Archives: Articles

By Harsh Thakor

The world of critical scholarship and anti-imperialist struggle has lost one of its most steadfast voices. James Petras, a towering Marxist sociologist and one of the foremost analysts of Latin American politics, passed away on January 17, 2026, at the age of 89.

Born in Lynn, Massachusetts, to a Greek immigrant working-class family, Petras carried throughout his life the imprint of that upbringing: a deep identification with labour, migrants, and the marginalized. He earned his B.A. from Boston University and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, before embarking on a distinguished academic career. In 1972, he joined Binghamton University, where he became Bartle Professor of Sociology and later Professor Emeritus. He also served as an adjunct professor at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax.

Yet to describe Petras merely as an academic would be to diminish the scale of his engagement. He was, above all, a public intellectual rooted in struggle. Over six decades, he authored more than 62 books—translated into 29 languages—and published hundreds of articles in leading journals, including the American Sociological Review, the British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, the Journal of Contemporary Asia, and the Journal of Peasant Studies. His scholarship was encyclopedic, but always anchored in the concrete realities of class power and resistance.

A leading authority on Latin America, Petras dissected the structures of neoliberalism, transnational capital, and U.S. foreign policy with unflinching clarity. In works such as Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century (2001), The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), System in Crisis (2003), Social Movements and State Power (2004), Empire with Imperialism (2005), Multinationals on Trial (2006), and Rulers and Ruled in the U.S. Empire (2007), he demonstrated how imperialism had not disappeared under the euphemism of “globalization,” but rather assumed new economic forms while retaining its political and military foundations.

Petras’s Marxism was neither dogmatic nor diluted. He refused to abandon class analysis in the face of postmodern and post-Marxist currents that, in his view, fragmented social theory and obscured material relations of power. In The Left Strikes Back and A Marxist Critique of Post-Marxism, he argued that the retreat from class politics reflected political defeats, not intellectual progress. He warned that neoliberal institutions often funded “grassroots” organizations promoting anti-statist ideologies, thereby depoliticizing potentially insurgent classes.

His method embodied what he often invoked as “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.” History, he insisted, was never linear. At every conjuncture, competing tendencies, counter-tendencies, and class forces contended. The task of the analyst was to dissect these forces rigorously—without surrendering faith in transformative possibility.

Nowhere was this clarity more evident than in his work on Latin America. Petras examined neoliberal reforms, trade agreements, and financial dependency as mechanisms of upward wealth transfer and labour disempowerment. He remained a fierce critic of NGOs, which he regarded as instruments that softened and institutionalized social movements under neoliberal rule. His allegiance lay consistently with landless workers, peasants, and combative grassroots organizations.

His assessments of progressive governments were marked by the same principled independence. Writing on Hugo Chávez after Venezuela’s 2004 referendum, Petras recognized the class and racial alignments underpinning Chávez’s support while cautioning against premature declarations of revolutionary transformation. He distinguished Chávez from other national-populist leaders by noting his reliance on mass movements and alliances with Cuba, even as he pointed to contradictions within the process.

In evaluating figures such as Lula in Brazil and Morales in Bolivia, Petras resisted both euphoria and cynicism. The central question for him was always whether participation in parliamentary democracy sharpened the independent power of the working class—or whether it absorbed and institutionalized social movements, reducing class struggle to negotiated interest-group politics. He understood that progressive governments operating within bourgeois democracy posed new strategic dilemmas for popular forces.

Throughout his career, Petras insisted that global inequality could only be understood through the interplay of class relations, state power, and imperial strategy. He argued that 21st-century imperialism was driven by the internal dynamics of capital, producing what he termed the “super-exploitation” of the Global South—often mediated through financial institutions, NGOs, and compliant political elites.

James Petras leaves behind an intellectual legacy of extraordinary depth and breadth. For students, activists, and scholars across continents, his writings will remain a formidable resource for diagnosing exploitation and mapping resistance. Even where debates endure—and they will—his insistence on grounding theory in material struggle stands as a lasting contribution.

In an era when class analysis was declared obsolete and empire renamed globalization, James Petras held the line. His life was a testament to the enduring relevance of Marxist critique and to the conviction that history, shaped by struggle, remains open.

Harsh Thakor is a freelance Journalist

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Md Tariqul Islam Tanvir

Since the 7th of October 2023, Israeli forces have killed just over 72,000 people and injured 171,741 others as a result of the conflict, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Among this death toll, over half of those were women, children under 18, or the elderly (those over 65).

Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine War in Eastern Europe, already one of modern Europe’s longest, has no end in sight and will become the longest continuous interstate military campaign in Europe in centuries by the end of June 2026. The loss of life has been tremendous, with the military casualty level projected to reach 2 million wounded or killed by this spring—a rate that few wars have witnessed since 1945.

The question arises whether the United Nations, established from the ashes of the Second World War to promote peace, human rights, and global cooperation, is fulfilling its role. Is it still relevant? Or is it obsolete?

The United Nations was officially established on October 24, 1945, by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, prompting global cooperation and advancing social progress, better living standards, and human rights. At present, 193 countries are members of the UN.

However, because of their key roles in establishing the UN, China, France, the Russian Federation (which succeeded the Soviet Union in 1990), the United Kingdom, and the United States were given a special power known as the “veto“. This allows any one of them to block a Security Council resolution with a single negative vote, regardless of international consensus.

The veto, however, is not the only option available to these permanent members. If a permanent member does not fully agree with a proposed resolution but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required number of nine favorable votes.

Unfortunately, rather than upholding global stability, the five permanent members (the P5) of the UNSC ( United Nations Security Council) are exploiting their exclusive voting and negotiating powers to suit their own geopolitical interests. In doing so, they have undermined the Council’s ability to maintain international peace and security. For example, a new Oxfam report, “Vetoing Humanity,” studied 23 of the world’s most protracted conflicts over the past decade, including Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Libya, Niger, the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen, and found that 27 of the 30 UNSC vetoes cast on these conflicts were on OPT, Syria and Ukraine. More than a million people have been killed in these 23 conflicts alone, and more than 230 million people are today in urgent need of aid – an increase of over 150 per cent since 2015.

In that situation, Russia and the United States are particularly responsible for abusing their veto power, which is blocking progress toward peace in Ukraine, Syria, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and Israel.

These veto abuses are part of a broader legacy of UN failures. In Rwanda, the UN ignored warnings and withdrew peacekeepers during the genocide, allowing more than 800,000 Tutsis to be killed. A year later, UN Dutch peacekeepers failed to stop the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men in Srebrenica, a supposedly UN “safe area”, the most notorious mass killing by the Serbs in Bosnia. In Syria from 2011–2024, the UN Security Council’s deadlock (Russia & China vetoes) blocked intervention, enabling Assad’s atrocities, resulting in more than 500,000 dead. Similar cases in South Sudan, Congo, Haiti, Israel-Palestine, and the Ukraine War, where the UN failed to stop the war and bring peace.

Further undermining its legitimacy, the United Nations (UN) has been involved in several high-profile scandals, including the Oil-for-Food Programme in 1996 to allow Iraq to sell enough oil to pay for food and other necessities for its population, and sexual abuse. In addition, for decades, UN peacekeeping missions have been accused of rape and sexual exploitation of women and children in Congo, Bosnia, Haiti, and Liberia, further undermining the UN’s credibility in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts.

Though the UN announced a Zero-tolerance policy against the sexual exploitation of women and children, Most of the time, peacekeepers do not receive any type of punishment following abuse allegations. Many perpetrators avoid prosecution due to legal immunity or repatriation, as the UN lacks the authority to conduct trials—only the peacekeepers’ home countries have the jurisdiction to prosecute them.

However, the UN provides a critical platform for international dialogue for arms control efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, fosters cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear technology and the Paris Agreement ( legally binding international treaty on climate change), which aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Moreover, Agencies like the WHO, UNICEF, and WFP deliver life-saving aid such as vaccines, famine relief, and refugee support. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a unified global framework for a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. In some cases, the UN plays a key role in de-escalating conflicts, even if imperfect for example Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA, 2015) and Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) was established in 2003 to support the peace process and security reform following the civil war, eventually completing its mandate in 2018 as the country achieved stability and UNFICYP was established in 1964 to prevent further clashes between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

Nearly eight decades after its founding, with a noble mission born of World War II, the United Nations stands at a crossroads. Created with the noble mission of preventing war, protecting human rights, and promoting peace, it now faces a crisis of relevance. Too often, the UN functions more as a humanitarian cleanup crew than as a proactive force for peace. Its original mandate—to prevent conflict and uphold justice—has been undermined by power politics, especially the unchecked dominance of the Security Council’s permanent members. Until this imbalance is addressed, the UN will remain a paralyzed institution—capable of delivering aid, but not of preventing the crises that require it.

Unless the veto power is reformed, accountability is enforced for peacekeeping abuses, and people are prioritized over geopolitics, the UN risks becoming a symbol of failed ambition—a well-intentioned body that could not rise to the challenges of the 21st century.

The world still needs a credible, functioning multilateral system to defend peace and human dignity. Whether the UN becomes that system—or fades into obsolescence—is a choice that depends on bold reform. The message is clear: reform or irrelevance.

Md Tariqul Islam Tanvir is a postgraduate of the Erasmus Mundus International Master in Central East European, Russian and Eurassian Studies.

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Mohd Ziyauallah Khan

The war on Iran launched under US President Donald Trump has drawn two distinct responses from India. The first was an official statement by the Ministry of External Affairs expressing “deep concern”, calling for dialogue, restraint, and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The second was a phone call by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, strongly condemning attacks on the Emirates and expressing solidarity.

Between these two responses and Modi’s visit to Israel just two days before Israeli strikes on Iran lies a telling silence. It is a silence that reveals the strain in India’s long-standing balancing act between Washington, Tehran, and Tel Aviv.

A Calibrated Response and a Noticeable Silence

The Prime Minister’s call to the UAE followed Iranian retaliatory strikes targeting the Emirates after combined Israeli-US attacks on Iranian soil. In those strikes, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, senior officials, and hundreds of civilians were reportedly killed. Iran also fired missiles toward Qatar and Bahrain, both hosts to US military bases.

Yet India has not explicitly condemned the breach of Iran’s sovereignty. Instead, it has urged “all sides” to pursue dialogue and diplomacy. What remains unaddressed is the manner in which Washington abruptly broke off two months of negotiations with Tehran reportedly when a deal was within reach.

Just hours before the strikes, Omani foreign minister and mediator Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi had indicated that an agreement was close, with Iran committing never to stockpile bomb-grade material. Delhi’s silence on this breakdown underscores a familiar pattern: its relations with Tehran have long been shaped, and often constrained, by its ties with Washington.

The 2005 Vote: A Turning Point

Criticism of the current government has come swiftly. Congress leaders have accused the Modi administration of betraying Iran. Yet history suggests that this pattern predates the present regime.

In September 2005, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India voted in favour of a US-backed EU-3 (UK, Germany, France) resolution against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The resolution stated that Iran was not in compliance with its safeguards under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and hinted at possible referral to the UN Security Council.

India’s vote marked a sharp departure from its traditional non-aligned stance. Iran had lobbied New Delhi intensely, appealing to shared developing-world solidarity and leadership within the Non-Aligned Movement. Simultaneously, Washington exerted pressure.

Days before the vote, US Congressman Tom Lantos warned that India’s newly announced civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States carried expectations of “reciprocity” especially regarding US policy toward Iran.

India voted with 22 other countries in favour. Twelve abstained, including China and Russia. Iran was furious. Tehran viewed the vote as a betrayal.

Iran’s 1994 Intervention: A Forgotten Chapter

The 2005 decision appeared even more striking in light of events a decade earlier. In 1994, India faced the prospect of censure at the UN Commission on Human Rights over allegations of violations in Kashmir. Pakistan had mobilised support within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for a resolution.

Then external affairs minister Dinesh Singh travelled urgently to Tehran. He secured assurances from Iranian leaders, including President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, that Iran would intervene.

Tehran did more than expected. According to diplomatic accounts, Iran effectively blocked the OIC move to table the resolution, sparing India a potentially damaging international setback. For many in Iran, this episode magnified the sense of betrayal in 2005.

Chabahar, Sanctions, and Strategic Drift

The fallout from 2005 narrowed political trust, even as trade continued. A key casualty was the development of Iran’s Chabahar Port, intended to give India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan.

The project regained momentum after Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with world powers. Modi visited Tehran in 2016. But when Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions, Chabahar slowed once more. India halted purchases of Iranian oil under US pressure.

Although New Delhi insists it remains committed to a 10-year Chabahar contract signed in 2024, Tehran has publicly expressed disappointment over the absence of allocations in India’s 2026 budget.

Israel, Gaza, and Growing Divergences

Today’s tensions are layered atop shifting regional alignments. The perceived warmth between Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has added strain to India-Iran ties.

Iran has not hesitated to criticise India publicly. In 2020, Ali Khamenei condemned the Delhi riots and criticised the revocation of Kashmir’s special status. In 2024, he included India among countries allegedly persecuting Muslims.

Differences over Israel’s war in Gaza have also surfaced. When External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar visited Tehran in January 2024, Iran pressed India to help end bombings and lift blockades, while India reiterated its call for dialogue and a two-state solution.

Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Dependence

India presents its calibrated silence as an exercise in strategic autonomy. Yet to many observers, it increasingly resembles strategic dependence particularly on Washington.

For over two decades, India’s Iran policy has been shaped by US pressure, from the IAEA vote to sanctions compliance. What distinguishes the current moment is the visibility of alignment with Israel, the growing domestic scrutiny over minority rights, and the sheer scale of conflict engulfing West Asia.

Caught in the middle are India’s 10 million-strong diaspora across the Gulf and the broader region. Their security and livelihoods depend on regional stability and on a foreign policy that is not merely reactive, but principled.

India’s balancing act is not new. But as this crisis deepens, the space between silence and solidarity is becoming harder to occupy.

Final Thought

In conclusion, India’s cautious stance on the US-Iran conflict reflects a long-standing strategic dilemma balancing its global partnerships while protecting its regional interests. While Delhi has called for restraint and dialogue, its refusal to explicitly condemn attacks on Iran exposes the limits of its proclaimed autonomy, shaped in large part by decades of alignment with Washington and evolving ties with Israel and Gulf states.

As the conflict escalates and global reactions pour in urging de-escalation and diplomacy, India’s approach will continue to be scrutinised, both at home and across the region, for its implications on regional stability and its own foreign policy credibility.

Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer & editor based in Nagpur.

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Arun Mitra

The Indian government has not issued any forthright statement condemning the aggression against Iran jointly carried out by the United States and Israel. This is despite the fact that Iran has been a time-tested friend of India with deep civilizational commonalities. One may or may not agree with the political system of a particular country, but no one can condone foreign aggression that threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any nation. In recent times, we have witnessed a growing disregard for internationally accepted norms that call for respect among nations, big or small. The unprovoked aggression against Iran by the United States and Israel must be condemned outright. The Indian government’s merely expressing concern is not acceptable.

This is a very serious situation with long-term regional and global implications. The aggression occurred at a time when diplomatic efforts were underway between the United States and Iran. Representative of the government of Oman had even announced that the two sides were nearing an agreement. However, the very next day, Israel and the United States launched attacks on Iran. On the very first day, Israeli forces reportedly killed more than 150 children in a school. Israel has often been accused of carrying out extremely brutal and inhumane acts. This became particularly evident during the war in Gaza, where more than 70,000 people were reported killed, including over 20,000 children.

It has now become clear that the United States was never serious about peace negotiations. has openly called for regime change and has urged the people of Iran to use this opportunity to overthrow the present establishment. Israel, on the other hand, is advancing claims of a “Greater Israel” and seeking to expand its influence in the Middle East. Iran has vowed to retaliate for the killing of its Supreme Leader. In response, it has launched missile attacks on Israel and on United States land and naval bases in the region, reportedly causing serious damage in several locations.

There has been a global outcry against this aggression, which many have described as illegal, unprovoked, and unwarranted. The claim by the United States that Iran poses a threat to America, and similar statements by the Israeli Prime Minister about an existential threat to Israel from Iran, do not appear convincing to many people across the world. Russia and China have strongly condemned the attack. The UNO has taken up the matter and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

India could have played a significant role in restoring peace in the region. However, the recent visit of our Prime Minister to Israel has unfortunately led to a loss of trust in our country according to many observers. At one time, India was regarded as a true champion of peace in the world. Since the aggression occurred only a day after Prime Minister returned from Israel, it raises questions about whether he might have been aware of the plans for aggression. He is the only Prime Minister of India to have visited Israel, and that too twice, in 2017 and again in 2026. Visiting Israel with prior knowledge of any such plan would amount to a betrayal of humanity. On the other hand, if he was unaware of it, then it reflects a serious failure on the part of the Indian state that advised him to visit Israel during a period of heightened tensions in the Middle East.

The manner in which the Prime Minister publicly embraced Netanyahu appeared to signal a strong personal and political commitment to him. In his speech, he did not utter a single word about the killing of more than 70,000 people, including over 20,000 children, in Gaza. He also did not refer to the two-state solution to the conflict. Instead, efforts were made to pursue a larger trade agreement, including defence deals. It has also been reported that he sought surveillance software similar to Pegasus, without fully considering that such technology could potentially provide strategic leverage to foreign agencies over our country. Additionally, India reportedly agreed to send 50,000 workers to Israel, which could displace Palestinian workers who are already employed there.

The Foreign Minister of Iran reached out to several countries for support, but not to India. In the process, we appear to have lost a time-tested friend in Iran while gaining little in return. It increasingly seems that India is being seen as a junior partner in the United States–Israel strategy in current geopolitics—an unfortunate reflection on our foreign policy.

Dr Arun Mitra is a Practicing ENT Surgeon in Ludhiana, Punjab.

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vikas Parashram Meshram

Politics in West Asia has for decades been trapped in a vortex of tension, distrust, and power rivalry. After years of maritime blockades, economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and covert operations, the United States and Israel have finally launched a large-scale attack on Iran. This operation, carried out with missiles and fighter jets, has pushed the entire West Asian region to the brink of a wider war. Soon after the attack, Iran responded by launching retaliatory missile strikes targeting Israel and several American military bases across the Gulf region. As a result, countries such as Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are now witnessing heightened tensions and security concerns.

This conflict is no longer limited to two countries. Instead, it has begun to reshape political dynamics across the entire region. Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi movement in Yemen have also initiated attacks against Israel. Consequently, the conflict is gradually transforming into a multi-front confrontation. Various states, armed groups, and regional actors are becoming directly or indirectly involved, making the situation far more complex and dangerous.

Reports suggest that in the attacks, more than two hundred people have lost their lives, including Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Defence Minister Amir Nasirzadeh, and the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, General Mohammad Pakpour. In southern Iran, a strike on a school reportedly killed more than eighty civilians, highlighting the devastating humanitarian consequences of the conflict. The incident has sparked intense anger across Iran, fueling a wave of grief and calls for retaliation.

These developments have raised serious questions about the strategic calculations behind the operation. Discussions are emerging about whether the attack was carried out using intelligence gathered during ongoing diplomatic negotiations. Some analysts argue that efforts could have been made to engineer a political transition within Iran rather than targeting its top leadership. The assassination of senior leaders may ultimately prove to be a grave diplomatic miscalculation, potentially escalating the conflict further.

Public opinion within the United States itself appears divided. According to recent surveys, only about one-third of Americans support the military strike on Iran. Opposition leaders have also criticized the administration for failing to consult the legislature before launching such a significant military operation. As a result, the government now faces the political challenge of justifying its decision both domestically and internationally.

The conflict has also triggered concerns among several countries regarding the safety of their citizens in the region. Many governments have begun exploring evacuation routes and opening land borders to facilitate the departure of their nationals from Iran and nearby areas. Citizens have been advised to relocate to safer zones, indicating that the possibility of a prolonged conflict cannot be ruled out.

Several American military bases across West Asia have now become potential targets. The Al Udeid Air Base near Doha in Qatar serves as a crucial headquarters for the U.S. Central Command. Around ten thousand troops are stationed there, and it coordinates military operations across a vast region stretching from Egypt to Central Asia. In Kuwait, bases such as Camp Arifjan and Ali Al Salem hold significant strategic importance due to their proximity to Iraq. Camp Buehring, built during the Iraq war, continues to serve as a key logistical hub for operations in Iraq and Syria.

The Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates is another vital installation for the U.S. Air Force, hosting advanced fighter aircraft and supporting aerial missions throughout the region. Meanwhile, the Jebel Ali port near Dubai is regarded as the largest logistics hub for the U.S. Navy in West Asia, regularly receiving warships and supply vessels.

In Iraq, the Ain al-Asad airbase remains a major operational center for American forces. It plays a crucial role in supporting Iraqi security forces and conducting training programs. Notably, Iran had previously launched missile attacks on this base in 2020. Similarly, the airbase near Erbil in northern Iraq serves as an important coordination center for intelligence sharing and military cooperation among allied forces.

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Sultan Air Base is also strategically significant, housing advanced missile defense systems. In Jordan, the Azraq airbase plays a key role in coordinating operations across the region. With rising tensions, all these installations now face increased risks of potential attacks.

The conflict has also exposed divisions within the Muslim world. While some countries appear to support the United States and its allies, others have called for restraint and dialogue. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly been in contact with several regional leaders as he closely monitors developments. The crisis may reshape political alliances and power balances across the region.

One of the most serious consequences of this conflict could be its impact on the global economy. If Iran decides to block the Strait of Hormuz, nearly twenty-five percent of the world’s oil supply could be disrupted. This narrow waterway is one of the most critical routes for global energy trade, and any disruption could cause a sharp spike in oil prices.

If oil prices rise by ten to twenty dollars per barrel, the economic impact on countries like India could be substantial. India is among the world’s largest importers of crude oil, and such a surge would significantly increase its import bill. This could trigger higher inflation, increased transportation costs, and rising food prices. In such circumstances, central banks may face pressure to raise interest rates to control inflation.

Another critical concern for India is the safety of its citizens working in Gulf countries. Nearly nine million Indians are employed across the region. In the event of an escalation, ensuring their safe evacuation could become a major logistical challenge. Moreover, remittances sent by these workers constitute an important source of foreign exchange for India, and prolonged instability could affect this financial inflow.

Nearly half of India’s crude oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption along this route would therefore pose a serious challenge to India’s energy security. At the same time, instability in the Red Sea region could further complicate global oil supply routes.

At the global level, the conflict also raises serious questions about international law and the rules-based world order. The world is already dealing with ongoing conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza crisis. Another major conflict in West Asia could severely disrupt global trade, supply chains, and economic stability.

In this context, the United Nations Security Council must take urgent steps to de-escalate tensions. Diplomatic engagement, mediation, and dialogue are essential to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. Countries such as Oman and Qatar could potentially play an important mediating role in facilitating negotiations.

For India, the greatest challenge lies in maintaining a balanced foreign policy. India has longstanding strategic relations with the United States, Israel, Iran, and the Gulf nations. Therefore, taking an openly partisan stance could prove risky. Strengthening energy security, expanding strategic petroleum reserves, and accelerating the transition toward alternative energy sources are crucial priorities in the current scenario.

Ultimately, the conflict in West Asia is unlikely to remain a purely regional war. Its political, economic, and humanitarian consequences will be felt across the world. In such a volatile environment, dialogue, restraint, and international cooperation remain the only viable path forward. For the sake of humanity and global stability, bringing this conflict to an immediate halt and restoring peace must become the foremost priority.

Vikas Parashram Meshram is a journalist.

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ranjan Solomon

Israel and USA in tandem may pose a formidable enemy to counter. That does guarantee victory. The US has lost multiple wars at the hands of supposedly weaker countries. Israel is in decay mode with a deepening economic crisis, and a rapidly slithering population.

The conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran as of early 2026 is characterized by a “decapitation” strategy and intense, direct military strikes, according to reports. In this illegal war, the stated objectives by U.S. and Israeli leadership, such as destroying Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, preventing regional instability, and fostering regime change, are heavily contested, with critics describing the campaign as an illegal, non-defensive war of aggression.

The strategy, by itself, is viewed as, “fundamentally flawed,” and dishonest and based on, a “war of choice,” rather than necessity,” by many experts. The conflict is in an, “ongoing,” state of escalation, with both sides, “pursuing multiple objectives,” including a, “4-week timetable,” for the war.

The conflict follows 45 years of “anti-American stance,” and, “proxy-based hostilities,” and is fuelled by “maximum pressure,” campaigns. The critiques of the conflict who deem that the USA and Israel have acted illegally and against international law are multiplying in numbers. Many analysts and the UN General Assembly have characterized the unilateral attacks as a violation of the UN Charter, specifically regarding state sovereignty, with critics calling it a, “crime of aggression”.

As of July 2025, 28 countries, including the UK, Japan, and several European nations had officially called for an immediate end to the war in Gaza, marking increased international pressure on Israel. Earlier in June 2025, a UN General Assembly resolution demanding a permanent ceasefire was supported by 149 countries.

Following the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israel strike on February 28, 2026, the intent of “Regime Change & “Decapitation” stands doomed. The primary goal appears to be the total dismantling of the Islamic Republic’s power structure rather than just a, “non-proliferation” exercise. Israel and the U.S. have argued that Iran’s nuclear program, particularly its alleged new, underground, and, “impossible to attack,” sites, made an immediate, “pre-emptive,” war necessary.

As of March 3, 2026, the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain) have been directly targeted by Iranian retaliatory strikes, with many calling for an immediate halt to the conflict. These are countries that host US Army bases. Additionally, Germany and other European nations have sought to de-escalate. Germany, along with the UK and France, has called for a negotiated settlement, with Germany explicitly ruling out active participation in military action against Tehran. Spain joined in calling for an immediate de-escalation of the conflict.

The strikes on Iran have resulted in significant civilian casualties, including reports of a, “girls’ elementary school in Minab,” being destroyed with an estimated 120 innocent girls dead. The conflict has rapidly spread, causing the, “closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” and retaliatory strikes on US allies in the region (Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) creating huge regional instability. On the other hand, Iran has confined itself to US military bases, and key locations in Israel.

Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes against multiple U.S. military facilities across the Middle East. The IRGC claimed to have targeted 14 U.S. military bases in the region. Al Udeid Air Base (Qatar), the forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) was targeted. So too, the Erbil Air Base (Iraq) located in the Kurdish region, was hit by multiple missiles and drone strikes. The Al Dhafra Air Base (UAE) which hosts U.S. personnel, was targeted, with explosions reported in the vicinity.

Reports indicate Iranian missiles were also fired at Muwaffaq Al-Salti Air Base, Jordan. The US base Ain Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq was targeted, with reports of explosions in the area. Jebel Ali Port (UAE), a large structure in a U.S. Navy recreational area within the port was hit.

In Camp Buehring (Kuwait), a drone was reported to have detonated within the perimeter of this base. The attacks, dubbed “Operation Truthful Promise 4” by Iran, were in response to U.S. and Israeli strikes that targeted Iranian nuclear sites and military facilities. While the IRGC claimed that hundreds of American troops were killed in the strikes, U.S. officials have not confirmed these high figures, with some reports noting that three service members were killed at Camp Arifjan, while other sources indicated lower casualties, and some locations suffered no casualties at all. The strikes in 2026 mark a significant escalation compared to previous, lower-level attacks by Iran-backed groups in 2023-2024.

Jeffrey Sachs writing in ‘Common Dreams” offered the lame pretext that the joint US-Israeli attacks were necessary because Iran “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore.” Sachs terms it as a “flat lie”. Sachs reminds us that Iran agreed a decade ago to a nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was adopted by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. It was Trump who tattered the agreement in 2018.

Last June 2025, Israel bombed Iran in the midst of US-Iran negotiations. This time too, the Israel-US war plans were set weeks ago when Netanyahu met with Trump, and the negotiations underway between the US and Iran were a charade. This seems to be the new modus operandi of the US: start negotiations and then aim to murder the counterparts. This entire US-Israel war is totally farcical.

At the UN Security Council, there are eight of the other fourteen Council members which host US military bases or grant the US military access to local bases. CIA bases are located right within. These include Bahrain, Colombia, Denmark, France, Greece, Latvia, Panama, and the United Kingdom. The US military bases house CIA operations, and the host countries constantly look over their shoulder to try to avoid US subversion in their own countries. Countries that host US bases end up being mere vassal states and are forced to bow to US commands and wishes.

European nations are navigating a complex, fractured, and often reactive approach to the escalating conflict between the U.S./Israel and Iran, following intense military action. While some critics describe the European response as “mute” or “pathetic” in comparison to their focus on Ukraine, others indicate a strategy of “cautious engagement” or “supportive restraint,” where European powers aim to prevent wider war while condemning Iranian actions.

Denmark will soon have to confront the ‘Question of Greenland’ and US intent to either buy it off, or simple take it away, according to its whims and fancies. The US will do what it pleases and the EU will come to the stadium to watch the takeover. Watching, European countries watch US and Israeli commit evil in Iran now, and earlier in Gaza, without even an iota of political ethics makes them contemptible in the face of the rest of the world.

Spain has been the only major European voice to explicitly condemn the US-led military strikes on Iran, calling them a “blatant violation of international law”. Spain refused to allow its military bases to be used for the operation, widening the divide within the EU. This author joins a mass of justice movements, individuals, progressive academics and social activists, peace movements, who view the EU as a non-entity in global matters. After being masters of the Universe in the time of colonialism, today they lie in the rubble of political ethics- dismantled, dishevelled, politically unkempt, rumpled, and disarrayed.

According to the ‘Iran Premier’, China provides tangible, though mostly indirect or “dual-use” military support to Iran, focusing on enhancing Iran’s defensive capabilities and technological infrastructure rather than direct combat intervention. China has been identified as a supplier of materials for Iran’s ballistic missile production, including components for solid-fuel propellants and guidance systems. Following the 2025 Iran-Israel conflict, reports indicated Iran ordered materials from China to rebuild its missile capabilities. China has supplied HQ-9B surface-to-air missile batteries to Iran to help rebuild its air defense capabilities, particularly after damage from strikes in 2024 and 2025.

Russia has significantly strengthened its military partnership with Iran, shifting from a transactional relationship to a more strategic, albeit conditional, alliance aimed at undermining U.S. influence, especially amid intensifying conflicts in the Middle East. While both nations are heavily sanctioned by the West, this cooperation is marked by advanced weapons transfers, intelligence sharing, and, in some cases, tacit or direct support for Iranian actions. Russia provides crucial, advanced military, and technical support to Iran to help it withstand Western pressure and act as a regional counterweight to the U.S., but this support is carefully calibrated to prevent Russia from being drawn into a direct, large-scale war.

India is navigating a delicate diplomatic tightrope, balancing its strategic, defense-focused partnership with Israel and the US against vital, long-standing interests with Iran. Amidst escalating Middle East conflicts and US-led pressure on Tehran, New Delhi seeks to protect its energy security, the Chabahar Port project, and its diaspora, while maintaining strategic autonomy. The Chabahar Port project in Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan province is a strategic, deepwater port that provides a crucial trade route to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. It is the cornerstone of India’s maritime strategy, aimed at strengthening trade links and reducing dependency on traditional land routes. Count India out for an authentic mediatory role. The call from India emphasizing dialogue and stability is rhetorical and not backed by risk-taking and bold measures.

For now, we see two sides, stubbornly holding on to their positions. The US-Israel alignment wants Iran destroyed and a peoples’ uprising and an ultimate regime change, a pipe-dream from start-to-finish. best. With no clear winner, the conflict risks becoming a long-term, low-intensity war with massive economic disruption, where Gulf states are forced into the conflict despite.

The best-case scenario is this: Both sides see outright victory far too remote and engage in sincere negotiations. That alone be the X factor for peace in this conflict.

Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age.

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Phil Rockstroh

The dimwit fantasy of smart bombs renders dumb leaders even dumber

Following the war criminality model of the Israeli Defense Forces, the US/Zionist bombing campaign on Iran is engaged in targeting hospitals, schools and private residences, slaughtering all who happen to be on the premises. The tactic, rather than demoralizing civilian populations, galvanizes contempt and the will to resist a foreign aggressor.

Think about it. While I opposed rightwing Christian evangelist’s retrograde (back to the Bronze Age) agendas if the air force of a foreign power bombed their megachurch in my vicinity, I would deem the death-from-above delivering aggressor an existential threat and would find myself, on a provisional basis, in alliance, with my political adversaries.

Every bomb dropped, causing death and destruction, strengthens the Mullah controlled government of Iran.

The true believers in the efficacy of so-called smart bombs are very stupid people.

As an example: a reporter to Secretary Of War(mongering) Pete Hegseth: “As you’ve said, there are a large number of US service members who are in harm’s way right now. What is your prayer for them?”

Hegseth: “First of all, my prayer for them is that I do pray for them… I pray simply for the biblical wisdom to see what is right and the courage to do it.”

How about the biblical admonition regarding “the writing on the wall,” piss-drunk Pete?

The “writing on the wall” episode in the Old Testament is a tale told in the Book of Daniel, 5, in which a disembodied hand of numinous origin, materializes during a feast/orgy held at King Belshazzar’s palace in ancient Babylon.

The hand of divinity scribes four words on the wall of King Belshazzar’s ornate banquet hall: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin” (Aramaic: “Numbered, Numbered, Weighed, Divided”).

The Jewish prophet in exile Daniel interprets this as an augury of impending doom i.e., the imminent fall of the Babylonian Empire to the Medes and Persians.

The phrase has become axiomatic for: ignore looming reality at your peril. Withal, just hours before ordering his attack on Iran Trump attended a bacchanal of moneyed class excess at his Belshazzarian palace known as Mar-a-Lago.

At my son’s Hebrew school today, the class discussed the legend of Purim. Of course, the story is ahistorical; to wit, Queen Esther, the archetypal orphan rises to the throne of a great power, as told as dauntless hero figure for her courage and cunning in saving a besieged — threatened with genocide — Jewish people in perilous exile. Then there is Esther’s striking beauty providing a patina of glamour to the blood-drench story of royal court intrigue and denouncement that setting is ancient Persia, now present day Iran.

Today’s storylines remain being told with an equal lack of veracity. Unlike the tidy ending of the biblical yarn, the unpredictable consequences, engendered by the lies that enabled this war, await us.

A voice within me augurs that in the future the events transpiring in the Levant/Persian Gulf at present will not be celebrated, as, at Purim time, they were in the synagogue of my childhood, with children adorned in costumes of the royal Persian court and the baking of and indulgence in plum cookies and cakes.

The unfolding of events suggest, history will relate the war catalyzing the long overdue collapse of the US as a world-dominating power due to the unsurpassed idiocy and raging hubris of a wannabe US emperor man-infant and the beginning of the end of the Zionist ethno-supremacist state, war criminal enterprise.

So Trump, at Netanyahu’s command, has unloosed the dogs of war, and the snarling pack is peeing on his cackle inflicted leg. How long did Trump and Netanyahu believe they could commit mass murder with impunity? The Gods — i.e., the forces of life that cannot be controlled — strike down the hubristic, and this is particularly true of the God of War.

Israel is being afflicted with a world of hurt. Iranian missiles are raining down on Haifa, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv. The Iranians have fired only a fraction of their arsenal. Israel has cornered and angered a dog of war with real teeth. This isn’t, as in Gaza, a war waged on women and children sleeping in tents, on emergency room doctors and nurses, on journalists and aid workers.

With Trump, he rained unprovoked death from above upon Venezuelan fishermen but now US soldiers have fallen in his war based on lies. The longer the war goes on, and the more hurt inflicted by Iran — the more Trump is going to long for the days when his biggest trouble was the revelations that remain hidden, for now, in the Epstein files.

Trump is a short con grifter. He lacks the depth, ability to reflect, and possess foresight insofar as apprehending all the variables in play in the dynamics of war. His proclivity, when things get rough, has been to declare victory and turn tail.

His main strength, tactic-wise, has been his cowardice. As a garden variety bully, he had an instinct to only pick a fight with those weaker or had no desire to fight. But as witnessed in Minnesota, when the citizenry, instead of rolling over and exposing their belly, collectively, growled and bared their teeth, Trump and his ICE bully boys turned tail.

The world is now taking note; hence, Trump, the shambling, over-reaching braggart, is the very emblem of US Empire’s undoing.

The current US/Israeli military campaign underway against the nation of Iran, Operation Epstein Amnesia, we are told involves an existential threat from a nation possessed of Weapons of Mass Destruction that poses an immediate danger to the forever blameless, forever innocent people of the US and Israel; hence, we are engaged in a massive bombing campaign upon the citizenry of an ancient civilization in behalf of their liberation.

Somewhere from the precincts of the distant past, ghosts of memory are being roused and are howling, “bullshit!”

Let’s query the people of Iraq, of Libya, and of Syria on the subject. The latter nation now has a US/Zionist installed government headed by ISIS head-choppers created by the US in their war of aggression against the people of the primary nation. As for Libya, they possess the freedom to be bought and sold in slave markets in public squares.

The US/Israelis just liberated over hundred Iranian school girls from this very life.

Of course the first words that come to mind when thinking of Trump would be: man of peace and good will…but never, on the doorstep of dementia, adult diaper-swaddled grifter, featured player in the Epstein files. The same is true with Trump’s war partner Benjamin Netanyahu…the description would never enter the mind: genocide-prone psychopath, with the eyes of a dead shark, perpetrator of massive crimes against humanity.

Perish such thoughts attempting to trespass, like fentanyl smuggling illegals, into the pristine precincts of our innocent and beautiful minds.

US/Israeli desperation is at the rotten, down to the root, military aggression against Iran. The source of the desperation: Recent polls reveal that large and growing numbers of the US citizenry now support the cause of Palestinians over that of the Israeli oppressors.

Thus Israel’s agenda, its standard operating procedure, is to sow destruction and chaos in the region. In this manner, the Israeli leadership believes their internal weakness will be mitigated by the destabilization of surrounding nations, as was the case with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, and now Iran.

But the goal is not regime change. There is not a significant number of US ground troops in the Levant/Persian Gulf region, and the killing of Iran’s supreme leader is not going to do the trick. The latter is not only a war crime but will strengthen the resolve of the Iranian citizenry. Then add to the resolve factor: the slaughter of Iranian school girls.

As for Trump, he is a weak man, inflicted by a howling inner emptiness, who, manically, compensates by perpetual preening and clownish boasting about his greatness.

Thus “Trump’s (risible) “Board Of Peace” goes to war. This has to be reality — because a writer of farce would cut the joke for being too on the nose.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist, and essayist.

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Veterans For Peace

Veterans For Peace has condemned the U.S./Israeli attack on Iran, called for widespread resistance, and issued its own Iran War Talking Points.

“We call on our members, friends and allies to resist this dangerous and illegal war, said Michael McPhearson, Executive Director of the 41-year-old veterans’ organization. “We offer support and helpful information to members of the military who decide to refuse illegal orders and resist an illegal war.”

Iran War Talking Points:

The U.S. War on Iran Is Based on Lies
The Trump administration’s ever-changing rationales for going to war against Iran are lies. Iran posed no threat to the United States. This is not a defensive war, but rather a war of choice by Israel and the U.S., a war of aggression, a war for regime change – very much like the disastrous U.S. wars that killed millions of people in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan – wars that many veterans remember with regret.

Iran Was Not Seeing to Build a Nuclear Weapon
Iran has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, as Iranian leaders have stated repeatedly. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate hearing in March 2025 that there was no indication Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, at least not since 2003.

Rather, the United States, the only country to attack another nation with nuclear weapons, has unilaterally abrogated multiple arms control treaties, and is investing Two Trillion Dollars in a new generation of nuclear weapons. It was the U.S., not Iran that violated and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). Israel also has nuclear weapons – undeclared and uninspected. Two nuclear powers attacking Iran, claiming to stop it from pursuing a nuclear program is the height of hypocrisy.

The U.S. War on Iran Is Illegal
The U.S. war is a violation of the UN Charter, a treaty which is the “supreme law of the land” under Article VI of the US Constitution. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”

The U.S. War on Iran is Unconstitutional
The unilateral war of aggression against Iran is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8). This power was intentionally given to the legislative branch to prevent unilateral military action by a single executive.

Congress Should Vote YES on Iran War Powers Resolutions
Congress must uphold its Constitutional responsibility to decide whether and when the United States will go to war by voting YES on Iran War Powers Resolutions that are being put before the Senate and the House of Representatives. As the U.S. war against Iran is clearly illegal, unconstitutional and not in the interests of the people of the United States, we should demand that our Congressional representatives also speak out loudly against this regime-change war of aggression.

Military Members Have the Right to Refuse and Resist this Illegal War
U.S. armed service members have the right and the duty to resist and refuse illegal orders. Veterans For Peace will support members of the military who refuse illegal orders or who protest and stand against this disastrous and illegal war.

Civilians Also Have the Responsibility to Resist
Veterans and civilians also have the right and the responsibility to resist the illegal actions of our government at home and abroad. This is a very critical moment for the United States and the world.

We must be in the streets protesting.
We must be on our keyboards, writing letters to the editors
And on our phones telling our representatives to Vote Yes on the Iran War Powers resolution.
.

DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE HALT TO U.S. MILITARY ATTACKS ON IRAN!

For more information about Veterans For Peace, visit www.veteransforpeace.org.

Veterans For Peace is a 40-year-old organization with chapters in over 100 U.S. cities.

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Pon Chandran

As of March 2, 2026, the attack on Iran has already begun to reverberate far beyond the immediate theatre of war. Financial markets reacted within hours. Oil prices surged. Shipping routes were disrupted. Currencies weakened. The world economy, still fragile after years of pandemic recovery and the prolonged Ukraine conflict, now faces a renewed crisis centered on the most volatile strategic corridor on earth.

The Middle East remains the world’s primary energy tap. When that tap is threatened, the consequences are immediate and global. What we are witnessing is not a regional disturbance, but a systemic economic shock with potentially stagflationary consequences.

The Energy Shock: Oil and Gas as Weapons of War

The most immediate and dramatic impact has been in the energy markets. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil and nearly 20% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Even the possibility of disruption functions as a tax on global growth.

Brent crude has already jumped by 12–13%, trading around $82 per barrel. Analysts warn that if the Strait of Hormuz is closed or partially blocked, prices could rapidly climb to $100–$110 per barrel. Markets are pricing in risk — and in geopolitics, risk translates into higher energy costs.

For LNG-dependent nations such as Japan, South Korea, and several European countries relying on Qatari gas, the situation is equally serious. Supply disruptions would sharply raise electricity and heating costs, feeding into consumer inflation worldwide. Energy inflation is rarely contained; it spreads through transport, manufacturing, and food supply chains.

The lesson from previous Gulf crises is clear: oil shocks rarely remain confined to oil.

Supply Chain Disruptions: Trade Routes Under Siege

War in the Gulf transforms critical sea and air corridors into high-risk zones.

Major shipping carriers such as Maersk and MSC have reportedly suspended transits through the Gulf. Vessels are being rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, adding 15–20 days to transit times between Asia and Europe. This not only increases freight costs but also insurance premiums and fuel expenses. The result: higher prices for goods across continents.

Air travel has also been severely affected. With Iranian and surrounding airspaces restricted or closed, flights between Asia and Europe are being rerouted over longer paths. Airlines face higher fuel costs, while cargo operations are delayed or grounded. Global supply chains — already vulnerable after pandemic-era bottlenecks — now confront renewed stress.

More alarming is the impact on fertilizer trade. Roughly one-third of the world’s fertilizer shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz. A prolonged disruption would threaten agricultural production cycles globally. Food inflation, already politically sensitive across much of the Global South, could surge by late 2026.

Energy and food — the twin pillars of economic stability — are now both exposed.

Impact on Major Economies

The consequences of the attack on Iran are uneven but universally destabilizing.

India: High Vulnerability

India imports approximately 85% of its crude oil. Every $1 increase in crude prices adds an estimated $2 billion to its annual import bill. With Brent already climbing, pressure on the Indian Rupee has intensified.

Higher oil prices widen the current account deficit, strain fiscal balances, and complicate monetary policy. For the Reserve Bank of India, this presents a dilemma: raising interest rates to curb inflation could slow growth, while holding rates steady risks currency weakness and imported inflation.

For a developing economy that relies on stable energy inputs to sustain growth and employment, this is a dangerous equation.

China: Strategic Exposure

China imports about 90% of Iran’s oil exports. Any sustained disruption would force Beijing to compete for more expensive Atlantic or Russian crude supplies. That would raise manufacturing costs in the world’s largest industrial economy.

Given China’s central role in global supply chains, increased production costs there translate into higher prices everywhere.

Europe: Energy Fatigue

Europe is already economically strained following years of energy turbulence triggered by the Ukraine conflict. Higher oil and LNG prices risk pushing parts of the Eurozone back toward recession.

Energy-intensive industries, already weakened, may face renewed shutdowns or cost pressures. Political instability could follow economic contraction.

United States: Partial Insulation

As a net energy exporter, the United States is somewhat shielded from supply shortages. However, high “prices at the pump” directly affect American households. Rising fuel costs could fuel inflationary pressures and complicate domestic politics, especially ahead of midterm elections.

No major economy emerges untouched.

Financial Market Volatility

The financial markets have responded in predictable fashion.

Investors are fleeing “risk” assets and moving toward safe havens. Gold has surged. The US dollar has strengthened. Equity markets across Asia and Europe opened sharply lower.

Indian indices such as the Sensex and Nifty recorded significant losses, particularly in oil-sensitive sectors such as aviation, chemicals, and paints. Similar patterns are visible in Japan’s Nikkei and European bourses.

Markets are signaling uncertainty — and uncertainty dampens investment, hiring, and expansion.

If volatility persists, capital flows into developing economies could slow dramatically, further pressuring currencies and fiscal balances.

The Stagflationary Threa

If the conflict lasts only days, markets may stabilize. But if it stretches beyond a few weeks, the global economy could enter a stagflationary phase — stagnant growth combined with high inflation.

This is the most dangerous macroeconomic environment for policymakers. Inflation demands higher interest rates; stagnation demands stimulus. The two responses contradict each other.

For developing nations, the challenge is particularly acute. Currency depreciation amplifies imported inflation. Higher interest rates slow job creation. Fiscal stimulus becomes expensive due to higher borrowing costs.

The memory of the 1970s oil shocks looms large. Then, too, geopolitical conflict in the Middle East triggered global stagflation. The consequences lasted years.

Beyond Economics: Structural Realignments

The attack on Iran may also accelerate structural changes in global trade and energy systems.

Countries may intensify efforts to diversify energy sources. Strategic petroleum reserves could be drawn down. Alternative corridors — such as overland pipelines or expanded shipping infrastructure — may receive renewed investment.

At the same time, geopolitical blocs may harden. Energy flows increasingly follow political alliances rather than pure market logic. Sanctions, counter-sanctions, and retaliatory trade restrictions could further fragment the global economy.

This would represent a step away from globalization toward a more fractured world order.

A Conflict with Global Consequences

The attack on Iran is not merely a military development. It is an economic shock with cascading global consequences.

Energy prices have surged. Supply chains are under strain. Major economies face renewed vulnerability. Financial markets are volatile. The specter of stagflation looms.

For countries like India, the crisis poses immediate fiscal and monetary challenges. For Europe, it threatens economic relapse. For China, it raises production costs. For the United States, it risks renewed inflation.

In an interconnected global economy, war in the Gulf does not stay in the Gulf.

If diplomacy fails and escalation continues, the world may soon discover that the true battlefield is not only geopolitical — but economic.

Pon Chandran is part of PUCL, Coimbatore

3 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian

The new round of coordinated military attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran marks a dramatic escalation in an already volatile confrontation.

The strikes, capping months of tensions since a previous wave of attacks in 2025, have pushed the region into one of its most dangerous moments in decades.

At a time when diplomatic channels had reportedly shown signs of progress, the renewed use of force has raised urgent questions about legality, legitimacy and the long-term consequences for regional and international security.

There is a broad global consensus that the US-Israeli military campaign constitutes a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. No such authorisation was granted, and international legal scholars have long emphasised that preventive or regime-change wars fall outside the Charter framework.

This is not the first time that Washington has faced accusations of undermining international legal commitments in relation to Iran. In 2018, the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, despite the agreement’s endorsement by the UN Security Council. The withdrawal was widely criticised by European governments and other signatories, including Russia and China.

Now, through direct military strikes against Iran, Washington has been accused of violating core principles of the UN Charter – particularly those related to sovereignty, the prohibition on the use of force, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.

Political consciousness

History weighs heavily on current events. In 1953, the US, in collaboration with the UK, orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh.

The consequences of that intervention shaped Iranian political consciousness for decades and directly affected bilateral relations. The 1979 revolution, and the subsequent occupation of the US embassy in Tehran and hostage crisis, cannot be understood without that context.

More than seven decades on, the shadow of 1953 still looms over US-Iran relations. But this time, the stakes appear even higher. The US has officially called for regime change. In the course of the operation, Iran’s supreme leader and several top military commanders were assassinated.

The targeting of a sitting head of state marks a profound escalation. It moves beyond deterrence or limited military objectives, and enters the realm of overt regime-change policy. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the negative consequences of this action could be broader and more far-reaching than those of the 1953 coup.

Both the US-Israeli military strikes on Iran in June 2025, and the attack that began this weekend, occurred at moments when negotiations had achieved significant progress, according to Oman’s foreign minister.

Oman was a key mediator, facilitating indirect talks. The chain of events suggests that military action coincided with diplomatic momentum. From this perspective, diplomacy has effectively been sidelined, perhaps indefinitely.

Many are convinced that the US pursued negotiations not as genuine diplomacy, but as cover, allowing it to prepare for war. When bombs fall at the height of talks, trust collapses.

The consequences of assassinating Ayatollah Ali Khamenei go far beyond the killing of an Iranian political leader. As one of the leading religious authorities in the Shia world, he held both political and theological significance. Some Shia clerics have already issued calls for retaliation, with Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi in Qom, Iran, saying revenge for Khamenei’s killing was the “religious duty of all Muslims in the world to eradicate the evil of these criminals from the world”.

Attacks have already occurred against US diplomatic missions in Pakistan and Iraq, resulting in casualties. Washington may now have to confront the prospect of long-term ideological hostility among segments of the global Shia population – a dynamic that cannot be addressed through military means alone.

Immense strategic costs

The collapse of a government because of a military attack does not produce a simple or controllable outcome. Even if Washington and Tel Aviv were to succeed in bringing about a political transformation in Tehran, the strategic costs could be immense.

For the first time since World War II, major US military bases across the region have come under sustained attack. The reputational impact on American prestige could surpass even the symbolic damage inflicted by the 1979-81 hostage crisis.

At the same time, Israel and Iran have entered what can only be described as an existential phase of conflict. Iran has sustained severe military damage, while Israel has faced the most intense strikes on its territory since its founding in 1948.

Iran’s heavy missile attacks have exposed vulnerabilities in Israel’s security architecture, despite its advanced defence systems. The perception of invulnerability – central to deterrence – has been shaken on both sides.

Yet within hours of Khamenei’s assassination, a three-member leadership council was formed to steer the process of transition, signalling that expectations of immediate state disintegration might have been misplaced.

The US-Israeli approach is troubling for several reasons. Firstly, by assassinating Iran’s supreme leader, they crossed a red line within Iran’s governing structure. Secondly, by officially declaring that its objective is regime collapse, the US framed the conflict as existential. Iran’s response is thus perceived domestically as a defence of national survival.

Thirdly, as anticipated, the conflict has become regional. Iran has launched missile strikes against US facilities in neighbouring countries, broadening the theatre of confrontation. The trajectory is deeply alarming: escalation breeds counter-escalation, as each side justifies its actions as defensive.

The risks of miscalculation grow with every exchange. Energy markets are destabilised. Regional actors are drawn in. Diplomatic space shrinks.

It would be wiser for US President Donald Trump to push now for an immediate ceasefire, to prevent further catastrophe. The longer this conflict continues, the harder it will be to contain.

Military force can destroy infrastructure and eliminate individuals, but it cannot extinguish national identity, religious conviction or historical memory. The lessons of 1953 still resonate. If history teaches anything, it is that interventions intended to secure stability often produce decades of unintended consequences.

The choice now is stark: continue down a path of open-ended confrontation, or halt the escalation and return to diplomacy – before the damage becomes irreversible.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Visiting Research Collaborator with Princeton University and a former Chief of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Relations Committee.

3 March 2026

Source: middleeasteye.net