato powers, and heightened tensions with other powers like Russia and China. US imperialism has been shown to have engaged in imperial overreach and miscalculation. Thousands have been killed in Iran by imperialist aggression. In Lebanon, Israel continues its attacks, where they have already killed hundreds since 2024, despite a nominal ceasefire. Israel’s ground operations and de facto land grab in Lebanon represents the most significant expansion of Israeli military presence in Lebanon since its 1982-2000 occupation.
Hezbollah has conducted a large-scale rocket barrage against Israeli forces. The militia still has considerable resources, despite suffering military blows from Israel over the last couple of years. Israel has struck targets in Beirut and southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government has tried to rein in Hezbollah and publicly denounced their actions. However, this only shows the weakness of the Lebanese government and its armed forces to control the situation. The longer the conflict continues in Lebanon, the greater is the danger of wider strife between religious and ethnic groups, leading to the slide to a return to civil war.
Israel’s brutal assault has created catastrophe for Lebanese people. Over one million Lebanese, nearly 20% of the population, have been forced from their homes. Civilian areas in Beirut’s southern suburbs have been struck repeatedly, with reports of many families wiped out. The UN has warned that Israeli displacement orders covering large areas between the Litani and Zahrani rivers may amount to forced displacement, which is a prohibited war crime.
This means nothing to the extreme right-wing Israeli government. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz stated explicitly that displaced Lebanese civilians will not be allowed to return to southern Lebanon until the “safety of Israelis is guaranteed”. Human Rights Watch has said this policy risks becoming “unlawful forced displacement”, echoing the brutal tactics used by the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza, the West Bank, and areas of southern Syria under Israeli occupation. Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich posted a video declaring he would turn areas of Lebanon “into another Gaza”, as Israel ordered the entire population of southern Lebanon to flee. The Israeli government has instructed that Christians in villages in parts of southern Lebanon can remain but only if they do not take in refugees, i.e. a policy of ethnic cleansing.
Despite the best efforts of the US and Israel to decapitate the Iranian regime and force regime change, the theocratic government remains in power. Undoubtedly, Iran’s military has been badly shaken by the assassination of the Supreme Leader and by the wiping out of various levels of state and military leadership. It is rumoured that the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is gravely wounded and he has not appeared publicly. However, the unintended consequences of this assassination policy by the US and Israeli power have reportedly led to the ascendancy of a hardline faction of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. They have seized greater control over policy and war strategy, according to sources, pushing a more hardline response to the attacks by the US and Israel and rejecting negotiations. The Iranian regime had long prepared for the war and had effective plans for a more decentralised command structure.
The IRGC claims the war is a battle for sovereignty and is an existential conflict. They have responded with a barrage of drones and other missiles at Israel and Gulf states. They shocked their enemies with the use of a long-range missile towards Diego Garcia, where an American and British military base is stationed. It had been thought by Western powers that such a 2,000-kilometer capability was beyond the Iranian military capacity.
The Iranian regime is also coordinating its retaliation across the “axis of resistance”, with Hezbollah, Shia militias in Iraq, and Houthi forces. The Houthi forces, who suffered major setbacks last year from Israeli and American attacks, have yet to act in a pronounced way. It is quite possible that the Iranian regime is keeping the Houthi in reserve, ready to use them to strike against shipping, maybe in the Red Sea thereby opening up another front.
Last week, Trump made blood-curdling threats that if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 hours, he would unleash huge attacks against the infrastructure of Iran, including electricity stations. These threats of mass crimes against the civilian population were a significant step up in the propaganda of U.S. imperialism. They represented the frustration of the White House, whose blundering, adventurous military policies have led to the in-effect closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump had demanded that NATO powers and other allies use their military forces to allow the safe passage of oil tankers. However, none of the so-called allies was prepared to put their forces into such jeopardy.
Strait of Hormuz war zone
The Strait of Hormuz represents an easy target for Iran. With real or fake dummy mines, and sporadic attacks against shipping, Iran can force the closure of the Strait. Western powers are fearful of being dragged into a longer conflict.
Trump lashed out at Iran after realising he was not going to get the crucial support from Western powers. However, the Iranian regime immediately responded to say that if Trump’s attacks were to take place, they would respond in kind against infrastructure and oil installation and gas installations in the Gulf states, including attacking water desalination plants which are vital in the region.
The sharp reaction of the markets to Trump’s bellicose threats, which saw a steep rise in the price of oil and gas and huge market volatility, led to Trump having to lower the temperature again, and within a matter of hours, saying that useful talks were taking place between the US and the Iranian leadership. Tehran, however, denies that any such talks are taking place. It does seem, however, that intermediaries such as Pakistan and Turkey are relaying messages between the two warring parties.
The US, through these parties, sent a 15-point ceasefire plan to Tehran, which demanded the ending of the nuclear programme, limiting of missiles, the reopening of Hormuz, and that sanctions would only be lifted after compliance with other demands. Tehran rejected these demands outright and counteroffered demands requiring an end to assassinations, reparations for the war damage, guarantees against any future US and Israeli attacks, and the recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over Hormuz.
The Iranian leadership bluntly said, “we do not intend to negotiate”. This does not mean, of course, that tentative talks of some type may not take place behind the scenes, but now there is no indication of any immediate or medium ceasefire and serious talks, which seem unlikely at this stage.
Despite Trump’s talk of potential peace talks, the US military is still shipping in thousands of extra US troops to the region. It is quite possible that the US military machine will move to put troops on the ground. This could mean so-called surgical operations, including seizing the Kharg Island, a strategically critical Iranian island in the northern Persian Gulf, handling the vast majority of Iran’s oil exports. It is possible that special forces and other troops could also be sent into parts of Iran. This would not be easy and could embroil the US in a limited ground war in some areas.
A wider land invasion along the lines of which we saw in the Iraq war would be a huge gamble by US imperialism, with incalculable consequences, and is therefore less likely. It would probably mean the US being dragged into a larger and longer military quagmire. This would have even larger catastrophic consequences than the Iraq war. Iran is a greater territory than Iraq and has a population of over 90 million. Just over half the population are Persian, with other sizable ethnic and national groups. Such a move by the United States would likely see the complete shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz (now, Iran is selectively allowing some oil containers to pass through). The effects on the world economy would be decisive, most likely plunging it into a deep recession or even a slump.
“Off ramp”?
Speculation is widespread that Trump is looking for a swift “off-ramp” from the conflict, potentially by making empty claims of “complete victory.” This remains a possibility because the White House clearly mismanaged the entry into the war and appears to have lacked a viable backup strategy. Furthermore, various segments of the US establishment and capitalist class are feeling the severe impact of the conflict and desire a quick resolution to hostilities. However, as with any conflict, perspectives must remain highly conditional. Should Trump “cut and run” it would be a blow to both his and US imperialism’s prestigue and authority globally, which would have potentially serious consequences.
As Ilan Goldenberg from the Foreign Affairs magazine (US website, March 23, 2026) outlines, the scenarios for Trump are not good:
“U.S. forces may get bogged down in air and sea operations that drag on for months or years, impose mounting costs on the global economy, destabilize the wider Middle East, and exact a growing toll on civilian populations in Iran, Israel, Lebanon, and beyond. As in past conflicts, the asymmetry at the heart of the war favors the weaker party. For the United States to win, it must achieve expansive and ambiguous goals—regime change or an Iran so weak that it cannot destabilize the region or disrupt global oil markets. For Iran, victory may simply mean survival and the ability to impose costs on the global economy through intermittent attacks that dramatically limit passage through the Strait of Hormuz or damage delicate and vital oil infrastructure in the Gulf states.”
Goldenberg concludes: “It is becoming increasingly clear that the current U.S.-Israeli campaign of missile and drone strikes is not about to topple the entrenched regime. Nor will it entirely knock out Iran’s conventional capacities such that Tehran cannot interfere with passage through the Strait of Hormuz or threaten facilities vital to the global energy trade. The United States might now feel the urge to escalate, potentially using ground forces to seize Iranian facilities and territory or backing separatist forces around the country. But the risks of these forms of escalation far outweigh their possible gains. At this point, with the global economy jittering and the Middle East in convulsions, Washington’s best bet is not to further commit to a war it entered recklessly but to find a way out.”
The big swings in the markets indicate the volatility of the situation (it is speculated that Trump is now making his most bellicose statements when markets are closed). The full potential economic fallout from the conflict is now emerging, extending beyond just energy prices. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is hindering the shipment of essential agricultural fertilisers, which will disproportionately impact poorer nations and food production. Furthermore, numerous other components of the global supply chain face disruption, leading to widespread increases in the cost of living.
Stagflation
Economists are raising alarms about the risk of stagflation—a combination of economic stagnation and rising inflation.This will have many repercussions including in industrial relations. A spike in inflation can lead to new industrial struggles as workers fight for increased wages as they battle against rising prices. Such conditions led to a massive strike wave across parts of Europe in 2022 and 2023.
Stagflation will also lead to greater unemployment, which the bosses can always try and use as a threat against those in work. However, such a process will also see general dissatisfaction and unrest amongst the working class and more class opposition and opposition to costly wars.
The last few days have also seen the possibility of more direct confrontation of Gulf states with Iran. The reactionary, despotic Gulf monarchies, which are Sunni-based, have long opposed Iranian Shia regime influence, but have been cautious about any open conflict. However, on 26 March, a joint declaration by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) referred to “full and inherent right to self-defence”. The statement condemned Iran’s “blatant and criminal attacks” and declared they “may take all necessary measures to defend their territory”. This follows Iranian attacks by their proxies, which have hit gas terminals in Qatar, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, and ports and shipping lanes in UAE and Oman.
The Gulf states now fear, with these attacks continuing and the closure of the Hormuz, their economic strangulation. Saudi Arabia and UAE have already been drifting towards direct military involvement. It is reported that Riyadh has quietly granted the US access to King Fahd air base, marking a sharp escalation in policy. UAE leaders are urging the GCC towards active intervention. Analysts in the region warn that the Gulf states may join the war if Iran strikes water desalination plants and power grids or other critical infrastructure crossing the region’s so-called red lines. Such a scenario would greatly escalate the war in the region.
Divisions opened within the European Union and NATO over the response to the war against Iran. It has exposed the absence of a unified European policy. European leaders, and other powers like Japan, refused Trump’s call to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, rejecting naval deployments, with some criticising the war as illegal. Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, has publicly denounced the conflict’s legality and rationale.
However, the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, caused anger among some European powers after supporting Trump’s request for naval backing. This caused a backlash inside the EU capitals and a widening of divisions between EU leaderships and NATO institutions. This will probably reinforce the attempted policy of moving towards a European EU-based army, which is spearheaded by France. However, such a ‘EU army’ could never act coherently, given that the European Union is made up of separate nation-states whose interests sometimes align but often collide.
European leaders unnerved
The attempt by many European leaders to create some distance between themselves and Trump’s hugely unpopular war is undermined in many cases by their allowing naval bases to be used by the US military. Some European powers, like Britain, also say they have the ‘right’ to take so-called defensive actions against Iran. While European leaders are sensitive to the public mood across the continent, which is overwhelmingly against the war, as it is internationally, they do not wish to completely break with the US, which remains the chief funder of NATO and the strongest member of the alliance.
Inside the US, war has become the greatest political crisis of Trump’s second term. Most Americans oppose the war. Despite majority support for the war in early polls amongst the self-identified MAGA base, fissures are opening. High-profile MAGA figures like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Steve Bannon have condemned the war as a “betrayal” of the “no more foreign wars” promise of the Trump election campaign. As US casualties rise and the war continues with no clear end and in danger of serious escalation, support amongst the MAGA base can drop sharply. The resignation of senior official Joe Kent, a Trump-backed political figure, and former special forces soldier, over the war, highlighted the internal dissent within Trump’s own administration.
For Americans, they see the war as leading to a rise in fuel prices and a spike in inflation generally. This can lead to industrial unrest and growing opposition to the war. Already the draconian policies of Trump’s administration, as seen by the thuggish actions of ICE, are causing widening layers of society to move into opposition and to protest.
The war against Iran has also had repercussions in East Asia. The Taiwanese government has publicly raised concerns about the massive depletion of US precision missiles. It is estimated that in just the first six days of the war, “years of missile production have been used up”. Taiwanese officials warn this erodes deterrence against China, since they believe a standoff in missiles is essential to avoid conflict with China.
China’s regime has had an historical position that Taiwan is part of China’s territory, and it has a longstanding approach that island territory should be reintegrated into the Chinese state. The Chinese regime has been exploiting US distraction in the Middle East. It is reported that Beijing has increased air incursions near Taiwan, and it is analysing US responses in the Middle East for lessons on a potential future conflict. Taiwanese officials have said China believes this is the time for pressure as US forces are diverted. A leaked Pentagon analysis called ‘Overmatch Brief’ warned that in a Taiwan conflict, China could cripple US forces early using long-range precision missiles, a risk now worsened by the US missile depletion against Iran. While a conflict over Taiwan is not imminent and all the belligerent parties are aware it could lead to catastrophic conclusions for the region and globally, tensions over the island’s future are only exacerbated by the war on Iran.
China and Russia
Ukrainian President Zelensky has also raised concerns that the US preoccupation with the war in Iran is enabling Russia to make military gains. Precious military resources have been concentrated in the Middle East. Zelensky has also complained that the sharp rise in energy prices is benefiting Russia’s oil and gas industry and adding funds to its war machine. Certainly, Putin will be in no rush now to entertain any talks leading to a ceasefire with Ukraine. Zelensky has said Americans are under no pressure at all on the need for talks. Putin will use this opportunity to try to win more territory on the battlefield in Ukraine and to further consolidate the Russian gains. At the same time, Putin has had the audacity to put himself forward as a potential mediator in the war between the US, Israel, and Iran.
Western reports claim that Putin is soon to send state-of-the-art drones to Iran, which can make their attacks against Israel and Gulf states more effective. Last year, Russia and Iran signed an agreement to militarily aid each other. However, this was short of obliging Russia to militarily come to the aid of Iran in a war situation.
While Trump has boasted that America is now energy self-sufficient, the rise in oil and gas prices has a knock-on effect on the whole global economy, not least the US. The, in effect, closure of the Straits of Hormuz has a big effect on the supply chain. This all feeds into many aspects of the world economy, including the United States. One-fifth of global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude recently exceeded $100, with forecasts hitting $150 even if the war ended immediately. Global markets fear a repeat of the 1970s oil crisis, but on a potentially larger scale, given today’s fragile supply chains.
Despite the enormous war destruction and ever-expanding catastrophe, none of the major participants have a viable exit strategy. Israel seeks to see the end of the Iranian regime and crush Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is trying to create a so-called “new reality” in southern Lebanon. This risks long-term bloody, drawn-out occupation, like previous invasions of Lebanon, and destabilizing the region further.
The Iranian regime has so far survived the bombardments whilst demonstrating its ability to strike back. But whether the war ends sooner or later, the regime has falling social support and will face a reckoning with the working class and the masses.
Trump thought he could have a short, decisive war, especially following his military operation in Venezuela at the start of the year. However, Iran is not Venezuela, which has a weak military force and where US imperialism had cultivated a wing of the regime. Instead, Trump now faces being drawn militarily, economically and politically into a widening conflict. The longer this continues, the more will his base of support in the United States be hollowed out. The Republicans could be hammered in the midterm elections.
Trump is not going to simply walk away. He is desperately striking out and attempting more repressive undemocratic measures, like the Save America Act, which amount to an attempt to fix the mid-term elections. A massive polarisation and political struggle is poised to develop.
If Trump becomes a huge liability in the eyes of sections of the administration and American ruling class, actions can be taken to withdraw him from office, possibly along the lines of health concerns.
Trump a sympton of US capitalism
Although Trump as an individual acts in a mercurial, unpredictable, bombastic and contradictory fashion, he is a symptom of the state of American capitalism and imperialism. While the US has enormous firepower, as has been shown over the last few weeks in the Middle East, it is in relative terms a declining superpower. The rise of China, economically and increasingly militarily, marks a profound redrawing of the balance of forces internationally. US capitalism’s share of the world market has reduced over decades. Trump represents a wing of American capitalism which is particularly close to the oligarchic financial predatory section of the elite, and which is dispensing with normal post-World War II diplomatic niceties and bourgeois legal frameworks to pursue American imperialist aims. Crucially this includes trying to seize control of the oil and gas of Iran. This has been a long-held policy of American imperialism. And the oil and gas, Iran sits in a strategically vital part of the globe between Asia and Europe and beside important sea trading routes.
The war against Iran has become a crisis of the entire imperialist order, which is causing military and economic turmoil and geopolitical realignment. Every day of the war adds new layers of contradictions and risks of miscalculation, and huge loss of human life and infrastructure. This is a grim reminder that wars born from imperial rivalries, adventures, and ambition often extend far beyond their original objectives. Globally, the working class is facing inflation and war-driven economic shocks. Only mass democratic, anti-war, and independent working-class action within and across borders can challenge endless imperialist conflict and capitalist crisis.