In the second week of the war against Iran, it has gone beyond a local conflict, with ramifications reaching the global level. This conflict, aggressively and illegally imposed by the United States and Israel, has not only disrupted diplomatic efforts but also challenged the foundations of international law.
In response to this aggression, Iran exercises its inherent right to self-defence – a strategic necessity to preserve territorial integrity and national sovereignty. For my country, this war is a war of survival, governed by limited red lines and strategic imperatives.
The need for genuine guarantees
Iran has previously experienced the imposition of war amid sensitive negotiations. Experiences from the past, such as the war with Iraq and recent diplomatic developments, indicate that without obtaining genuine and reliable guarantees, the risk of repeated acts of aggression persists.
The experience of two acts of aggression during nuclear negotiations and sanctions – in June 2025 and in February this year – underscores the importance of deterrent power and defensive readiness, making it essential that diplomacy is accompanied by operational capability.
Moreover, attacks on infrastructure – which signify the failure of aggressors’ illusions of regime change – as well as demands from opposing parties for control over leadership succession, should not be seen merely as strategic miscalculations.
Rather, they represent a deep failure to comprehend the meaning of the right of self-determination and the structures that deeply value independence. The selection of Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei as the third supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Assembly of Experts is a clear indicator of this commitment to independence.
Military dimensions of the war
From a military perspective, the presence of the US in the region is considerable. Currently, three US aircraft carrier strike groups are deployed in the area, representing approximately 25 percent of the operational US carrier fleet. While this presence is intended to demonstrate power and exert pressure on Iran, operational realities show that even with such a display, the US cannot fully secure its assets in the region.
The destruction of two major US radars in the area marks a pivotal moment in the war, highlighting Iran’s ability to counter advanced threats and manage the conflict intelligently.
Furthermore, Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, a route for approximately 20 percent of global oil exports, carries direct strategic consequences, demonstrating the Iranian capacity for effective economic and geopolitical deterrence against external pressures.
Economic and energy implications
The war against Iran has profound effects on energy markets and the global economy. The closure of commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz caused oil prices to surge. Brent crude rose from $73 on February 27 to $107 on March 8 – more than 40 percent increase in 10 days.
Additionally, about 20 percent of global LNG production was taken offline, and oil production in several oil reserve countries in the region decreased. This situation increases pressure on global supply chains, and a prolonged crisis could have consequences even more severe than the COVID-19 pandemic on global food markets, chemical fertilisers, and other essential goods.
Market uncertainty and price volatility force countries and companies dependent on global supply chains to reconsider policies and economic structures, potentially leading to fundamental shifts in global trade and energy.
Geopolitical dimensions
Beyond military and economic dimensions, the war with Iran has broad geopolitical implications. One major consequence is the gradual emergence of rifts between the US and its Western and regional allies regarding policies towards Tehran. Divergent economic interests, differing security perspectives, and regional rivalries are likely to weaken the traditional cohesion of the Western alliance.
The US narrative of a unilateral victory in the war primarily serves domestic needs for displaying power and political legitimacy rather than reflecting on-the-ground realities. In fact, the US effort to control domestic public opinion diverges sharply from operational realities in the region.
Additionally, the roles of non-Western powers such as China, India and Russia are significant in this equation. These countries may become key variables in international diplomacy, energy markets and regional stability.
Long-term and strategic consequences
The imposed war against Iran could redefine the regional and global balance of power. Rising uncertainty in global markets, divisions among Western powers, and Iran’s increasing strategic importance in regional and energy equations all point to emerging geopolitical shifts.
This crisis demonstrates that for my country, military deterrence, proactive diplomacy, national security guarantees, and crisis management are fundamental pillars for countering complex threats. Coordinated interaction between defensive capabilities and diplomacy can prevent the recurrence of aggressive acts and enable crisis management at regional and global levels.
The imposed war against Iran represents a multidimensional crisis with military, economic, geopolitical, and human aspects. By relying on its inherent right to self-defence, Iran maintains its survival lines and has demonstrated its capability to confront advanced aggression.
Past experiences emphasise the necessity of genuine guarantees in negotiations and international diplomacy, and the role of operational deterrence. The consequences of this war range from rising oil prices and disruptions in global supply chains to fractures within Western alliances and shifts in regional power dynamics.
Ultimately, this war serves as a clear example of Iran’s approach to the importance of deterrent power, guaranteed diplomacy, and intelligent crisis management, showing that any miscalculation by opposing parties could have long-term and structural consequences for regional and global security.
