Current Situation in 2026 Iran War

 

Introduction

The 2026 US/Israel-Iran War or 2026 Iran War, which began in the early hours of February 28, 2026, with airstrikes first by Israel and then by the US, represents a new case study in understanding the new, less human-reliant structure of warfare in postmodern times and in examining the current power struggle in the Middle East. The war, now in its seventh day, could last up to four weeks, according to US President Donald Trump. This article will share the motivations, strategies, and future predictions of the parties involved in the war.

Causes of War and the Motives of the Actors Involved 

The key actor triggering a potential 2026 war with Iran is undoubtedly Israel. Observing that Iran, one of its closest allies until 1979, has increasingly adopted an anti-Zionist, anti-American, anti-Western, and radical Islamist stance since the Islamic Revolution, Jerusalem (Tel Aviv) has begun to view the Iranian regime as an existential threat. This has been particularly evident in Tehran's accelerated nuclear and ballistic missile programs in the 2000s, as well as the arming and support of Shia militias by Iran, creating a "resistance axis" or "Shia crescent" in many different countries in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc.). In this context, the right-wing Netanyahu government, which has been in power in Israel for years and has been forced to form coalitions with some small far-right parties, is trying to prevent a possible loss of power by maintaining a constant "state of emergency" due to corruption allegations and public backlash, as evidenced by the Gaza crisis. Furthermore, Netanyahu hopes to regain power and continue his premiership in the elections scheduled for this year. In this context, as interestingly admitted by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the US entered this war with a "preemptive strike" mentality and to be able to control the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran that they could not prevent. In this sense, Israel, with a rational strategy, probably using the Epstein scandal within the US and the Israeli lobby, and by playing the card that Israel could launch a nuclear attack on Iran if the US did not intervene and it was forced to, has virtually forced President Trump into this war. Israel's main objectives in the war are to completely cripple Iran by destroying its Supreme Leader and military leadership, its nuclear program, its ballistic missile system, and its naval and air forces, and to render it incapable of posing a threat to Israel and other Arab states. While Israel, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated, aims for regime change in Iran, a weak and inward-looking mullah regime might not actually be perceived as a major threat by Tel Aviv (Jerusalem). Israel is also exploring the possibility of creating an Azerbaijani, Baloch, and Kurdish region/state in that country, and in this context, is encouraging American security agencies (CIA) to take steps in this direction (contacts with the PKK/PJAK, etc.). It should be recalled that Israel, the only state to openly support the 2017 Kurdistan Regional Government independence referendum, is striving to build a power base in the Middle East by forging close ties with Kurds and other minority groups (Druzes, etc.) in the region.

The United States, however, has a strategy that does not entirely align with Israel's. Acknowledging in its new national security documents that its major geopolitical competition in the 21st century will be with China, and in this context seeking to draw countries with close ties to China (Venezuela, Cuba, Panama, etc.) to its side, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, the US has been overthrowing anti-Western and anti-Israeli regimes one by one (Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Iran) in the Middle East for decades. Including Iran among these countries is natural, as Iran is a state with intense political, diplomatic, and security (military) relations with China and provides significant support to Beijing in meeting its energy needs. In this sense, even if the US wants regime change in Iran, it may prefer a weakened Iran, unlike Israel, due to the frustrations it experienced in previous nation-building efforts (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). The existence of the radical regime in Iran can be valued as a beneficial element that ensures the continuity of the US's security relations and new arms sales with Arab states in the region (especially the Gulf states). In this context, Washington may accept the continued existence of a mullah regime in a ruined but not collapsed Iran, albeit in a less harmful way, as it remains anti-Western. This way, the US avoids incurring significant financial burdens and will not have to expend extra effort in the institutionalisation and development of the new regime. However, Israel's pressure for regime change in Iran and the influence of the highly effective Israeli (Jewish) lobby within the US undoubtedly affect the Trump administration as well.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is an actor founded on rather radical Islamic (Shia) principles, but over time, due to both popular demands and pressure from the international community, it has partially learned to act on a more rational and secular basis for the sake of maintaining its regime. While Iran had anticipated this attack for years, it had hoped for a compromise during the ongoing negotiations over the past few weeks. However, faced with the unexpected attacks that began on the morning of February 28th, Iran aims to force Israel and the US to back down by spreading the conflict to all states in the region and, in particular, by taking harsh steps that could bring the global economy to the brink of collapse. In this context, Tehran, which has launched rocket and drone attacks on the Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman), Jordan, Kuwait, and Iraq (Kurdish region), as well as the Republic of Cyprus (Greek Cypriot Administration/Southern Cyprus), where British bases are located, particularly targets energy infrastructure facilities and attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, hoping to drive up oil and gas prices and thus force the US and Israel to back down for global economic reasons. Iran, by targeting civilians and airports in countries like Abu Dhabi and Dubai, demands that Arab states pressure the US to stop the war. However, Tehran, which has become an object of hatred in the region, has also mistakenly launched rocket/drone attacks on countries like Turkey (Türkiye) and Azerbaijan (Nakhchivan region), which have tried to remain neutral in the war, drawing strong reactions from both countries (especially Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev). Although the Iranian regime denies responsibility for these attacks, there is currently no evidence or proof to the contrary. In this sense, Tehran is essentially fighting a life-or-death battle and playing all its cards. This is making Iran an increasingly isolated state. Indeed, Russia and China are not yet actively supporting Iran in this conflict. It is unclear what the support announced by North Korea will actually entail. The loss of Iran's navy and air force, and the rapid depletion of its drone and missile arsenal, also present a serious problem in the context of a long-term struggle.

Current Situation in the War

Based on the confirmed information available so far from credible media sources, it can be stated that Iran has lost approximately 50 high-ranking military and political leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the very first day; Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile facilities have been hit and severely damaged; Iran has lost between 1,500 and 4,500 citizens due to US-Israeli attacks; Lebanon has also suffered significant losses (over 100) due to Israel's invasion of Lebanon; US and Israeli losses are relatively low (US 6 dead, Israel 12-20 dead); however, significant economic losses have been incurred in these countries due to rocket and drone attacks on US military bases, energy facilities and tourist areas in the Gulf countries, and Israeli cities, as well as rising energy prices.

On the other hand, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is very optimistic and hopeful about the course of the war. According to Hegseth, the US is advancing very quickly and decisively, rapidly destroying Iran's military capabilities with Operation "Epic Fury". US President Donald Trump has voiced similar views, stating that they are progressing far beyond their pre-planned military objectives in this war. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi, however, contrary to President Trump's claims, emphasises that they do not want a ceasefire or new negotiations with the US and Israel, and are ready to continue the conflict. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman Ali Mohammad Naini also stated that his country is "ready for a long war", adding that new weapons are on the way. In this context, there are no signs of collapse or disintegration on the Iranian side yet. However, considering the economic collapse and ammunition shortages Iran will experience as the war progresses, Iran's stance may soften in the near future.

Future Scenarios

From this point on, two critical issues highlighted by former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken are: a) markets and b) ammunition. Firstly, developments in energy markets, including their impact on the course of the war and on the global and US economies, will be among the most critical aspects. Regarding high energy prices negatively affecting markets, President Trump has optimistically predicted that these prices will fall rapidly after the war, which he foresees lasting up to four weeks, to reassure the markets. However, given the "fog of war", it is unclear where such large, existential conflicts will begin and end, and uncertainty is a negative factor for markets. Furthermore, high energy prices and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which prevents tankers from operating, are expected to cause significant economic losses for the Gulf Arab states and other countries.

The second critical issue is undoubtedly the continuity of weapons and ammunition. As Blinken rightly pointed out, Tehran, with its inexpensive drones and rockets, is causing the US and Gulf states millions of dollars in losses and severely disrupting their economies by forcing them to constantly operate their air defence systems, without suffering significant financial losses itself. The accidental downing of three American jets in Kuwait clearly demonstrates the hesitation of the Arab states in this regard. However, it is also true that Iran's drone and rocket capacity, constantly bombed by the US and Israel, has limits, and in a prolonged conflict, this stockpile may eventually be depleted. Therefore, if the war drags on and Iran's ammunition dwindles, the country will become increasingly vulnerable to air strikes. Moreover, Arab states might eventually take action against Tehran in response to Iranian attacks, and the involvement of a powerful military force like Saudi Arabia would make things even more difficult for Iran.

However, Iran also has some advantages for the future. First, there is no indication that the US and Israel will deploy a ground army in this war. In this context, previous experiences show that overthrowing a regime through air strikes either leads to a very long and arduous process or does not happen at all. Therefore, despite all the wickedness of the current regime in Iran, it is clear that it will not be defeated by a new regime that may be formed by external incitement of non-Persian Kurdish, Baloch, and Azeri minorities. Perhaps the only name known nationwide within the Iranian opposition is the son of the deposed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who openly aspires to be the "transitional leader" of his country and bring democracy to Iran, sending warm messages to the US, Israel, and European countries. Pahlavi is confident that the Islamic regime will collapse and claims that he is not coming to become a King or President, but to save Iran and quickly transition the country to democracy. Pahlavi, who was particularly popular in the diaspora outside Iran, was criticised for lacking widespread support within the country.

Furthermore, as the war drags on, anti-war voices are rising from the international community, which is advantageous for Tehran. Indeed, while Iran is not a globally loved or admired regime, the strength of leftist and anti-war groups in Western countries (Spain, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, etc.) creates significant pressure on their governments. Moreover, incidents such as the bombing of a school and the killing of children in US and Israeli attacks, while reactions against Israel remain high due to the Gaza crisis, are increasing support for Iran. Therefore, a more rational strategy for Iran might be to act peacefully and avoid expanding the war to neutral countries. Iran also needs to rapidly launch a "PR" (public relations) campaign on diplomacy. The strong anti-war voices, particularly in Spain and Türkiye, are noteworthy in this regard.

Türkiye (Turkey) could be a key country in stopping the war, as it is among the countries most negatively affected. Türkiye suffers from the war both due to the potential for mass migration from Iran to its own territory and its resulting side effects, and from economic and security crises. Furthermore, as a state with an energy deficit, Türkiye will not benefit positively from high oil and natural gas prices. Therefore, Ankara could push for prioritising diplomacy. However, Türkiye's influence over the US is no longer as strong as it was during the Cold War. Because of its strained relations with Israel, support for Türkiye in Washington is quite limited.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 2026 Iran War, which began on February 28, continues at full speed. The war is undoubtedly harming all sides, but the state most negatively affected is, naturally, Iran, which is under intense air attack. The destruction of Iran's air and naval forces, drone and missile facilities, laboratories, etc., will undoubtedly negatively impact the country's war-fighting capacity and economy. Furthermore, it is a serious enigma who could govern Iran in the near future if the current regime continues (recently, the names of Mojtaba Khamenei from the hardline wing and Ali Larijani from the moderate wing have been put forward). Due to the risks involved, not many people may come forward to take on this role! However, Iran is not an ordinary state lacking a tradition of statehood, as is often misrepresented due to the underestimation of the Islamic regime, and all state institutions continue to function under President Masoud Pezeshkian. Therefore, if Iran can withstand the attacks, it is likely to receive more support from the international community over time. Our wish is for this war to end as soon as possible and for people to stop losing their lives unnecessarily.

Prof. Dr. Ozan ÖRMECİ