By: Matthew Dymowski
On February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel executed a joint military operation against Iran resulting in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This operation, coined Operation Epic Fury, was intended to disassemble the Islamic Republic. It remains uncertain whether this will successfully transition regimes. Soon after the Supreme Leader’s death, airstrikes have degraded Iranian military capabilities and handicapped military action in the region as a further effort to neuter the current regime. However, the execution of this operation has also yielded other side effects. Firstly, there are numerous consequences for global industries, with the global energy market being the most affected.
Oil and gasoline prices have spiked as the Iran conflict escalated. One reason for this is the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a body of water through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas flows through every day. At least five tankers have been damaged in the strait since the conflict, which has caused a ripple effect, slowing traffic through the strait to a near halt. Regarding financial markets, oil prices have risen seven percent since this progression in the conflict. However, how this strait blockage will affect prices going forward is largely uncertain, as according to experts, only about five million barrels a day are getting through alternative export routes. Given the increased oil prices for Americans, this situation raises additional inflation concerns and adds new pressure to the rate-cutting discourse. Separately, there was an attack on a liquefied natural gas facility in Qatar which exports mostly to Asia, causing connected European gas prices to skyrocket. An additional factor contributing to future economic uncertainty is the possibility of an Iranian military response as representatives have stated that they are prepared to fight back, and do so aggressively. Even with disarmed nuclear capabilities, this response could obviously pose severe economic consequences for all parties involved. What this retaliation will be and its effect on essential infrastructure is unknown at this time but could very well cause additional shifts in all relevant markets outside of just energy.
A main political concern that arises from this approach is the apparent lack of maintained control over the region. The U.S. is not officially occupying Iran at this moment. The current approach being to eliminate leadership, disarm the military, and then simply hope for the intended outcome leaves much of the mission’s success seemingly to chance. This approach jeopardizes the safety of Iranian civilians who are now highly vulnerable in addition to the unknown military backlash for Israel and the U.S. If the intention was regime change, and the U.S. was willing to go the lengths of leadership execution and airstrikes, why stop there? Why put this all into motion just to continue with the simple hope that a positive regime change takes place.
As history holds, when one authoritarian regime collapses it is most likely that another will take its place. Given the vulnerable state of Iran at the current moment, this environment seemingly beckons history to repeat itself, unless there is more at play than is publicly known. Much remains uncertain as the current U.S. administration has not been very transparent with the American people on this matter up to this point. It is possible that the U.S. has more control over the situation in Iran and is simply withholding public information. At the very least, it would seem unlikely that U.S. and Israeli forces agreed to carry out Operation Epic Fury just to leave the environment ripe for a new authoritarian regime to take the place of the old one. Even if not for the sufficient reason of safeguarding innocent Iranian lives, this would be incoherent politically given the implications the U.S. and Israel have created with this attack. Even if this operation successfully disarmed Iranian nuclear capabilities for the time being, if a new authoritarian regime were to take control of the region, this new regime would likely reinstate nuclear power, and given the possibility of this regime being radical in nature, the U.S. and Israel would carry freshly painted targets.
Much remains unknown and new information will likely emerge as the conflict continues. Many of the fears discussed in this piece may ultimately prove unfounded if the administration later reveals the strategies it implemented throughout the conflict. However, based on the information currently available to the American public, the situation appears veiled in uncertainty, at least from a citizen’s perspective. Given the tendency for authoritarian regimes to replace themselves, it seems unlikely for U.S. and Israeli forces to leave this situation up to such chance. Even if later details of U.S. involvement are not publicly disclosed, the future emergence of a regime change favorable to U.S. interests could signal a deeper level of U.S. coordination behind the scenes.
