IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS | MARCH 4, 2026
A Special Report on the US-Israeli Strikes on Iran and the Unfolding Regional Crisis
In the early hours of Saturday, February 28, 2026, the geopolitical order that had governed the Middle East for decades was shattered. American B-2 stealth bombers and Israeli F-35s flew coordinated strike missions into Iran, targeting the Revolutionary Guard leadership, nuclear infrastructure, air defence networks, and — fatally — the compound where Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was sheltering. By dawn, Iran’s most powerful figure was dead. What followed has been five days of escalating warfare that has killed nearly 900 people, displaced hundreds of thousands, rattled global energy markets, and left the international community scrambling for a diplomatic off-ramp.
This report examines each dimension of the conflict: the military campaign, the political fallout in Washington and Tehran, the human toll on civilian populations, the economic aftershock spreading across Asia and beyond, and the fragile attempts at regional diplomacy. It draws on reports from the US military, statements from the governments of Iran, Israel, and the United States, and the reactions of ASEAN, Australia, and the broader international community.
I. THE STRIKES: WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY
The Decision to Act
The precise sequence of decisions that led the United States to join Israel in striking Iran remains contested — a fact that has already become a significant political liability for the Trump administration. President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he ordered forces into action because he believed Iran was on the verge of launching a preemptive strike against American or Israeli interests. ‘If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that,’ he said.
Yet Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a markedly different account just 24 hours earlier, stating that the US launched the strikes out of concern that Iran would retaliate against an Israeli attack that was already being planned. The contradiction — one suggesting American preemption, the other American support for Israeli aggression — opened an immediate political fracture. Several prominent conservative commentators publicly questioned whether Israel, not the Trump White House, had been ‘calling the shots.’
The White House moved quickly into damage-control mode, with Trump dismissing suggestions of Israeli undue influence. But the episode raises profound questions about the deliberative process, or lack thereof, that preceded one of the most consequential military decisions in American history.
“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. — Donald Trump, US President”
The Military Operation
The US military confirmed that American forces struck nearly 2,000 targets in what it described as ’24/7 strikes’ into Iran. Pentagon officials said the campaign had ‘severely degraded Iran’s air defences and destroyed hundreds of Iran’s ballistic missiles, launchers and drones.’ Simultaneously, Israeli Air Force jets completed multiple waves of strikes targeting what the IDF described as ‘the Iranian terror regime’s command centres throughout Tehran,’ including internal security facilities and paramilitary Basij sites.
The strike that will define this conflict, however, was the one that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His death, along with those of his wife Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh, his son’s wife Zahra Adel, and a grandchild, marked the first assassination of a sitting head of state by the United States in the modern era — a threshold with far-reaching legal, moral, and strategic implications.
By Wednesday, Israel announced ‘a large-scale wave’ of additional strikes on Tehran, with local media showing columns of smoke rising over the city centre — home to numerous government ministries — and reports of an attack on one of the capital’s two commercial airports. Trump’s assessment of the operation’s sustainability was blunt and revealing: the US military, he said, possesses a ‘virtually unlimited supply’ of munitions and can fight wars ‘forever.’
II. IRAN’S RESPONSE AND THE HORMUZ CRISIS
Retaliation Across the Region
Iran’s response has been layered and geographically dispersed. Saudi Arabia reported that its defence forces intercepted two cruise missiles over an area south of Riyadh and destroyed nine drones that entered its airspace. The kingdom has not attributed the attacks, but the pattern is consistent with Iranian-aligned proxy operations that have characterised previous escalation cycles in the Gulf.
More significantly, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy announced on Wednesday that the Strait of Hormuz — through which approximately 20 to 21 per cent of global oil trade flows — is ‘under the complete control of the Islamic Republic’s Navy.’ The IRGC warned that any vessels seeking to transit the waterway risk damage from missiles or stray drones, a statement that immediately sent oil prices sharply higher.
Trump responded by ordering insurance support for maritime trade in the Gulf, and stated that the US Navy was prepared to escort oil tankers through the strait if necessary. Whether this constitutes a de facto naval blockade against Iran’s blockade — an enormously complex and dangerous proposition under maritime law — remains to be seen.
“The Strait of Hormuz is under the complete control of the Islamic Republic’s Navy. — IRGC Navy official Mohammad Akbarzadeh”
The Leadership Vacuum in Tehran
Perhaps the most consequential uncertainty emerging from the conflict is the question of who will lead Iran. The Assembly of Experts — the clerical body responsible for selecting a supreme leader — convened on Tuesday to begin deliberations. According to three Iranian officials familiar with the proceedings, the 56-year-old son of the slain leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, emerged as the clear front-runner.
His candidacy is backed heavily by the IRGC, which has argued that his close ties to the guard and his familiarity with the intelligence apparatus make him uniquely suited to steer Iran through this crisis. Some clerics, however, have expressed reservations: announcing Mojtaba Khamenei as successor too soon could make him an immediate target for further American and Israeli strikes.
Other candidates include Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, currently serving on the three-member transition council of leadership, and Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the Islamic revolution’s founder. The outcome of this succession will shape Iran’s strategic posture for decades. A hardline IRGC-backed successor may double down on confrontation; a more pragmatic figure could open space for negotiated de-escalation.
III. HUMAN COST AND THE CIVILIAN CRISIS
The Death Toll
At least 900 people have been killed across the Middle East since the strikes began on Saturday. Four American soldiers have been confirmed dead, with two additional fatalities from Sunday still unidentified. The Pentagon has not released a full accounting of Iranian military and civilian deaths, and independent verification inside Iran remains extremely difficult given the closure of its airspace and communications disruptions.
The human geography of this conflict extends far beyond the battlefield. Tens of thousands of foreign nationals — including approximately 130,000 registered British nationals and 1,500 Americans who have formally requested assistance — remain stranded in the Gulf as regional airspace closures and flight disruptions continue. The US has begun facilitating charter flights from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Britain is working with airlines to prioritise evacuations from Oman, focusing on the most vulnerable.
Flight Disruptions and Singapore
The cascading effects on civilian aviation have been acute. Qatar’s airspace has remained closed, and the UAE has only permitted limited departures since Monday. Singapore’s Embassy in Abu Dhabi and its Consulate-General in Dubai have been coordinating closely with regional carriers. Etihad Airways released tickets for Abu Dhabi-Singapore flights on Thursday, while Emirates released tickets for Dubai-Singapore flights on Wednesday — both expected to sell out within hours of becoming available.
The Singapore government has urged Singaporeans in the Gulf to secure tickets immediately and to be prepared for last-minute cancellations and schedule changes, a reflection of how volatile the situation on the ground remains.
IV. ECONOMIC SHOCKWAVES
Oil Markets and Energy Security
The conflict has delivered an immediate and severe shock to global energy markets. Oil prices climbed sharply as news of the Hormuz threat spread, with traders pricing in the risk of sustained supply disruption from a region that accounts for roughly 30 per cent of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Asian markets sank on Wednesday, with investors growing increasingly fearful that an escalating war in the Middle East could generate an energy shock severe enough to reignite inflation and undermine the fragile global economic recovery.
In Singapore — a city-state entirely dependent on imported energy — petrol prices have already begun climbing. The city’s strategic location as a global trading and refining hub means it is particularly exposed to disruptions in the Gulf supply chain. Economists are watching closely whether the price increases feed through into broader consumer price inflation, which could force the Monetary Authority of Singapore to reconsider its current policy stance.
Myanmar’s Fuel Rationing
The ripple effects of the conflict are visible even in nations far from the front lines. Myanmar’s junta announced on Wednesday the immediate implementation of a sweeping fuel rationing system for private vehicles, citing disruptions to global energy supply chains caused by the Middle East conflict. Under a new ‘even-odd’ licensing scheme, vehicles with even-numbered plates may drive only on even calendar dates; those with odd plates on odd dates.
The measure, which takes effect on Saturday, reflects the extraordinary vulnerability of import-dependent developing economies to energy price spikes — and the political difficulty of managing those pressures. Residents of Yangon, already coping with chronic power outages and a cost-of-living crisis, expressed deep concern that the rationing will further degrade daily life.
V. DIPLOMATIC RESPONSES AND THE SEARCH FOR AN EXIT
ASEAN’s Unified Concern
Four days after the initial strikes, ASEAN’s ten foreign ministers issued a joint statement expressing ‘serious concern’ over the escalating conflict. The statement was carefully worded to avoid attributing blame, but its condemnation of escalation was clear. The ministers noted that the latest wave of fighting had occurred ‘amid ongoing diplomatic efforts, including mediation initiatives led by the Sultanate of Oman aimed at advancing a negotiated solution’ — a pointed reminder that a potential diplomatic off-ramp had existed.
ASEAN foreign ministers described the conflict as posing ‘a grave threat to the lives and safety of civilians, as well as to regional and global peace and stability.’ They called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and urged all parties to exercise ‘utmost self-restraint’ and to resolve their differences through diplomacy in accordance with international law and the UN Charter.
The statement reflects a broader concern across the Indo-Pacific that the conflict’s economic and security consequences — particularly the energy shock and the disruption of Gulf trade routes — will be felt acutely in Southeast Asia, regardless of the region’s geographic distance from the theatre of war.
Australia’s Position
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took a firmer stance than many of his regional counterparts, telling Parliament on Wednesday that there was ‘no justification’ for Iran’s attacks on civilian areas in the Middle East. He called on Iran to ‘cease these indiscriminate attacks immediately.’ Australia’s position aligns closely with that of its Five Eyes intelligence partners and reflects its longstanding defence alliance with the United States.
The Diplomatic Horizon
As of Wednesday, March 4, the diplomatic horizon looks extraordinarily bleak. Iran’s supreme leader is dead; its air defences are severely degraded; its oil export capacity is at risk; and its political succession is unsettled. Israel has demonstrated its willingness to strike deep into Tehran. The United States has signalled it is prepared to sustain military operations indefinitely.
And yet the very totality of Iran’s military humiliation may paradoxically complicate any settlement. A new Iranian leadership — particularly one backed by the IRGC — will face enormous domestic pressure to demonstrate that it has not capitulated. The spectre of a protracted, asymmetric Iranian campaign across the region, prosecuted through proxies, cyber operations, and maritime harassment, may prove more dangerous and harder to resolve than any conventional confrontation.
The Omani mediation channel, referenced in the ASEAN statement, represented the best available diplomatic infrastructure before the strikes. Whether it can be revived, and whether any of the parties retain the political will to use it, is the central question on which the next phase of this crisis will turn.
CONCLUSION: A RECKONING WITH CONSEQUENCES
Five days into a war that no one has formally declared, the Middle East stands at a precipice. The immediate military objectives of the United States and Israel — degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, decapitating its leadership — have been achieved at extraordinary speed. But wars are not measured only by what happens in the first week.
The deeper questions are only beginning to be asked. What political order emerges in Iran? Who controls the Strait of Hormuz in the months ahead? How will the global economy absorb a sustained energy shock? What is the legal and moral reckoning for a targeted assassination of a sitting head of state? And what precedent has been set for the use of preemptive force in international affairs?
For now, the bombs are still falling on Tehran. The tankers are still waiting at the mouth of the Gulf. And the world — from Washington to Singapore, from Yangon to Riyadh — is holding its breath.