The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury (US) and Operation Roaring Lion (Israel) on February 28, 2026, against Iran. It was a major coordinated effort aimed at destroying Iran’s military capabilities, with the broader ambition of forcing regime change and reducing Iran to a weakened, non-state-like entity.
However, Iran’s retaliation against the attackers has prolonged the war and turned it into a nightmare, causing intense military and economic disruption worldwide, with its spiralling impact being felt across the globe.
The original script of the war appeared to be a swift military strike designed to achieve the war’s objectives and force Iran to its knees. Instead, a “Pandora’s box” seems to have opened after Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Israel and on US bases in the Gulf countries. The current situation suggests a prolonged conflict driven by Iran’s defiance and the determination of the US and Israel to demonstrate their military power.
With the war showing no sign of ending, discussions are taking place in political and strategic circles about who might stop it, and how and when it could end. Many experts have proposed different scenarios for bringing the conflict to a close.
The first option is that the US and Israel could deploy ground troops to Iran to physically conquer the country and, after emerging victorious, install a friendly regime that would turn Iran into a vassal state. In this scenario, the war would end with military occupation and regime change.
The difficulty with this option is that the presence of foreign troops could trigger prolonged guerrilla warfare. Iran has significant experience in asymmetric conflict, and such a development could make the war far more violent and protracted. A ground invasion would therefore carry the risk of a long and uncertain conflict, making this option unlikely.
The second option is that the US and Israel, having initiated the war, could announce an end to hostilities and withdraw. Such a step, however, could be seen as a strategic retreat, potentially causing political embarrassment and loss of prestige for the two countries. For this reason, analysts consider this outcome improbable.
The third option is that the Gulf countries could press the United States to end the war. The conflict has made them more vulnerable, especially after attacks on US bases that were meant to protect the region. If Gulf states begin to question whether Washington prioritises their security or that of Israel, they could reconsider their strategic alignments, possibly seeking neutrality or accommodation with Iran.
The fourth option is that the wider international community could collectively pressure the United States and Israel to end the war by threatening diplomatic or economic isolation. Some analysts point to growing unease among several countries about the consequences of the conflict and the risks it poses to global stability.
Among these possibilities, international pressure appears to be the most plausible path toward ending the conflict, as the global consequences of the war continue to intensify.
The situation in the Middle East increasingly reflects what analysts describe as a “structural rupture.” The war has strained the traditional alignment between Gulf countries and the United States, potentially opening the door to new regional equations. As the regional security balance weakens, countries that once relied on the US security umbrella may reconsider their strategic options.
Meanwhile, the war shows no sign of ending. Air strikes continue to damage military and civilian infrastructure, airspace restrictions remain widespread, and global supply chains passing through the region face disruption.
The global energy market has also been shaken. The Strait of Hormuz plays a crucial role in world energy supplies, with roughly 20 percent of global oil passing through it. Any disruption there has immediate worldwide consequences. Qatar’s LNG exports have also been affected by regional transport constraints. Analysts warn that oil prices could rise to between $100 and $150 per barrel if instability persists, making the conflict a global economic liability.
Another concern is the risk of escalation involving nuclear facilities. If nuclear installations in Iran or Israel were targeted, experts warn of the possibility of a severe nuclear disaster with unpredictable consequences.
The conflict is also highlighting technological and strategic shifts in modern warfare. Advanced US and Israeli missile systems are being challenged by Iran’s use of comparatively low-cost drones and sophisticated missile technology, reflecting the changing dynamics of contemporary conflict.
As the war drags on, large-scale destruction of human lives and infrastructure continues in both Iran and Israel.
The world recently witnessed the devastation in Gaza and the intense international debate that followed. Whether the global community will intervene diplomatically to prevent a wider regional war remains an open question.
One thing appears certain: even if Iran endures the conflict, the geopolitical landscape of the region—and the global balance of power—may not remain the same.
Ultimately, the war may end only if a broad coalition of nations exerts sufficient diplomatic pressure on the parties involved to halt hostilities and move toward negotiations.
---
*Journalist based in Chennai
Comments