US-Iran conflict: A dilemma and the ultimate economic blow.

In fact, author Mohammadhossein Sedehi, in an article published in Opinion Juris on February 24, 2026, four days before the US-Iran war began, titled “Will sanctions against Iran be reimposed or permanently lifted?”, clearly stated the disagreement within the international community on this very issue.

Mohammadhossein Sedehi stated, “Western countries assert that UN sanctions against Iran have been restored, while Russia, China , and Iran hold the opposite view.”

Accordingly, Russia, China, and Iran jointly declared that invoking the mechanism for reimposing sanctions was legally invalid. These countries argued that Resolution 2231 expired 10 years after its adoption – as stipulated in the resolution itself – and therefore, the sanctions had ended permanently.

In discussions at the UN Security Council as well as in joint letters, the aforementioned countries presented arguments to defend their positions, specifically: the lack of goodwill from the E3 group (comprising France, Germany, and the United Kingdom ) in resolving the dispute, procedural errors when the E3 triggered the sanctions re-imposition mechanism (snapback), and the invocation of the “clean hands” doctrine.

From the history of sanctions against Iran mentioned above, it is clear that the “Iran quagmire” in which President Trump is now bogged down is nothing new.

Causes of the conflict: These will be stated at different times.

The conflict erupted on February 28, 2026, when the US and Israel launched attacks that killed much of Iran’s leadership and damaged key military facilities.

President Donald Trump announced that the US had begun “large-scale military operations” in Iran, along with justifications: “A short time ago, the United States military began large-scale military operations in Iran.”

Our goal is to protect the American people by eliminating the pressing threats posed by the Iranian regime—a brutal group of extremely hardened and malicious individuals. This regime’s threatening actions directly endanger the United States, our soldiers, our military bases abroad, and our allies around the world .

Trump’s message highlighted the reasons: protecting the American people by eliminating threats from the Iranian regime to the United States and to American military bases and troops in allied countries.

He did not forget to revisit the history of animosity between Iran and the United States, taking the American people back to 1979, when Supreme Leader Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini had just launched the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran and held 66 American hostages (including diplomats and a few civilians) because the US had previously sided with the Iranian Emir Palavi.

Next came the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut by Iranian-backed groups, which killed 241 American servicemen. Then came the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which, according to him, likely involved Iran and caused numerous casualties…

It’s clear that in his message marking six months into the war, Trump beat around the bush before concluding optimistically. However, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) does not share this optimism.

A day before the presidential address, the CFR issued another assessment, highlighting Iran’s primary counter-attack capability as a network of sympathizers.

The CFR report states: “Over the past six months, Iran has successfully deployed a cyber messaging strategy, creating a dangerous content advantage; this strategy encourages individuals to act even when they have no official affiliation with Iran or its proxy forces. Such actions may include plots to assassinate public figures and other acts of violence on U.S. soil, stemming from radicalization and recruitment.”

The CFR also outlined the areas where Iran could act: “Inciting violence against Jews, symbolic targets, and businesses linked to the U.S. and Israel…; and expanding its scope of operations, including seeking to infiltrate the U.S. interior by increasing its power and influence over future extremist forces.”

Unilateral warfare, allies shake their heads.

Six months of war have also clearly shown the role of the US with its long-standing allies and what Iran’s image has become.

The US faced reluctance from its NATO allies when seeking support and participation in the war. Despite President Trump’s personal appeals, these countries refused to join. Spain and Italy, in particular, strongly criticized the conflict, as did Germany – Israel’s closest ally in Europe. France rejected calls to deploy warships to enforce the blockade.

Gulf allies, along with Pakistan and Türkiye, all refused to participate. In Asia, Japan, Australia, and South Korea also declined to get involved.

For Iran, its targeting of U.S. military equipment as well as military and non-military infrastructure in neighboring Gulf states and Jordan has cost it ground in the region. Iran’s attacks on infrastructure in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain have led these countries to view these actions as violations of their sovereignty.

As a consequence, Gulf allies are considering the fact that the US war against Iran has made them targets of attack, Al Jazeera reported on August 28, 2026.

Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt global energy markets by blockading cargo shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. (Photo: Reuters)

Conversely, economic and political relations between Iran and China have remained strong. Beijing has skillfully balanced its approach by both opposing sanctions against Iran and avoiding becoming too deeply involved in the conflict. Similarly, trade relations with Russia remain robust, Al Jazeera asserts.

The New York Times bluntly stated: China remains Iran’s lifeline, buying its oil and supplying raw materials and technology to support its economy and military. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged that his country will continue to support Iran and help it protect its national interests.

Economic D-Day: Will the final dream come true?

Iran’s most significant retaliatory move came at sea when it blockaded commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, bringing the waterway to a standstill.

Overnight, the blockade paralyzed one of the world’s most important shipping lanes. Iran seized control of the front lines of the war, sending shockwaves through the global economy.

Six months later, the situation has changed. Minimizing the economic impact and reopening the strait has become a central task, Al Jazzera noted.

Essentially, after six months of war, global oil prices had risen by about 25% and the average price of gasoline across the United States hovered above $4 per gallon – about one dollar higher than before the war broke out, according to data from GasBuddy.

A Brown University energy cost tracking tool estimates that the average American has spent nearly $700 more on fuel since the war began. This will be a major daily consideration for Americans in the upcoming November elections.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in late August showed that only 31% of Americans supported U.S. military action against Iran, down from 37% in March. The percentage of Republicans supporting military action was 69%, down from 77% in March. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (90%) and independent voters (67%) opposed U.S. military action in Iran.

Six months after the outbreak of hostilities between the US and Iran, Donald Trump has shifted to economic warfare to pressure Iran into submission, threatening to launch an “Economic D-Day” against Iran. This new US strategy involves launching a sanctions campaign targeting countries and financial institutions that do business with Iran or assist it in evading sanctions.

The new sanctions target not only oil exports but also digital assets, gold, and the aviation industry – sectors that contribute to funding Iran’s economy.

But whether this strategy is effective depends heavily on whether the U.S. can persuade Iran’s most important trading partners to sever ties with the Islamic Republic. China, which consumes about 80% of Iran’s seaborne crude oil, immediately objected and warned it would “take all necessary measures” to protect its interests if it became the target of U.S. sanctions.

Regardless of the outcome, the war in Iran can be seen as the biggest gamble of Trump’s presidency, at least in terms of foreign policy and his increased determination to reshape the world to his liking. However, he has yet to succeed.