Energy disruptions are already pushing oil and gas prices upward, threatening global economic stability.

QUICK READ

• A rare and dangerous precedent in international politics
  The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly ordered by Donald Trump in coordination with Benjamin Netanyahu under “Operation Epic Fury”, represents a rare instance where one state deliberately eliminates the head of another. Such acts historically carry consequences far beyond the battlefield and often reshape regional geopolitics.
  
  

• Military success does not guarantee political victory
  Despite the operational effectiveness of the strike and the military dominance of the United States and the Israel Defense Forces, history shows that removing a leader rarely dismantles a regime. Strategic thinkers like Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu emphasised that war must serve a clear political purpose, otherwise battlefield success becomes strategically hollow.
  
  

• A war with two faces, military dominance and political uncertainty
  While Iran’s military infrastructure has been significantly degraded, Iran’s strategy is based on survival and escalation. By widening the conflict across the region, targeting energy routes such as the Strait of Hormuz and activating regional proxies like Hezbollah, Tehran aims to transform the conflict into a broader geopolitical crisis.
  
  

• Regional instability and global economic consequences
  The conflict risks drawing multiple states and alliances into confrontation, including the involvement of NATO and several Middle Eastern countries. Energy disruptions are already pushing oil and gas prices upward, threatening global economic stability and potentially slowing growth while increasing inflation worldwide.
  
  

• Historical lessons warn against regime destruction without political settlement
  Events such as the instability following the Arab Spring and the radicalisation of Germany after the World War I demonstrate that weakening a regime without constructing a viable political order can produce deeper instability. Durable peace historically emerges not from destruction alone, but from negotiated settlements, as seen in the Good Friday Agreement.

For more read the full article ..... 

MARCH 2026

The Assassination and the Illusion of Decisive Victory

The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly ordered by Donald Trump in coordination with Benjamin Netanyahu, marks such a moment, where the killing of a head of state by another state is one of the rarest acts in international politics.

Described as “Operation Epic Fury”, this military adventure represents a dramatic escalation in the long and fraught contest between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

History records only a handful of such moments, each carrying consequences far beyond the battlefield.

At the operational level, the strike appears devastatingly effective. Yet history warns that the decapitation of regimes rarely yields the political results its architects imagine.

From the Roman execution of rebellious kings to the assassination of revolutionary leaders, the removal of a single figure seldom dissolves the structure of power beneath him.

Indeed, the immediate emergence of a provisional leadership structure within Iran, and then the appointment of new supreme leader Mojataba Khamenei, illustrates the resilience of political institutions forged in revolutionary struggle.

“The deeper problem lies not in the mechanics of war, but in its purpose.

The deeper problem lies not in the mechanics of war, but in its purpose.

Classical strategic thought, from Carl von Clausewitz to the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, insists that war must serve a clear political aim.

Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz was a Prussian army officer and military theorist who stressed the "moral" and political aspects of waging war.

Sun Tzu is traditionally credited as the author of The Art of War, a Classical Chinese text on military strategy from the Warring States period.

War Without Clear Political Aims

Without such clarity, military success risks becoming strategically hollow.

The destruction of enemy assets, the humiliation of rival leadership, and the spectacle of dominance may satisfy immediate impulses, but they do not automatically translate into a durable political settlement.

Revival of Taliban in Afghanistan, after 21 years is the case in point.

Israel’s objective in this conflict appears relatively straightforward, to neutralise the long-term threat posed by the Iranian state and its regional network of proxies.

For the United States, however, the stated goals have been less coherent, in ‘Operation Epic Fury’.

References to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its missile programme, regime change, and retaliation for past hostility have all surfaced in public statements.

Strategic ambiguity may provide room for political manoeuvre, yet it also introduces a dangerous absence of direction.

The result is a war with two distinct faces.

One is military.

Air superiority achieved by American forces and the Israel Defence Forces has severely degraded Iran’s naval and aerial capabilities.

Missile infrastructure, weapons manufacturing facilities, and elements of the regime’s coercive apparatus have been systematically targeted. The technological superiority of the Western alliance has produced a familiar pattern, overwhelming force applied with clinical efficiency.

Yet the second face of the conflict is political, and here the outcome is far less certain.

“Iran’s strategy appears oriented toward survival rather than victory.

Iran’s strategy appears oriented toward survival rather than victory in the conventional sense. In revolutionary regimes, endurance itself becomes a form of triumph.

The Expanding Battlefield, Regional and Economic Shockwaves

By escalating the conflict horizontally, striking across multiple theatres and targeting energy infrastructure, Tehran has sought to transform a bilateral confrontation into a regional crisis.

The consequences are already visible.

The conflict threatens to draw in neighbouring states and major powers alike. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Cyprus (UK), Israel, USA, France, and Iraq are on the line of fire from Iran.

Tensions in Lebanon have intensified as Israel confronts Hezbollah, while European powers such as France and United Kingdom have moved to defend military installations across the region.

In early March, air defence systems associated with NATO reportedly intercepted an Iranian missile en-route to Turkey, underscoring how easily the conflict could widen.

Economic reverberations have followed swiftly.

Iran’s attempt to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth (1/5) of the world’s oil supply passes, has jolted energy markets. Oil prices have risen sharply, while natural gas costs in Europe have surged.

The interconnected structure of the global economy ensures that regional wars now carry planetary consequences.

Like a sustained spike in oil prices could slow global growth and revive inflationary pressures across multiple continents.

“More troubling still is the internal fragility of Iran itself.

The country’s demographic mosaic includes Arabs, Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis and other ethnic groups alongside the Persian majority. Roughly two fifths (2/5) of the population belong to these minority communities.

External support for insurgent movements in such regions, particularly Kurdish groups along the western frontier, risks producing the very outcome history repeatedly warns against, the fragmentation of a complex state under the pressure of war.

History’s Warning, Power Without Prudence

Recent history offers sobering precedents.

The collapse of state authority during the Arab Spring (2010-2011) transformed several Middle Eastern societies into arenas of prolonged instability.

Libya, Syria and Yemen illustrate how the destruction of a central regime does not automatically produce democratic renewal. More often it unleashes a competition among militias, factions and external powers.

“Europe’s own past offers a parallel warning.

The humiliation and impoverishment of Germany following the World War I created the psychological and economic conditions that ultimately enabled the rise of Adolf Hitler.

A wounded society, stripped of dignity yet not entirely defeated, can become fertile ground for extremism.

History suggests that the destruction of a regime without constructing a viable political order in its place may simply prepare the stage for a more radical successor.

The domestic dimension of American politics further complicates the strategic calculus.

Public support for prolonged military engagements has steadily declined since the wars that followed the September 11 attacks. Rising fuel prices, a direct consequence of energy disruptions, quickly translate into political discontent.

Leaders tempted to pursue decisive victories abroad often discover that democratic societies possess limited tolerance for extended conflict.

In such circumstances, the most prudent course may be the one least celebrated in the language of power.

A narrowly defined objective, the degradation of Iran’s military capabilities and the containment of its regional influence, could provide a basis for disengagement.

The temptation to pursue regime change, though emotionally compelling to those who oppose Tehran’s authoritarian structure, carries unpredictable risks.

Political philosophy has long grappled with the paradox of power.

Thucydides observed that strong states do what they can, while weaker states endure what they must.

Thucydides has been called the father of the school of political realism, which views the political behaviour of individuals and the subsequent outcomes of relations between states as ultimately mediated by, and constructed upon, fear and self-interest.

The present conflict may yet produce unexpected outcomes.

For one, Iran’s regime could weaken internally, leading to gradual transformation. It could innovate its defence technology and grow further deeper alliances to sustain similar threats in future.

Alternatively, nationalist sentiment could consolidate the political order, allowing a new generation of hardliners to inherit the mantle of resistance. Both outcomes remain plausible.

What history teaches, however, is a quieter lesson.

Durable peace rarely emerges from the destruction of adversaries alone. It arises from the difficult craft of political settlement, where power, restraint and foresight intersect.

Never ending Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ ended with hard and meticulous negotiated Good Friday Agreement, has lots of learning hidden for modern strategists to explore.

“For the United States and its allies, the challenge is therefore not merely military but civilisational.

Strategy requires the capacity to imagine the world that follows victory. Without that vision, even the most spectacular battlefield success may dissolve into strategic confusion.

The ancient Greeks used a word that remains instructive today, Phronesis, practical wisdom. It denotes not merely intelligence but the disciplined ability to foresee consequences and act with proportion.

In an age where weapons can reshape entire regions within weeks, such wisdom is no longer optional.

The future of the Middle East may hinge less on ‘epic fury’ than on foresight.

History, if listened to carefully, has already spoken.