On Feb. 28, the United States and Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign termed “Operation Epic Fury” against Iran. What began unfolding in the following hours and days has put West Asian geopolitics on the edge of uncertainty, and perhaps the world has not been this close to a global conflict of this magnitude in years.

With Iran losing its top brass of political and military leadership — and even its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a man of many tales — Tehran did not waste time in launching retaliation. That retaliation, unprecedented in intensity and scale, was termed “Operation True Promise 4.” This time, Iranian strikes were not confined to Israel. Iran spared no time in attacking U.S bases in Gulf states.

Multiple explosions and impacts were reported in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq. In almost no time, the whole Middle East was caught in a quagmire — a crisis shaped by the decisions made in Washington and Tel Aviv. Gulf states, once impeccable examples of prosperity, peace and development, saw the skylines of Riyadh, Dubai and Doha enveloped in dust and destruction from relentless Iranian strikes.

The buildup to this war was reminiscent of the Iraq War, when Washington amassed one of its greatest military forces in the Middle East. In late 2025 and early 2026, President Donald Trump initiated a significant military and naval buildup in the Persian Gulf — all while negotiating with the Iranians on the nuclear enrichment dispute. What at first seemed like a gunboat diplomacy stunt soon became clear: from the start, the issue was not merely nuclear. The Iranian hysteria on which the United States and Israel fed their domestic narratives suggested something deeper — an attempt at regime change.

Yet the early disaster-class attempts at regime change by Washington, especially in Syria and Iraq, offered no lessons.

A High-Risk Gamble in a Fragile Region

The geopolitics of West Asia offers the most complex blend of states, regional security architectures, economic standings and the presence of multiple non-state actors. Moreover, West Asia serves as a global artery of trade and energy security. A conflict of this magnitude therefore poses significant risk not only to the region but to the world as a whole. Starting a war on such a dynamic geopolitical chessboard is nevertheless a high-risk gamble.

After the fall of Khamenei, Tehran began hitting back more forcefully than before — contrary to U.S. and Israeli belief that once they dismantled military command and political leadership, Iranian firepower would turn passive. Instead, Tehran’s retaliation grew in intensity by the minute, shifting from calibrated strikes to non-calibrated kinetic actions, striking U.S. bases in the Gulf and Israel.

Targeting civilian infrastructure, with whatever justification, is a war crime and a mockery of humanitarian and international law — especially in light of the Israeli airstrikes on a primary girls school in Minab which killed more than 150 innocent children.

It is also a mockery of international norms when an aggressor claims the right to self-defense while facing retaliation for its own aggression and then, under that pretext, launches further offensive operations. Diplomacy itself becomes a mockery when, amid ongoing talks and negotiations, one party resorts to deception and military solutions, demolishing faith in dialogue and leaving deep distrust for any future diplomatic effort.

Washington’s intervention in the internal governance of two different countries in just two months — changing the regime in Venezuela by kidnapping Nicolás Maduro and now launching similar ambitions in Iran — reflects what appears to be a hegemonic disposition of power.

The Risk of a Prolonged Conflict

As the Middle East burns, there is a serious prospect of Washington getting mired in a long conflict with Iran if Trump does not give way to diplomacy or some sort of off-ramp in the coming days. In an exclusive interview with the New York Post, President Trump refused to rule out  American boots on the ground — a statement that should serve as a warning.

Washington should make no mistake: Iran is not Iraq or Syria in terms of governance structure. The top brass has two or three successors ready in the event of assassination, preventing total structural collapse. Its military has adopted a decentralized “mosaic defense doctrine,” granting autonomous operational authority to provincial units of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in scenarios even involving collapse of central command in Tehran.

Iran possesses one of the largest militaries in the region and is a formidable force in drone warfare. The mountainous terrain would make any ground operation exceptionally challenging for Washington. Moreover, Iranian leadership has long studied Washington’s failed adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria — a point highlighted by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in a X post.

Energy, Interdependence and the Global Shockwave

In the best interest of Washington, Tel Aviv, the Gulf and the world at large, this conflict must not escalate further. Diplomacy and cessation of hostilities must be the way forward.

When West Asia breathes, the world breathes. When it shakes, it sends waves of dismay across continents. In today’s interdependent world order, where energy is security and also a geopolitical tool, disruptions reverberate globally. The alleged Iranian drone attack on the Saudi oil facility at Ras Tanura — one of the largest in the world — and the strike on Doha’s energy infrastructure forcing a halt in liquefied natural gas production demonstrate how quickly conflict echoes across economic spectrums.

Even more consequential would be the sustained closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran if this war drags on. As one of the world’s most vital energy chokepoints — with around a fifth of global oil and gas trade and also LNG passing through the narrow 33-km-wide passage — any prolonged shutdown would shake global energy markets and test the resilience of supply chains from Asia to Europe to their fullest capacity. And ultimately rising oil prices will increase inflation, supply chain disruptions will result in increasing cost of commodities, and at the end of the day, the real brunt is faced by the common man.

The Gulf at an Inflection Point

The Gulf nations have arrived at perhaps the most important inflection point in their modern history. As Iran targets U.S. bases and other facilities — fighting what it perceives as a war of existence — the Gulf states find themselves in a dilemma.

They must preserve their sovereignty. Yet direct retaliation risks a wider and fiercer war and could undermine the diplomatic capital achieved after the post-2023 thaw in relations with Iran and increased cooperation following last year’s Israeli attacks in Doha and the subsequent Doha summit of Arab and Islamic nations.

Going forward, the Gulf must chart a policy of regionalization of response — emergency diplomacy through the Gulf Cooperation Council and backchannel engagement with Tehran for possible off-ramps. Using the council as a collective shield would frame necessary actions as measures for regional stability rather than sectarian confrontation. The Sunni-Shia label is a dangerous trap that must be avoided for the stability of West Asia.

In the end, whether this war continues for days or months will become clear only when the resolve and positioning of Riyadh, Doha and others becomes evident.

One thing, however, is already clear: West Asia stands at a moment where the days of today will decide the decades to come.

Obaidurrahman Mirsab is a New Delhi–based student and writer focusing on geopolitics, global political economy, and U.S. foreign policy. He has previously written for International Policy Digest, Global South Forum, The Eastern Herald, among others. His work explores the intersection of power politics, economic coercion, and shifting global order. A selection of his published work is available on Muck Rack: https://muckrack.com/obaidurrahman-mirsab-1/portfolio