On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated strike on Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and targeting Iranian military and nuclear-related infrastructure.
- This large-scale coordinated military offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran is codenamed “Operation Epic Fury” by the U.S. Department of Defense and “Operation Roaring Lion” by the Israeli Defence Forces.
Background
- Monarchy to Theocracy (1979): The current crisis traces back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the Shah dynasty and replaced the monarchy with a theocratic system led by the clergy.
- Consolidation of Supreme Authority: For decades, Ayatollah Khamenei exercised ultimate political and religious authority as Supreme Leader, centralising power within the clerical establishment.
- Leadership Vacuum and Transitional Arrangement: The killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, along with senior ranking officials have created a significant power vacuum, currently being managed by a three-member interim council.
- Structural and Regional Fallout: The strike not only ended Khamenei’s 37-year rule but also destabilised Iran’s internal power architecture, unsettled the strategic balance in West Asia, and intensified perceptions of Israel’s attempt to establish uncontested regional hegemony.
Potential for Internal Collapse and Hardline Governance
- Systemic Fragility: Even under strong centralised leadership, Iran witnessed repeated protests driven by inflation and economic distress.
- The current transitional leadership may struggle to contain internal dissent amid heightened external pressures.
- Decentralisation and Power Struggles: The shift from a single Supreme Leader to a collective council risks factional rivalry.
- Ascendancy of the IRGC: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which reportedly controls nearly 60% of Iran’s economy, could consolidate political authority, strengthening hardline dominance.
- Implications for Stability and Peace: A hardline takeover would prioritise militarised nationalism and a rigid, non-negotiable approach to conflict.
- This would make internal reconciliation and regional de-escalation significantly more difficult.
The Regime Change Paradox
- Strategic Paradox of the “Board of Peace”: Though presented at Davos as a peace initiative, it is widely seen as an attempt to sideline the UN Security Council and international law, using diplomacy as a cover to prepare for large-scale military action.
- Shifting Strategic Objective: Initially, the rhetoric from US leadership suggested a goal of regime change.
- However, the objective was later narrowed to dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities
Global Economic Disruption- The Oil Crisis
- Strategic Disruption of Energy Routes: Iran reportedly declared the Strait of Hormuz closed, threatening to obstruct maritime transit through which nearly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass.
- This can lead to severe disruption to international energy markets.
- Regional Escalation: The attacks have expanded to include oil facilities in Bahrain, the UAE, and Qatar, as well as the Duqm port in Oman (a neutral mediator).
- Surge in Oil Prices: Crude oil prices surged from $80 to $120 per barrel, with potential spikes toward $150, following attacks on major energy infrastructure, including Saudi Aramco facilities.
PWOnlyIAS Extra Edge:
About Rubio’s “Fortress West’ Doctrine
- Fortress West: A strategic doctrine aimed at insulating Western nations by securing and consolidating their supply chains, critical resources, and economic networks against external dependencies and geopolitical vulnerabilities.
- Cultural Arrogance: US Secretary of State Rubio asserts that Western civilisation is irreplaceable and the greatest in 5,000 years of history, effectively marginalising other major civilisations like India, China, and Egypt.
- Anti-globalisation: He termed free trade a dangerous delusion.
- Defence of Colonialism: His defence of colonialism and dismissal of global concerns like climate change suggest an attempt to normalise historical power asymmetries within the international order.
- Majoritarian Nationalism: Framing migrants as existential threats strengthens protectionist and identity-driven politics.
- Historical Parallel: The projection of civilizational superiority resembles historical supremacist doctrines, such as Adolf Hitler’s Aryan race ideology, which justified domination and exclusion.
|
Implications For India
- Energy Security Vulnerability: Around 52% of India’s crude oil imports transit through the Strait of Hormuz, exposing India to supply disruptions.
- Macroeconomic Impact: Higher crude prices and transport costs may widen the Current Account Deficit (CAD) and intensify inflation.
- Diaspora Concerns: The safety of nearly 10 million Indians in the Gulf is at risk, potentially disrupting remittances.
- Strategic Investments at Risk: Regional instability poses a threat to India’s strategic projects, particularly the Chabahar Port initiative.
Conclusion
Treating one civilisation as superior to others weakens global equality and cooperation. A stable and peaceful world order requires mutual respect, dialogue, and inclusive multilateralism.
3 Mar 2026
.png)
Current Affairs
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
