Role reversal – “divide & conquer” used against the west
Ashes of Pompeii | March 21, 2026
For centuries, the strategy of “divide and conquer” has been a cornerstone of Western geopolitical power. The British Empire mastered the art of ruling vast territories with minimal forces by exploiting internal divisions, setting local leaders against one another, leveraging ethnic tensions, and securing cooperation through selective incentives (aka bribes). The United States later employed similar tactics, from Cold War interventions to coalition-building in Iraq and Southeast Asia. The principle remains consistent: fracture opposition to maintain advantage.
Today, we are witnessing a role reversal in real time. Iran, long subjected to Western pressure and sanctions, is employing a parallel strategy regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Much of the west is not entirely enamoured of Trump’s Iran strategy but is afraid to openly challenge America. The closing of the Strait is economically catastrophic for most US allies and they are caught between a rock and a hard place – a vindictive Trump demanding support to open the Strait, and economic hardship.
In steps Iran with its own “divide and conquer” strategy, now reportedly negotiating with individual Asian and European countries a sort of Hormuz toll to allow tankers from these allied countries to pass through. And of course, they would each be required to not support the the US Navy if it attempts to open Hormuz. These discussions would be regarding tolls, security guarantees, and bilateral arrangements that would circumvent a collective response.
This approach carries significant strategic implications. If key U.S. allies secure individual agreements ensuring their energy shipments, the incentive to support a unified, potentially confrontational effort to keep Hormuz open is dead in the water.. Why risk escalation when a separate deal preserves economic interests? This dynamic could gradually erode the cohesion of Western alliances. Imagine Japan, Korea or Germany putting their national interests ahead of America’s! Unthinkable just a few weeks ago.
Iran’s maneuvering reflects a calculated understanding of coalition politics. By offering tailored terms, Tehran exploits the very real economic dependencies that different nations have on Persian Gulf oil flows. A country like Japan, facing immediate energy shortfalls, may prioritize short-term access over long-term strategic solidarity.
The irony is substantive, not merely rhetorical: a regional power taking advantage of a strategy historically used to extend Western influence, now being adapted to counter that same influence. Traditional western asymmetric power dynamics being used against the west.
If Iran successfully institutionalizes a system of bilateral tolls or passage agreements, it could reshape regional power structures and perhaps challenge the precedent of freedom of navigation under international law. However, this development also exposes the conditional nature of the “rules-based order” itself. When international norms align with western strategic interests, they are vigorously defended; when they become inconvenient, exceptions are quietly made. The interesting aspect here, is that for once, the exception is used against the USA.
In the end, this is power politics, plain and simple. Iran is using the tools available to it, geography, energy dependence, and diplomatic patience, to turn a strategic vulnerability into leverage. The West built much of its influence by splitting opponents; now it faces the same tactic applied in reverse. One would expect that states would always seek national advantage where they find it, but that has often not been the case for “junior” members of the western alliance in the last 30 or 40 years.
This is just another step towards a multipolar world where the west is seeing its own playbook used against it, where alliances and coalitions may be less static, and where national interest may be considered more important than following the diktats of a hegemon or a bloc leader.
Turn around is fair play and America and the west will need to get used to the idea that other countries, here Iran, can both play hardball and use divide and conquer strategies.
I am not sure Donald Trump will quite understand the significance of this moment.
Iran signals upper hand as the US-Israeli war reaches third week
Al Mayadeen | March 21, 2026
Iran is signaling that it is winning and has the power to impose a settlement on Washington that would cement Tehran’s influence over Middle East energy resources for decades, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ notes that Iranian officials appear to see time as working in their favor, suggesting they are not in a rush to end hostilities.
Despite repeated US and Israeli claims of successfully targeting missile launchers and stockpiles, the WSJ reported that Iran has retained the capacity to fire dozens of ballistic missiles and a large number of drones daily across the region.
In fact, the rate of attacks has increased in recent days compared with 10 days ago. Iranian strikes reportedly inflicted severe damage this week on US-linked energy infrastructure in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, while Iran’s own oil exports continued to flourish.
The WSJ added that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains contingent on Iranian permission, and that rising oil and gas prices are exerting pressure on the US administration to end the war.
Low-cost, high-impact disruptions
The Wall Street Journal cited analyst Dina Esfandiary, who said that Iran has learned it can inflict large-scale disruption at relatively low cost.
“The Iranians aren’t ready to end the war because they have learned an important lesson: They can, comparatively easily and cheaply, cause a lot of damage and disruption. They now want the whole world to learn that lesson, too,” she told the newspaper.
Iranian leaders appear to be leveraging this capability to set conditions for a ceasefire. As cited by WSJ, Esmail Rezaei, spokesman for the Iranian Parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee, stated after a recent meeting with military commanders that any talks with the US are currently off the agenda, as Tehran “focuses on punishing the aggressors.” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has described Iran’s position in the war as comparable to Vietnam for the US.
The Wall Street Journal notes that Iran’s demands for ending the war reportedly include massive reparations from the US and its allies and the removal of American military forces from the region.
Iranian officials have also suggested transforming the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic international waterway, into an Iranian-controlled passage where ships would pay fees to transit.
Expediency Council member Mohammad Mokhber, advisor to the supreme leader on economic affairs, told Mehr News Agency that Iran intends to “turn its position from a sanctioned country to an enhanced power in the region and the world.”
US officials, experts, express doubt despite the facts
US officials and military experts, the WSJ reports, have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of such an arrangement, highlighting the difficulty of US decision-makers coming to terms with the demands at this stage.
Former White House special envoy Jason Greenblatt commented, “President Trump will never let them win. They don’t understand how far he’s willing to go.”
The WSJ also cited retired US Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, who said that reopening the Strait of Hormuz would require careful intelligence and surveillance, but claimed that this could be achieved within weeks.
“It’s not something that is going to happen overnight, but over time the Strait of Hormuz will be open back to the levels of shipping that we saw before this conflict broke out. The Iranians are not going to end up with control over the strait, we are,” he claimed, according to the Wall Street Journal, revealing that a battle may be ahead for control of the strait.
Additional perspectives reported by the WSJ include Sanam Vakil of Chatham House, who described leaving Iran in control of the strait as “a categorical failure for the United States and President Trump,” and Robin Mills of Qamar Energy, who said that even if temporary control were granted to Iran, it would likely provoke renewed military or diplomatic action.
Airlines Suffer Losses Estimated at $53Bln Due to Middle East Conflict
Sputnik – 21.03.2026
On February 28, the United States and Israel began striking targets in Iran, including in Tehran, causing damage and civilian casualties. Iran has carried out retaliatory strikes on Israeli territory, as well as on US military targets in the Middle East.
The damage caused by US and Israeli aggression against Iran amounted to approximately $53 billion for the 20 largest publicly traded airlines, the Financial Times reported, based on its own calculations.
Airline executives are warning of the consequences caused by the sustained rise in oil prices, disruptions at Gulf airports, and a potential hit to global demand, the Financial Times added.
In the coming months, passengers planning trips on routes that are not related to the Middle East will face a sharp rise in ticket prices as airlines try to protect their revenues, the newspaper reported.
Trump signals possible wind-down of aggression against Iran despite unresolved Hormuz crisis
Press TV – March 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump has indicated he is considering scaling back the underway unprovoked aggression towards Iran, even as the crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved.
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump claimed the United States was close to achieving the military goals sought by the aggression.
“We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East.”
He listed, what he called, degrading Iran’s missile capability and industrial base, and protecting US allies in the region.
The remarks flew in the face of the Islamic Republic’s robust underway retaliation, codenamed Operation True Promise 4, that keeps taking larger portions of hostile targets under the country’s firepower.
US military positions throughout the region, including in Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, have been subjected to sustained counterstrikes.
The retaliation has also struck sensitive and strategic locations across the occupied territories, including those lying in Tel Aviv, the holy occupied city of al-Quds, Haifa, Be’er Sheva, considered a technological hub, and the Negev Desert.
On the issue of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has closed to enemy vessels as well as ships belonging to those cooperating with the adversaries since the onset of the aggression, Trump suggested the US might step back from direct responsibility.
“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not.”
Commenting on the remarks, American outlet Axios acknowledged that efforts to reopen the strait have proven difficult.
It cited Trump’s advisors as pointing to his frustration due to limited allied support, despite his alleging military victory.
The US has sought to form a coalition to secure the strait, asking NATO allies and others to contribute naval and air assets. Most have declined to commit forces, and some have only backed a political statement supporting the effort.
Trump has retorted to allies over their reluctance, calling NATO countries “cowards” and saying that without US backing, NATO is “a paper tiger.”
Meanwhile, disruptions to global oil flows continue to drive up energy prices.
Iran War: Pentagon’s $200B Budget Could Run Out in Just Five Months
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 20.03.2026
The funds requested by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth would last roughly 160 days—or about five months, Sputnik calculates.
As of March 20, the expenditures exceeded $25.5 billion, according to the real-time Iran War Cost Tracker.
Tracker bases its estimate on a Pentagon briefing: $11.3 billion for the first six days, then about $1 billion a day—roughly $11,500 per second. But the real cost may be much higher.
Pentagon ‘Has No Idea of Real Cost’
US may have spent over $10 billion on air-defense systems in the first 48 hours, argues Jennifer Kavanagh of the Defense Priorities think tank, as quoted by The New York Times.
That’s because Iran’s low‑cost, asymmetric attacks are forcing expensive defenses like THAAD (about $12.7 million per interceptor) and Patriot (about $3.7 million) to be used to shoot down drones and missiles.
Three-week conflict could cost taxpayers $60–130 billion, five weeks up to $175 billion, and eight weeks around $250 billion, two anonymous US officials told The Intercept. The Pentagon “has no idea of the real cost,” one added, and the operation’s duration remains uncertain.
US Weapon Systems Lost So Far
While the Pentagon hasn’t confirmed total equipment losses, media reports offer a glimpse:
- $1.1B—AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar system destroyed at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar
- $282M—three F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets lost in Kuwait
- $20M—two AN/GSC-52B satellite communications terminals destroyed at the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet HQ in Manama, Bahrain
- $30M—three additional radar domes were destroyed at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait
- $500M—AN/TPY-2 radar, part of the THAAD anti-ballistic missile system
- $300M/$500M—AN/TPY-2 radar and support equipment destroyed at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan
- $330M+—11 MQ-9 Reaper drones lost
- $560M—seven KC-135 Stratotankers: one crashed in Iraq, another damaged in a supposed collision; five reportedly damaged at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia
- ~$100M—F-35 fighter jet, recently damaged by Iranian fire
Total: $3.42 billion
‘Safe’ corridor opening up through Strait of Hormuz: What we know so far
RT | March 20, 2026
Iran has signaled that it is ready to allow passage through the Strait of Hormuz to vessels from certain countries. Media reports and tracker data also suggest that a handful of pre-vetted tankers have already sailed smoothly through the “safe” corridor, with at least one shipping company allegedly paying Iran $2 million.
The development comes as more than 15 tankers have been hit by drones and projectiles in the strait since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran in late February.
As the Middle East escalation has roiled energy markets, the impact of a few tankers passing through has so far remained limited. Brent is still trading well above $100.
Here is what to know about the latest developments in the Strait of Hormuz.
Who is allowed to pass?
In short, not everyone and not everywhere.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that the strait is open to all except the US and Israel, while adding that some ships from “different countries” had already been allowed through. In practice, however, Western-linked vessels face significant hurdles in securing safe passage.
According to Lloyd’s List, India, Pakistan, China, Iraq, and Malaysia are discussing transit plans directly with Tehran, with officials in the first three countries as well as Türkiye confirming clearance.
The Financial Times reported, citing maritime data, that at least eight ships – including oil tankers and bulk carriers tied to India, Pakistan and Greece, as well as Iran’s own fleet – have sailed through the strait but used an unusual route around the island of Larak, which is close to the Iranian coast and where waters are much shallower than in the middle of the strait.
The actual number of ships – some of which may have turned off automatic tracking systems – could be higher, the report said.
According to the FT, at least nine Chinese oil and fuel tankers are also amassing in the Gulf, apparently preparing to traverse the Hormuz Strait.
Clearance is being granted on a case-by-case basis, Lloyd’s List reported, adding that the Iranian authorities are working on a “more formalized vessel approval process” expected in the coming days.
Is it free of charge?
On paper, international transit is not supposed to work like a toll road, but the current situation appears to be evolving under wartime conditions.
Lloyd’s List reported that at least one tanker operator paid about $2 million to transit, while saying it could not establish whether payments were made in other cases. It also remains unclear how such payments could be processed, given the sanctions on Iran.
In addition, several media reports indicated that Iran’s parliament was considering a bill aimed at taxing ships that cross the strait. The Wall Street Journal noted, however, that such a policy would “require a regional buy” from Iran’s Gulf neighbors.
What did Hormuz look like before the war?
Hormuz was one of the world’s busiest and consequential chokepoints, with an average of 20 million barrels a day of crude oil and oil products moved through in 2025, equal to around 25% of global seaborne oil trade. About 80% of the flows went to Asian countries, including China, India, Japan, and South Korea, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
About 93% of Qatar’s LNG exports and 96% of the UAE’s LNG exports also passed through Hormuz, representing roughly 19% of global LNG trade.
Before the war, around 138 vessels transited the strait daily; that figure has now dropped to roughly 3–5 ships per day, according to estimates.
The strait is just 29 nautical miles (54km) wide, with two-mile-wide inbound and outbound shipping lanes separated by a two-mile buffer. Ships using the Larak route must contend with shallower waters than in the central channel, though depths are still generally sufficient for most vessel types.
What impact is this having on energy prices?
The trickle of oil tankers is seemingly having a limited effect on the oil market, with Brent trading at $107 per barrel, down from a peak of almost $120. WTI crude slid from the $100 benchmark to $94.
European natural gas futures (TTF) slightly fell to €60 per MWh after spiking by more than 30% after Israel attacked Iran’s South Pars gas field, triggering a retaliation on energy infrastructure in Qatar.
What does Europe have to say on Hormuz safety?
European leaders have demanded “the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz,” as well as “de-escalation and maximum restraint” from the belligerents. European NATO members, however, have been reluctant to send their navies to the strait. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that his country could help in keeping the shipping lanes clear only when the guns go silent.
What impact on the US?
As oil prices skyrocketed, gasoline prices in the US also soared, reaching $3.90 per gallon on average. US President Donald Trump has sought to downplay the market panic, saying he thought that oil prices would be “much worse,” adding that they were certain to come down once the hostilities end.
In addition, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled that Washington could waive sanctions on the Iranian oil stranded on tankers in a bid to dampen prices. Earlier this week, he also said that the US had been allowing Iranian tankers to transit the strait “to supply the rest of the world.”
Hormuz disruption exposes hidden strain on US military supply chains
Al Mayadeen | March 20, 2026
The disruption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is beginning to reverberate far beyond energy markets, with new analysis warning that the effects could directly constrain the United States’ ability to sustain and replenish its military operations.
A report by the Modern War Institute, cited by The Guardian, describes the situation as a “paralyzing, real-time problem” for any attempt to expand US defense manufacturing, as well as for repairing equipment damaged in recent Iranian retaliations.
At the center of the concern is sulphur, a largely overlooked commodity that plays a foundational role in industrial production. According to the analysis, seaborne trade in sulphur passing through Hormuz, which accounts for roughly half of global shipments, has been nearly halted. Prices have already surged by around 25 percent since the start of the war, with year-on-year increases reaching 165 percent.
Sulphur’s hidden war role
While sulphur is widely associated with fertilizer production, its strategic importance lies deeper in the industrial chain. It is used to produce sulphuric acid, a critical component in extracting key minerals such as copper and cobalt from lower-grade ores.
These materials are indispensable to modern military systems. From microprocessors and communications hardware to jet engines and drone batteries, copper and cobalt underpin the infrastructure that enables both weapons production and operational capability.
The report argues that these inputs “dictate how fast things can be built and scaled under the pressure of an ongoing war,” warning that the consequences of a sudden disruption in supply have not previously been factored into military planning.
Jahara “Franky” Matisek, a US Air Force lieutenant colonel and nonresident fellow at the US Naval War College, described the situation as a compounding crisis. “It’s a cascading issue,” he told The Guardian, noting that replacement costs for damaged systems could rise sharply. “A knock-on effect of this war is that it may cost double or more than double to replace all these weapons because all the mineral demand is going to go way up.”
He added that supply constraints may go beyond pricing pressures. “Markets are not going to be able to provide the amount of minerals that are needed to replace all these radars that have been destroyed and all these munitions that have to be replaced. It’s a really precarious spot to be in right now.”
The Middle East accounts for roughly a quarter of global sulphur production, much of it generated as a byproduct of oil refining. With shipping routes now disrupted, the supply shock is already feeding into downstream sectors.
Sulphur shock, war strain
Beyond defense, the report notes that reduced sulphur availability could also affect agriculture, as farmers worldwide compete for fertilizer inputs. This raises the possibility of broader food supply pressures, particularly in lower-income countries.
However, the military implications remain the primary concern. The authors estimate that replacing just two major US radar systems destroyed in the early phase of the war would require more than 30,000 kilograms of copper, with additional thousands needed to restore other damaged communications and sensor systems across multiple regional bases.
“The current sulfur shock is becoming a copper problem, and that copper problem risks quickly becoming a readiness and resilience problem,” the report states.
The analysis frames the situation as a “prelogistical crisis”, arguing that conventional planning has largely ignored vulnerabilities in the upstream supply of raw materials. Rather than transportation or distribution bottlenecks, the issue lies in the availability of the inputs required to manufacture critical systems in the first place.
A separate study published in February, also co-authored by Matisek, found that only 6 percent of US defense contractors maintain fully transparent supply chains. The latest report suggests that this lack of visibility is now constraining operational capacity.
Industrial dependence
According to the authors, the US military is increasingly dependent on industrial systems it does not fully control, leaving it exposed to disruptions originating far beyond the battlefield.
What is emerging, they argue, is a structural limitation on combat endurance, where the pace of war is determined not only by strategy or firepower, but by access to the underlying materials needed to sustain it.
Israel’s War on Iran’s Grid: How the South Pars Strike Turned Energy into a Weapon
By Freddie Ponton – 21st Century Wire – March 19, 2026
In the early hours of March 18, Israeli drones tore into four gas‑treatment plants in Assaluyeh on Iran’s southern coast, where sour gas from phases 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the South Pars field is cleaned, separated and turned into the fuel that keeps the country’s lights on, homes heated and factories supplied. Iranian officials ordered the plants offline to contain the fires, and industry analysts immediately warned that production from the offshore platforms feeding those trains would have to be cut back. Within an hour of the strike being reported, European gas prices and Brent crude jumped, because traders understood what most headlines did not. This was not a symbolic hit on an abstract “gas field,” but a deliberate attack on a conversion node at the heart of Iran’s domestic energy system and a critical pillar of the wider Gulf energy order.
At the same time, Donald Trump was on social media threatening that if Iran retaliated again against Qatar’s LNG hub at Ras Laffan, he would “blow up the entirety” of South Pars – the largest gas field on the planet, and interestingly, a reservoir Iran shares with Qatar. The man who joined Israel in authorising the first strikes on Iranian production facilities is now openly dangling the prospect of destroying the shared gas reservoir that keeps tens of millions of people warm, powered and employed. That is not deterrence, only a head of state experimenting in public with the language of total economic annihilation.
Trump’s own Truth Social post about the strike reads like a rambling attempt to distance Washington from the attack while threatening to “blow up the entirety” of South Pars if Iran hits Qatar again. The post deserves closer attention later in this story.
ASSALUYEH: WHERE GAS BECOMES POWER
To see what was attacked in Assaluyeh is to understand that the language matches the target. South Pars itself is the Iranian half of a single, giant reservoir under the Gulf, known as the North Field in Qatar, which together contain around a tenth of the world’s proven gas reserves. Iranian officials say South Pars covers 24 phases and provides between 70–75% of Iran’s gas production, feeding power plants, industry, petrochemical complexes and gasoline production. The gas that makes that possible must pass through places like Assaluyeh, where onshore plants strip out condensate, liquefied petroleum gases and natural gas liquids before returning dry gas to the grid and sending liquids on to refineries and export jetties. Over two decades, the South Pars Special Economic Energy Zone has grown into a dense cluster of processing trains and downstream plants with total gas‑processing capacity on the order of a billion cubic metres per day and around twenty‑one petrochemical units producing close to forty million tonnes per year of urea, methanol, polyethene, and other basic chemicals.
Israel did not attack the offshore reservoir. It attacked the pipes, columns and separators that turn raw gas into power, plastics, fertiliser and fuel. The four targeted plants process sour gas from phases 3, 4, 5 and 6, which are mature, are heavily integrated blocks that feed directly into Iran’s domestic grid and petrochemical system. Shutting those trains, even temporarily, forces operators to throttle back production on the linked platforms and starves downstream complexes of both dry gas and feedstock. In concrete terms, that means less gas available for electricity generation on a grid already prone to summer blackouts, less feed for petrochemical plants that supply everything from fertiliser to plastics, and less condensate flowing through the storage and export facilities that sit alongside the gas plants on the Persian Gulf shore.
Iranian reports speak of powerful explosions at several Assaluyeh facilities, fires around storage tanks and gas units, and workers being evacuated as emergency crews tried to contain the damage. From a planner’s point of view, this is a high‑leverage target: a handful of processing units at the convergence of offshore production and onshore consumption whose disruption sends shockwaves up the supply chain and down into the civilian economy. From the point of view of the people whose houses, factories and hospitals depend on those flows, it looks like something else entirely – an attack on the infrastructure of daily life.
That is the first truth this strike reveals: Israel has shifted from fighting Iran’s armed forces to fighting the country’s energy system, the circulation of fuel that keeps the state conscious.
This is not a one‑off aberration. During the twelve‑day war of June 2025, an earlier Israeli strike hit the Phase 14 processing plant at Assaluyeh, forcing a shutdown and firefighting operation before Iranian engineers brought the plant back online within two weeks. The March 2026 strikes returned to the same nerve centre but widened the cut: instead of Phase 14 alone, the drones went after four plants tied to phases 3–6, which together represent a much larger share of South Pars throughput and a deeper incision into Iran’s ability to turn offshore gas into usable energy. What is being tested here is not just Iran’s repair capacity. It is how much of its gas‑conversion system can be burned down before the political cost becomes untenable.
FROM MILITARY TARGETS TO CIVILIAN PUNISHMENT
The crucial point is that gas in Iran is not a luxury export commodity, but the country’s primary fuel for power generation, industrial heat and residential heating. Well over ninety per cent of the gas Iran produces is consumed domestically, not exported. It keeps homes warm in winter, feeds cement and steel plants, drives turbines in power stations and prevents rolling blackouts on a grid that is already fragile. When you hit Assaluyeh, you are not trimming a few cargoes of condensate to Asia. You are reaching into the core of a domestic energy system that supports nearly ninety million people – the apartment blocks in Tehran that already live with scheduled outages, the small factories in Isfahan that depend on steady voltage to keep lines moving, the provincial hospitals that cannot function when the generators sputter.
Even the outlets trying to normalise the strike cannot entirely avoid that reality. They call South Pars an “energy lifeline”, stress that it powers much of Iran’s electricity system and note that the onshore plants at Assaluyeh are central to separating condensate and LPG from the gas that then runs into Iranian networks. “Energy lifeline” is the language of necessity, not of optional revenue. To choose that target is to choose to tamper with the civilian infrastructure that stands between a functioning society and a rolling crisis of blackouts, shortages and industrial breakdown. “Collective punishment” is usually invoked in the context of bombs on apartment blocks or food embargoes. Here it is delivered through valves and turbines.
It is precisely at this point, when questions of necessity and legitimacy collide, that the recent behaviour of Washington’s own security establishment strips away the alibi that this was a war forced by urgent facts. In a few sentences at a Senate hearing, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told lawmakers that only the president can decide what is an “imminent threat” from Iran, even as senior aides were warning her that there was no evidence Iran had restarted enrichment or posed an immediate nuclear danger. Two days earlier, Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned, saying in his letter that he could not “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” that Iran posed “no imminent threat,” and that Israel had pressured the United States into the conflict. Those two moments do not need pages of commentary. Together they are enough: the official charged with guarding the integrity of U.S. intelligence rewrites “threat” as a presidential mood, and the official charged with synthesising terrorist threats walks out saying the war is manufactured.
In other words, while Israeli pilots and U.S. operators are hitting the infrastructure that keeps Iranian civilians alive, the people at the top of the American system are quietly admitting that the supposed emergency justifying those strikes does not exist in the way the public was told. The last line of defence, a reality defined by evidence rather than by political need, has been crossed, and it has been crossed at the exact moment the war shifted from military targets to the machinery of everyday survival.
Trump’s Truth Social statement makes that shift even starker. It is not a clarification, and reads more like a hostage note. South Pars is being turned into collateral for Qatar’s LNG security, and Trump denies U.S. prior knowledge of Israel’s first strike while claiming the right to decide if and when the entire shared field is destroyed. In one message, he signals that the energy backbone of Iran and Qatar is now a bargaining chip Washington is prepared to sacrifice to enforce its war.
That is the second truth of this episode: the war on Iran’s civilian infrastructure is being waged under a definition of “threat” that collapses into whatever the president needs it to be.
Once a president starts talking about “blowing up the entirety” of the field that keeps both Iran and Qatar running, the fiction that this is a contained war collapses.
Exporting the Energy Shock
By treating Iran’s South Pars complex and linked Gulf energy infrastructure as disposable targets, Israel and the United States have not just escalated a regional war; they have shifted the economic pain onto societies that never signed up for this fight, from Turkish households to European workers and Indian farmers now absorbing the fallout.
Turkey: forced into a rigged market
In Turkey, the cost of turning South Pars into a battlefield is already measurable. Analysts note that Iran supplies gas to Turkey by pipeline, and that any prolonged disruption would force buyers to look for replacement cargoes on the LNG market. That “elsewhere” is the spot market, where Asian demand has already begun pulling cargoes away from Europe as importers scramble to replace lost Gulf supply. In practice, a strike pitched as pressure on Iran becomes a higher import bill for a NATO member and another inflationary squeeze on households and industry.
Europe: dragged back toward 2022
In Europe, the impact showed up first on trading screens. After disruption to Qatari LNG output, benchmark gas prices on the Dutch TTF hub jumped by as much as 45%, reaching around €46 per megawatt-hour. Reuters then reported that Asian buyers scrambling for LNG replacement cargoes were already pulling shipments toward Asia, reinforcing the risk of another continental price shock. Europe’s dependence on LNG after cutting Russian pipeline supply means that attacks on South Pars-linked infrastructure in the Gulf do not stay regional for long.
India: paying for a war it did not choose
In India, the blowback is more than theoretical. Government sources told CNBC-TV18 that LPG supplies were already “feeling some heat” as the West Asia conflict disrupted shipping routes and pushed gas prices higher. The same report said Asian LNG prices had risen from about $6–8 per MMBtu to around $15 per MMBtu, while rerouting cargoes from alternative suppliers such as the United States or Norway would take longer. A later report said Indian LPG consumption fell 17.7% in the first half of March because of war-related supply disruption. That is what energy warfare looks like in human terms: shortages, higher costs and forced adjustment by people who had no role in launching the conflict.
China: tested, not insulated
China’s immediate exposure looks smaller on paper, but the same shock still hits Beijing’s energy calculus. Reuters reported that over 80% of Qatar’s LNG exports go to Asia, placing major buyers like China in the line of fire when Gulf supply is disrupted. Another report noted that China was among the key Asian markets exposed as the regional benchmark LNG price surged and traders sought replacement cargoes from farther afield. That leaves Beijing with more buffers than poorer importers, but not immunity from the price shock set off by attacks on Gulf gas infrastructure
WHEN A SHARED FIELD BECOMES A WAR ZONE
If the story stopped at Iran’s shoreline, it would already be devastating. But South Pars does not stop at Iran’s shoreline. The reservoir that feeds Assaluyeh stretches under the Gulf into Qatari waters, where it is known as the North Field and where it supplies Ras Laffan Industrial City, the most important LNG complex on Earth. Before the war, Ras Laffan’s trains exported around 77 million tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas, with plans underway to expand capacity towards 142 million tonnes by the end of the decade. Alongside LNG, Ras Laffan also produces Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), ethane, condensate and sulphur, and hosts gas‑to‑liquids plants, power stations and desalination units. It is a central hinge in the global energy system, and on the day Iran’s missiles arrived, workers there were told to leave the plant that underwrites their families’ incomes because someone else had decided their shared field was expendable.
Qatar understood immediately what an attack on South Pars meant. Its foreign ministry condemned the strikes as “dangerous and irresponsible,” explicitly reminding the world that the field is geologically continuous with the North Field and warning that targeting infrastructure tied to that reservoir threatens global energy security. It has now gone further, calling Iran’s strike on Ras Laffan a “brutal targeting” of its gas hub, invoking Security Council resolutions and asserting its right to respond under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The United Arab Emirates, normally cautious about public criticism of Israel, issued its own statement that attacks on energy facilities linked to Pars risk catastrophic consequences. Those are not sentimental reactions. They are the reflex of states that suddenly realised the line between “hitting Iran” and “putting our own energy spine in the crosshairs” had effectively vanished.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard then warned that key Gulf facilities had become “direct and legitimate targets” and urged workers to evacuate them before the strike. The list was specific: Ras Laffan; Mesaieed, Qatar’s original deep‑water export port and industrial hub, where gas and condensate are turned into NGLs, refined products, petrochemicals, aluminium and steel; Samref, a more‑than‑400,000‑barrels‑per‑day refinery in Yanbu on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coast with around 13 million barrels of storage; Jubail, the giant refinery‑petrochemical complex in eastern Saudi Arabia running at roughly 440,000 barrels per day and anchored by a 1.5‑million‑tonne‑per‑year ethylene cracker; and Al Hosn in the UAE, a sour‑gas project that processes about a billion cubic feet per day of raw gas, produces roughly half a billion cubic feet per day of sales gas for the Emirati grid and throws off tens of thousands of barrels of condensate and thousands of tonnes of sulphur every day.
In Kuwait, drones struck individual units at the Mina al‑Ahmadi refinery and Mina Abdullah refinery, triggering “limited” fires and forcing operators to temporarily halt parts of their output. Further east, Abu Dhabi’s Habshan gas facilities, already singled out in Iranian warnings, were shut down after debris from intercepted missiles fell on the site, underscoring that Tehran was willing to hit the very installations that underpin its rivals’ domestic energy security.
In other words, Tehran not only threatened but executed multiple strikes, and in the Ras Laffan’s case, it appears the Islamic Republic have struck the same class of conversion assets on Arab shores that Israel and the U.S. had just targeted at Assaluyeh, the plants where raw hydrocarbons become electricity, heating, industrial feedstock and exportable product.
It is crucial to understand that Ras Laffan’s LNG trains, Mesaieed’s NGL and refining complex, Samref’s crude units, Jubail’s crude‑to‑chemicals expansion and Al Hosn’s gas and sulphur trains are all parts of the same nervous system.
When one side authorises attacks on conversion nodes at South Pars, the other side’s answer is not to keep politely to its own coastline. It is to declare that the Gulf’s entire energy architecture is now part of the battlefield.
That is the third truth this strike exposes: by hitting a shared field, Israel and the U.S. have made their own allies’ energy spines part of the target set.
THE ENERGY WAR NOBODY CAN HONESTLY CALL ‘DEFENSE’
Seen from this angle, the Assaluyeh strikes were not a self‑contained tactical move. They were the opening of a new kind of war, a war on conversion infrastructure, that punishes civilians first and drags allies and markets along for the ride. Israel hit the plant that turns Iran’s gas wealth into heat, light and wages; Iran responded in kind by putting the plants that turn Qatar’s, Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s hydrocarbons into LNG, petrol and plastics in its sights. Trump then raised the stakes by threatening to “entirely blow up” the shared reservoir that makes all of this possible, as if the energy backbone of two states and a sizeable slice of Europe and Asia’s gas supply were a pawn to be removed from the board to prove a point.
At that stage, the legal and moral mask slips. A campaign that begins as “precision strikes” against military and command targets turns, almost in slow motion, into an assault on the infrastructure that keeps tens of millions of people from freezing, blacking out or losing their jobs, and into a form of extortion against the wider Gulf. In other words, people of Iran are being asked to accept that Iran’s energy lifeline can be bombed with impunity, or watch their own refineries and LNG terminals burn.
Iranian analysts now call this openly what it is, “economic warfare” centered on energy, and warn that destroyed or degraded capacity will worsen electricity shortages and deepen domestic hardship. When the same government waging that campaign has senior officials on record saying the “imminent threat” used to sell the war does not exist as advertised, it becomes very hard to sustain the fiction that this is self‑defense in any meaningful sense.
A war waged under those conditions cannot be sold as “precision.” It can barely, if at all, be sold as self‑defense. What they are doing, in the cold light of Assaluyeh’s burning stacks and Ras Laffan’s flares, looks like a campaign of collective punishment enforced through the energy system of an entire region, and once you see it that way, it becomes very hard to unsee.
War on Iran to impose trillion-dollar ‘Israel First Tax’ on US citizens: Araghchi
Press TV – March 19, 2026
The Iranian foreign minister says ordinary Americans bear the brunt of the illegal US-Israeli aggression against Iran with the trillion-dollar “Israel First tax” that is expected to hit US economy.
Abbas Araghchi made the remarks in an X post on Thursday after The Washington Post reported that the US Ministry of War seeks more than $200 billion in budget request for the military assault against Iran.
The top Iranian diplomat described the figure as “the tip of the iceberg” as the war is about to enter its fourth week, contrary to what the enemies had predicted to be a short one.
“We’re only three weeks into this war of choice, imposed on both Iranians and Americans,” he said.
“This $200b is the tip of the icerberg. Ordinary Americans can thank [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar “First Israel tax” that is about to hit US economy.”
Citing informed sources, The Washington Post report said that the Pentagon’s demand for additional budget is aimed at increasing the production of weapons that have been destroyed or depleted during the war.
The figure also includes replacing modern missiles such as Tomahawk, as well as Patriot systems and THAAD interceptors, which have been used in recent weeks, according to the report.
Preliminary estimates indicate that the cost of the war in the first six days was about $11.3 billion and that ammunition worth over $ 5.6 billion had been used only in the first two days of the conflict.
The criminal US-Israeli aggression on Iran began on February 28 with airstrikes that assassinated senior Iranian officials and commanders.
The Iranian Armed Forces have responded by launching almost daily missile and drone operations targeting locations in the Israeli occupied lands as well as US military bases and assets across the region.
The retaliatory strikes have been carried out based on the principle of “eye for an eye,” inflicting heavy losses on the enemies.
The State Is Socializing the Cost Of the Iran War
By Alice Johnson | The Libertarian Institute | March 19, 2026
War is often sold to the public as an act of national will: decisive, necessary, and under control. The bill arrives later, in a quieter form. It shows up in insurance markets, shipping rates, emergency guarantees, higher fuel prices, and sudden policy reversals designed to keep the economic damage from spreading too far or too fast. That is what is now happening with the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. The fighting is not only destroying lives and widening instability. It is also revealing something more familiar about the American state: when private actors no longer want to bear the risk of a war Washington helped ignite, Washington moves to spread that risk across everyone else.
The clearest example came when maritime war-risk premiums in the Gulf surged, in some cases by more than 1000%, as ships and cargoes moved through a combat zone centered on one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. This is what markets do when governments create danger: they start pricing reality honestly. Insurance underwriters do not care about speeches about resolve or credibility. They care about missiles, mines, damaged hulls, and the odds that a vessel will not make it home intact. Once those odds change, the market does what it is supposed to do. It becomes expensive to move goods through a war.
But the American state does not like that kind of honesty, because honest prices expose the real cost of intervention. So instead of letting war become unaffordable to the people escalating it, Washington stepped in. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation announced a maritime reinsurance facility covering losses up to roughly $20 billion on a rolling basis, and later named Chubb as the lead insurance partner. In plain English, the government decided that if the private market was no longer willing to carry the full risk of this war, the state would help carry it instead. That is not a side effect of interventionism. It is one of its operating principles. Risk is privatized on the way up, then socialized when the numbers stop working.
The same pattern is visible in energy policy. As the war tightened shipping and pushed oil prices above $100 a barrel, Washington issued a thirty-day waiver allowing purchases of stranded Russian oil at sea to stabilize markets. That move was not just an emergency adjustment. It was an admission. The administration was effectively saying that one war had already become costly enough to require loosening pressure in another theater. A foreign policy that presents itself as hard and disciplined suddenly becomes very flexible when gasoline, shipping, and inflation begin threatening domestic politics. The slogans remain moralistic. The mechanics turn transactional overnight.
This is what statism looks like in practice. It does not simply bomb another country and call it security. It also rearranges the economic landscape at home and abroad so that the political architects of the war do not face the full consequences of their decisions. The cost is pushed outward onto taxpayers who did not authorize the war, consumers who will pay more for energy and goods, and trading systems that now have to absorb new shocks because Washington and Israel chose escalation over restraint. The state does not merely fight. It conscripts logistics, insurance, credit, and public balance sheets into the campaign.
That is why it is misleading to describe this as only a military conflict. It is also an exercise in political risk transfer. The Strait of Hormuz handles around twenty million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products and roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Any government that helps turn that corridor into a war zone is not just making a strategic decision abroad. It is imposing a hidden tax on ordinary life. It is raising the cost of transport, trade, fuel, insurance, and eventually everything built on those foundations. And when those costs start climbing too fast, the same government asks the public to cushion the blow in the name of stability.
There is a moral evasion built into this arrangement. The public is told to think about war in the language of necessity and strength, while the real economics are handled behind the scenes through emergency waivers, public guarantees, and market interventions. Washington bypasses the discipline that peace would impose. It subsidizes the consequences of its own escalation, then presents the cleanup operation as responsible governance. That is not prudence. It is the imperial version of sending someone else the invoice.
The libertarian objection to this war is not only that it is reckless, unjust, and likely to widen. It is also that the state is once again doing what it does best: converting elite foreign-policy choices into burdens to be carried by everybody else. When insurers retreat, the government steps in. When sanctions collide with energy reality, the rules bend. When war becomes too expensive, the price is redistributed rather than paid by the people who chose it. That is the deeper scandal here. The state is not just waging this war. It is socializing its cost.
Weapons makers cash in on Trump’s Iran war
Big Pentagon contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman saw billions added to their market value
By Ben Freeman and Janet Abou-Elias | Responsible Statecraft | March 3, 2026
The economic costs of the U.S. and Israel’s decision to start a war with Iran have already reverberated throughout the international economy. Oil prices rose, the stock market fell, and U.S. mortgage rates jumped sharply, raising the cost to buy a home for Americans. Unsurprisingly, public opinion polls have found that Americans are resoundingly opposed to Trump’s Iran war.
Yet, one sector has profited massively from the devastating conflict: Pentagon contractors. Arms supplier stocks as a whole rose 1.5% on Monday, but the largest Pentagon contractors and the contractors with the greatest stake in the conflict saw their share prices rise even more.
Lockheed Martin — the largest Pentagon contractor, which regularly receives more taxpayer dollars than the entire State Department — saw its stock price rise 3.4% Monday. Since the beginning of 2026, Lockheed’s stock price has increased nearly 40%, as tensions between the U.S. and Iran grew. Lockheed makes the THAAD system which has been used to intercept Iranian missiles. In January, Lockheed Martin signed a deal with the Pentagon to quadruple production of the THAAD interceptors — which each cost $12.77 million — from 96 to 400 per year.
RTX (previously Raytheon) stock rose 4.7% in the first day of trading since the Iran war began. RTX makes the Patriot radar and ground systems (Lockheed makes the $4 million Patriot missiles the system fires) that have been widely used in the conflict, which cost as little as $250,000. Multiple Patriot missiles are sometimes used to intercept every Iranian missile. In one case, for example, 11 Patriot missiles were reportedly used to intercept just one Iranian missile.
Of all the major Pentagon contractors, Boeing saw its share price rise the least on Monday, inching up just 1%. This relatively limited, though still sizable, gain is at least partially explained by the firm being the only major Pentagon contractor that does not derive a majority of its revenue from the Defense Department. The firm does, however, make the F-15 EX fighter jet, three of which crashed after being accidentally attacked by Kuwait’s air defense system. The cost of those three jets alone was around $300 million.
The biggest winner on Wall Street yesterday was Northrop Grumman, whose share price rose a remarkable 6%, increasing the company’s market value by billions of dollars in just one day of trading. Northrop’s B-2 Stealth Bombers were used in the recent Iran strikes, as well as in the strikes on Iran six months ago. The B-2s cost taxpayers around $2 billion to buy and more than $150,000 per hour to fly.
For investors and stock analysts, this was all to be expected. After all, the ticker for the global defense sector ETF is literally “War”.
As Jonathan Siegmann, a market analyst at the firm Stifel, succinctly explained to clients Monday, “Defense spending was already set to surge in 2026 and a protracted war with Iran will make the spending more urgent and less controversial.” As Marketwatch summed up the financial markets’ zeal for firms that will profit from the Iran war: “war can be good for business.”
The greatest threat to investors in these firms? Peace. When peace talks begin during prolonged conflicts, investors in defense firms tend to sell, as they did late last year when Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. were in peace talks. But investment analysts are confident there’s no imminent threat of peace breaking out soon in the current Iran conflict. “Given the U.S. has assembled the largest set of military assets since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we anticipate this conflict will be unfortunately more extended and violent than we have seen in recent years,” Siegmann said Monday.
In short, while more than 100 children were murdered in a strike on an Iranian school and the number of U.S. service members killed in the conflict continues to climb, war profiteering has a bright future ahead.
Ben Freeman is Director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute and the author of “The Trillion Dollar War Machine: How Runaway Military Spending Drives America into Foreign Wars and Bankrupts Us at Home” (2025).
IRGC says regional energy sites linked to US will be reduced to ashes
Press TV – March 18, 2026
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says regional energy production facilities linked to the United States will be reduced to ashes as the elite force prepares to respond to attacks on Iran’s natural gas production sites.
Spokesman of the IRGC’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters Lieutenant Colonel Ebrahim Zolfaqari said on Wednesday that Iran’s attacks will target countries whose territories were used to launch airstrikes on Iran’s gas facilities earlier in the day.
“Fuel, energy and natural gas infrastructure of the source of the invasion will be set ablaze and reduced to ashes at the earliest opportunity,” the spokesman said in a televised statement.
Earlier on Wednesday, the IRGC issued a warning note to people living near five major energy production facilities in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar, to immediately evacuate to protect their lives from Iran’s reprisal attacks.
The warning came right after Iran’s Oil Ministry said four refining facilities in Asaluyeh, a Persian Gulf coastal town home to Iran’s gas processing installations, had suffered damage as a result of US-Israeli airstrikes.
Meanwhile, commander of the IRGC Navy Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri said in a post on his X account that the force had updated its bank of targets to include “oil installations related to the US.”
Tangsiri said the IRGC will open fire on those installations forcefully and with full strength.
“We warn citizens and workers to keep away from these installations,” said his post.
Iran has been carrying out reprisal attacks against US military bases and other assets in regional countries since the start of the US-Israeli aggression on February 28.
However, oil and gas infrastructure was spared to prevent major disruption to regional and international energy supplies.
Iranian authorities had warned that those facilities would also come under attack if corresponding sites in Iran were hit.
The Wednesday attacks and Iran’s planned response are expected to cause a major surge in international energy prices, with analysts warning that they could well exceed $150 a barrel, up nearly three times compared to before the aggression on Iran.
