The war with Iran enters a new phase: the Middle East faces a regional upheaval with no clear diplomatic way out
The open conflict between Iran, Israel and the United States at the beginning of March has grown from a series of individual strikes into a broader security crisis affecting almost the entire Middle East. According to official statements by international institutions and leading world agencies, military actions are no longer limited to symbolic or strictly tactical targets, but are affecting military infrastructure, energy facilities, maritime routes and logistical points of crucial importance for the region’s everyday functioning. This dramatically increases the risk of a prolonged war of attrition in which the decisive issue is no longer only military superiority, but also the endurance of states, economies and civilian systems.
By 08 March 2026, it had become clear that the consequences were not stopping on the battlefields or on the maps of military planners. Tensions are spilling over into oil and gas prices, the security of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, civil air traffic, supply chains and diplomatic relations between Western states, the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf and international organizations. In such an atmosphere, every new missile, every drone attack and every decision to close airspace or reroute ships gains significance beyond the immediate military benefit. The crisis can increasingly no longer be viewed as an isolated confrontation between three actors, and increasingly as a regional security upheaval with global economic consequences.
From limited escalation to open regional conflict
According to available information from the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. administration, the open phase of the current conflict escalated rapidly in late February and early March. In the United Nations Security Council, several states warned that U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, as well as Iranian responses against American bases in Gulf states, had opened the possibility of the war spreading far beyond the initial framework. This confirmed what analysts had been saying for years: the so-called “gray war”, fought indirectly through allies, militias, cyber operations and occasional targeted assassinations, could at some point turn into a direct conflict with unpredictable consequences. That moment, by all appearances, has now arrived.
The problem for the international community is not only the intensity of the strikes, but also the change in the very logic of the conflict. When military operations expand to energy infrastructure, maritime traffic and strategic logistical points, the boundary between military and economic destabilization becomes ever thinner. That is why the current phase of the conflict no longer looks like a short episode of retaliation, but like the beginning of a longer period of heightened violence in which military pressure is also used for the economic exhaustion of the opponent. In such a model of warfare, the political space for negotiations usually narrows precisely when negotiations are most needed.
What Washington wants, and what Tehran is signaling
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at the beginning of March that the goal of the American operation was to remove the threat posed by Iranian short-range ballistic missiles and the activities of the Iranian navy toward American naval assets. This wording is important because it shows that Washington is trying to present its role as militarily limited and directed at specific security threats, and not as the start of a total war against Iran. But in practice, the line between a “limited operation” and a broader regional war is difficult to maintain when the other side responds with attacks on American interests and when instability spills over into neighboring states.
On the other hand, Tehran is trying to show that it has the capacity for a response that does not have to be linear or immediate. Iran’s strategy has for years been based on a combination of its own missiles and drones, the actions of allied networks and the ability to threaten transport and energy points of international significance. That is precisely why fear in Washington and regional capitals stems not only from the possibility of new direct strikes on American bases, but also from a scenario in which Iran would intensify pressure on maritime routes, energy facilities or U.S. allies in the wider Gulf area. Such a response would not necessarily change the military balance of power on the ground, but it could increase the political and economic cost of the war.
The nuclear dimension further heightens concern
One of the most serious aspects of the current crisis concerns nuclear and radiological risk. The International Atomic Energy Agency announced that immediately after the military attacks it had activated its mechanisms for assessing possible radiological emergency situations linked to operations on Iranian territory. The very fact that the IAEA is at this moment emphasizing the monitoring of possible radiological consequences shows how dangerous the crisis is. Even when individual strikes are not aimed at causing a nuclear catastrophe, attacks near sensitive infrastructure or disruptions in communication and oversight increase the danger of error, disinformation or an unintended incident.
This is also the reason why the issue of Iran’s nuclear program is once again coming to the forefront of international diplomacy. At moments when an open war is being fought, the space for inspections, verification of conditions on the ground and technical cooperation narrows even further. The result is a dangerous paradox: the more military force there is on the ground, the fewer reliable channels there are for independently verifying what is really happening with sensitive facilities, stockpiles and monitoring mechanisms. Precisely for that reason, diplomatic failure is no longer only a political problem, but also a security risk with broader international implications.
The Strait of Hormuz as a point of global nervousness
Among the most sensitive consequences of the conflict, the security of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s key maritime passages for energy commodities, has stood out. The International Maritime Organization warned that attacks on commercial ships had resulted in dead and injured seafarers and particularly stressed that attacks on civilian shipping are unacceptable under any circumstances. At the same time, the organization called on shipping companies to exercise extreme caution and said that vessels should, where possible, avoid passing through the affected area until security conditions improve. Such wording is not a routine diplomatic phrase, but a direct confirmation that maritime traffic has entered a zone of serious risk.
The effect was immediately visible on the market and in logistics. According to data reported by the Associated Press, ships transporting about 20 million barrels of oil a day were left blocked or seriously hindered in attempts to pass through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. This is not only a question of the price of crude oil, but also a question of shipping insurance, tanker availability, crew safety and delivery deadlines. When the market assesses that passage through one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints is no longer predictable, it reacts quickly and nervously. That is precisely why the current jump in energy prices is not merely a short-term psychological reaction, but a signal that investors and the logistics sector are counting on the possibility of longer disruptions.
Oil above 90 dollars and pressure on economies
The war has already been felt in prices as well. According to Associated Press reports, U.S. crude oil exceeded 90 dollars a barrel at the end of the week, while Brent reached more than 92 dollars. In just a few days, the market reacted with strong growth due to fears that disruptions in transport and damage to infrastructure would reduce available supply. Such movements are especially sensitive for Europe and Asia, which are more strongly tied to imports of energy commodities from the Middle Eastern region. When diesel and jet fuel rise in price at the same time as crude oil, the consequences are passed on to transport, industry and household budgets.
Additional concern is caused by the fact that in wartime conditions market disruptions are measured not only by the amount of lost production, but also by the level of risk. Even when production in a state is formally not completely halted, it is enough for there to be an assessment that transport routes, terminals or insurance arrangements are insecure for the price to jump. That is why economic analysts warn that prolonged instability could act like an inflationary shock at a time when many economies are still recovering from previous crises. In other words, the Middle East is once again becoming a source of risk that does not remain within the region but very quickly spills over into the global bill for energy, transport and consumer goods.
Air traffic and supply chains are already feeling the consequences
An equally important signal comes from air traffic. After strikes and counterstrikes, several countries temporarily closed or restricted airspace, and numerous international companies suspended, rerouted or delayed flights over parts of the Middle East. Reuters reported as early as 28 February that the airspace above Iran had practically emptied, while carriers had to adjust routes overnight. Later reports showed that the disruptions did not remain only in the first days of the crisis, but left thousands of passengers stranded and increased air transport costs on routes between Europe, Asia and the Gulf. When more expensive fuel and higher security costs are added to this, it is clear that the war has a direct effect on both civilian travel and freight traffic.
This is particularly important for the economy because disruptions in air traffic are often not immediately visible in statistics, but are quickly felt in deliveries, delays and prices. Many international supply chains have already been weakened by earlier crises, so every new closure of important transport corridors increases the sensitivity of the market. In that sense, the war with Iran is not only a security story, but also a logistics story. Every rerouted airplane and every tanker waiting for a security assessment sends the message that a regional conflict is turning into a global cost.
The Arab Gulf states between condemnation and fear of the conflict spreading
It is especially telling how the Arab Gulf states are reacting. The United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates issued a joint statement on recent Iranian missile and drone attacks in the region. The very fact that those states acted in a coordinated manner shows how strong the fear is of the conflict spilling over onto their territory and infrastructure. At the same time, most of them are trying to avoid a scenario in which they would become a direct theater of war or a base from which the conflict would spread further. Their position is therefore extremely complex: in security terms they are tied to the U.S., economically they depend on the stability of energy exports and transport, and politically they must take into account that a regional war must not threaten their own internal stability.
It is precisely this duality that makes the current crisis particularly dangerous. If the Gulf monarchies assess that they can no longer remain on the sidelines, the conflict could spread further and become institutionalized through new military arrangements, additional air defense activities and even stronger involvement of regional actors. If, on the other hand, they push for calming the situation and limiting the damage, they may find themselves under pressure from both Washington and Tehran. In both cases, the space for neutrality becomes narrower than before, and that means every new attack can have a greater political resonance than it would have had in earlier phases of tension.
The United Nations is calling for urgent de-escalation, but a diplomatic way out is still not visible
At an emergency meeting of the Security Council, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the current military escalation threatens a broader war in the Middle East and called for de-escalation, an immediate ceasefire and a return to negotiations. But the problem of international diplomacy is that a call for negotiations does not also mean the existence of a real negotiating framework. After direct strikes, counterstrikes and increasingly visible consequences for civilian transport, energy and regional security, political trust between the main actors has eroded further. Each of them is now first trying to improve its own strategic position on the ground, and only then to speak about diplomacy.
That does not mean that a diplomatic way out is impossible, but it does mean that it is currently less visible than in earlier crises. Negotiations require a minimum level of shared interest and predictability, and that is precisely what is lacking now. Israel’s priority is to reduce Iranian military and potentially nuclear capabilities, Washington is trying to prevent further threats to its bases and maritime interests, while Tehran wants to show that it will not accept strikes without a price for its opponents. In such a triangular dynamic, even the smallest miscalculation can produce a new round of violence. That is why international concern is justified: the war can last even without a formal declaration of a broader campaign, simply through a series of mutual strikes that constantly raise the stakes.
The greatest uncertainty: will Tehran expand its response to American interests
The key question in the coming days will be the scope and form of the Iranian response against American interests in the region. This does not have to mean only attacks on bases. Pressure on maritime corridors, targeting logistical hubs, new asymmetric operations or the activation of networks that Iran has maintained for years beyond its borders are also possible. That is precisely why many observers warn that the next phase of the conflict could be less spectacular in headlines, but strategically more dangerous. It is not necessary for every response to be large in order to have a serious effect; it is enough for it to be directed at a vulnerable point that will create a new wave of insecurity in the markets and among allies.
For the civilian population of the region, but also for states that depend on the stable passage of goods, energy and people through the Middle East, that is perhaps the most important message of the current crisis. The war with Iran is no longer only a military story about missiles and air defense. It is a story about how sensitive the modern world is to the disruption of several key points: one strategic region, one maritime passage, several air corridors and political relations that have long been on the verge of breaking. While the United Nations is calling for urgent de-escalation and international organizations are warning of risks to nuclear safety, navigation and civilian traffic, everything points to the conflict entering a phase in which every next decision will have consequences far beyond the borders of Iran, Israel and American bases in the Middle East.
Sources:- - United Nations – emergency meeting of the Security Council on military strikes on Iran, Iranian responses and calls for urgent de-escalation (link)
- - United Nations – speech by Secretary-General António Guterres on the danger of a wider war, the need for a ceasefire and a return to negotiations (link)
- - IAEA – statement by Rafael Grossi on monitoring possible radiological consequences of military attacks in Iran and the Agency’s actions in emergency circumstances (link)
- - International Maritime Organization – warning about attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz and a call to protect civilian navigation (link)
- - U.S. Department of State – joint statement by the U.S. and several Gulf states on Iranian missile and drone attacks in the region (link)
- - U.S. Department of State – statement by Marco Rubio on the American objectives of the operation aimed at Iranian missiles and naval threats (link)
- - Reuters / Al-Monitor – report on the suspension and rerouting of flights and the closure of part of Middle Eastern airspace after the strikes (link)
- - Associated Press – report on rising oil and gas prices, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and the economic consequences of the war (link)
Find accommodation nearby
Creation time: 18 hours ago