International

By Amir Abdulazeez

Several decades into the global modern era, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans continue to be held hostage by their colonially indoctrinated inferior mindsets engineered by the blackmail and mythology of Western moral supremacy. This error is not in observing Western virtues, many of which are real. The error is in the uncritical veneration that renders their vices invisible and their judgements unchallengeable. It is evident from the events of the last three decades alone that the so-called saner climes of Europe and North America are the primary architects of global chaos and instability of nations, all in the name of injecting sanity into ‘less sane’ societies.

The ongoing US-Israel war on Iran, launched in the midst of Ramadan, is a typical doctrine of the saner climes, exhibited in its most naked form. Iran’s Foreign Minister had said three days before the war was declared that a nuclear agreement was ‘within reach’ after a third round of indirect talks in Geneva. 

The IAEA itself confirmed there was no evidence of a structured Iranian nuclear weapons programme at the time of the attack. Yet, the surprise assault assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, killed his family members and damaged schools, hospitals and even UNESCO-recognised cultural heritage sites. This is a typical catalogue of barbaric war crimes for which the West has condemned others across generations. 

The Donald Trump administration, whose seemingly rude, dishonest and arrogant officials, has offered a menu of rationalisations and a handful of conflicting justifications for the war. However, when Amnesty International confirmed that the United States was responsible for a strike that killed at least 160 primary school girls, the US officials chose arrogance through denials instead of remorse. 

In fact, the Head of the Federal Communications Commission simultaneously intimidated his own press, threatening the withdrawal of broadcast licenses of American news outlets whose war coverage he deemed unfavourable. Another trademark saner-climes mythology, muzzled in a way only a few non-saner climes can imagine. 

Meanwhile, in all these, it is the ‘lunatic’ Iran that is supposed to apologise and do nothing while it is attacked. The Iranian Regime, branded as autocratic on the premise that it compels women to cover their hair in public, is being lectured by leaders of societies whose women go out naked in the name of civilisation and whose governments topple, kill and abduct Heads of state of other countries for recklessly greedy reasons. 

Now imagine if the erratically behaving Donald Trump were the leader of any African Country, the West would have since declared him incoherent and unstable to deal with or labelled his citizens stupid for voting for him. Worse still, imagine if the Epstein scandal happened in Asia or Latin America. All these contradictions reveal with crystal clarity that Western principles are instruments of convenience. 

To understand the foundations of all these, let us revisit some history. Britain’s Industrial Revolution was fertilised by the profits of the transatlantic slave trade and the systematic plunder of India, a country whose share of global GDP fell from about 25% at the onset of colonial rule to barely 4% at independence. 

France financed much of its republican grandeur on the forced labour of West Africa and the Caribbean. Belgium’s King Leopold II transformed the Congo into a private abattoir, severing the hands of Africans who failed to meet rubber quotas, leaving behind a traumatised country that still bleeds today. 

To speak of the sanity of those climes without acknowledging that they were partly built from organised insanity inflicted elsewhere is to ignore the background to what we are witnessing today.

In the last fifty years alone, the so-called saner climes have unleashed a level of violence and destabilisation that would shame any regime they have ever deemed fit to condemn. The United States, the self-acclaimed sentinel of the free world, has engineered irrational regime changes in Chile (1973), Iran (1953 and subsequently), Guatemala (1954), Nicaragua, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, among others. The 1973 CIA-backed coup against a democratically elected socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, installed Augusto Pinochet, under whose reign thousands were tortured, disappeared, or executed. Henry Kissinger, the American architect of that atrocity, received the Nobel Peace Prize from his fellow saner clime comrades. 

The French Government, through its notorious Françafrique policy, maintained a neocolonial empire across West and Central Africa long after the 1960s, propping up murderous dictators and conducting military interventions to protect economic interests, with a consistency that made a mockery of every democratic principle France professed to uphold.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Western Governments is perhaps the most consequential act of manufactured catastrophe of the modern era. The war resulted in the deaths of an estimated 200,000 to one million Iraqi civilians, the obliteration of the country’s infrastructure, the rise of ISIS from the ashes of a disbanded Iraqi army and the triggering of a refugee crisis that continues to destabilise the Middle East. No one was held accountable. George W. Bush and Tony Blair are living happy lives in their saner countries. The International Criminal Court, which has indicted multiple African heads of state on much lesser crimes with considerable alacrity, found no jurisdiction to examine any of them. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq, Syria and Libya who were dismantled in the name of liberation still live in the ruins and pains of what the saner climes call democracy.

While the West was busy bombing the Middle East, Africa, the so-called backward continent, was largely attending to its own affairs of conflict resolution with a remarkable degree of maturity. The African Union mediated crises in Burundi, the Gambia and Lesotho without firing a single bullet. ECOWAS brokered peace agreements in Sierra Leone and Liberia and deployed peacekeeping forces with genuine multilateral mandates, without the casual trigger-happiness of Western powers. 

Western attitude towards violence is shamelessly selective. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Saner Clime’s response was swift, comprehensive and morally unambiguous: sanctions, weapons, diplomatic isolation and a media chorus of civilizational solidarity. This response was appropriate anyway. But the problem is its stark contrast with the Western posture toward other invasions. When Saudi Arabia launched its war on Yemen in 2015, the United States and the United Kingdom did not merely decline to intervene; they allegedly supplied the bombs, refuelled the warplanes and provided intelligence for strikes that killed thousands of Yemeni civilians and engineered one of the worst humanitarian crises on earth. 

Many argue that the actions of Western governments do not accurately reflect what their citizens stand for. This is debatable, especially when one examines certain incidents. During the Obama presidency, Edward Snowden revealed that the US National Security Agency was conducting mass, warrantless surveillance of American citizens and foreign governments, including the personal telephone of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in flagrant violation of constitutional protections and international diplomatic norms. The response was not accountability but exile for Snowden and a classification of his revelations as treason. 

The United States has the largest prison population on earth, both in absolute numbers and per capita, administered under a system in which Black Americans are incarcerated at five times the rate of their white counterparts, in conditions that the United Nations has described as cruel. Since 1968, gun violence has claimed more American lives than all of America’s foreign wars combined. One might be inclined to believe that these controversies are ones ordinary Western citizens may not approve of.

Climate change is another damning indictment of Western moral authority in the twenty-first century. The Industrial activities enriching Europe and North America still depend on burning carbon at a scale the planet has never experienced. The United States, historically the world’s largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases, withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement under Donald Trump. 

Australia, another clime reputed to be considerably saner than most, has built its prosperity on coal exports and resisted meaningful emissions reduction. Some Pacific Island nations face sea submersions within this century as a consequence of decisions made in saner capitals. When these nations’ leaders speak at the United Nations with tears in their voices, the saner climes offer symbolic but empty sympathy before later returning to preserving their industrial prerogatives. 

The Western Media’s tactical twisting of narratives regarding other climes is another issue. For example, CNN may not run primetime documentaries on the Swiss banking system’s complicity in laundering the proceeds of African kleptocracy, but will rather concentrate on the primary kleptocrats. The BBC does not lead with investigations into the role of British arms dealers in sustaining African conflicts. The New York Times does not dedicate its front page to the tax avoidance schemes through which Western corporations drain billions of dollars annually from African economies (more than the continent receives in foreign aid).

In addition to all this, there is something more worrisome. The bulk of support received by these saner climes comes from their victims in the third world. In Nigeria, for instance, the blind sympathy for religious affiliations drives people to support the brazen oppression and cruel injustices perpetrated by the West. Our solidarity should be among ourselves, not with those who see and treat us as worthless humans and more like animals because of their superior moral hypocrisy. 

Additionally, our bootlicking governments, which are considered close to valueless in the International arena or even insane just like us, must stop intimidating their own citizens who decide to speak up against Western double standards. Let’s remember, the phrase “saner climes” is a moral verdict and a devastating condemnation of everywhere else except Europe and North America. Africans and all peoples of the marginalised world are owed the intellectual inheritance of critical discernment.

The world does not need more or fewer saner climes; it needs a more honest accounting of what sanity actually requires. It requires consistency: the same rules applied to the powerful and the powerless alike. It requires humility: the acknowledgement that no civilisation holds a monopoly on wisdom. 

And it requires accountability: not the selective justice of indicting the weak and glorifying the mighty, but the universal application of standards that do not bend before a Security Council veto or the impulse of a self-serving superpower. Until that accounting arrives, the presumption of Western moral authority deserves not deference, but fearless interrogation; the kind that the so-called saner climes have always claimed to celebrate and so rarely been prepared to receive.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Fresh security concerns have surfaced in Washington after unidentified drones were seen flying over a sensitive United States military installation.

The Washington Post reported that the drones were detected above Fort McNair, a facility where Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are accommodated. The report cited three individuals who were briefed on the development.

Officials have not determined where the drones came ⁠from, the report said, citing two of the people familiar with the matter, leaving questions over their origin unanswered.

The situation has led to internal discussions within government circles about whether Rubio and Hegseth should be relocated from the base due to safety worries. Despite those concerns, both officials are still at the facility. A senior administration official confirmed this, according to the report.

The newspaper also noted that the U.S. military has increased its surveillance of potential threats. This comes amid heightened alert levels linked to the ongoing conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran.

Reuters reported it could not independently verify the development at the time.

Meanwhile, both the Pentagon and the U.S. State Department have not issued official statements on the matter. When approached by the Washington Post, Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell declined to provide details.

“The department cannot comment on the secretary’s (Hegseth’s) movements for security ⁠reasons, and reporting on such movements is grossly irresponsible,” he told the Post.

United States President Donald Trump has criticised Israel’s recent strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field, as tensions escalate across the Middle East with retaliatory attacks hitting key energy facilities in several countries.

In a message shared by the White House on X early Thursday, Mr Trump stated that the United States had no involvement in the Israeli operation. He said, “Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Pars Gas Field in Iran.”

He added that further attacks on the facility would not occur under certain conditions. According to him, “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field…” unless Iran continues its strikes on Qatar.

The US president also condemned Iran’s response, which targeted gas infrastructure in Qatar. He warned that any additional assault on Qatar’s facilities would trigger severe consequences, including the destruction of “the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field.”

The developments follow reports that Iran launched missiles at the Ras Laffan Industrial City in Qatar. QatarEnergy confirmed that the strike caused fires and “extensive damage.” The company later disclosed that multiple liquefied natural gas facilities were hit, leading to “sizeable fires and extensive further damage.”

Authorities had evacuated the site earlier after Iran announced plans to strike several locations in the region. The move was described as retaliation for earlier attacks on the South Pars gas field, which Iran attributes to Israel and the United States. Washington has since denied any role in that incident.

Beyond Qatar, Iran extended its response to other parts of the region. Two refineries in Saudi Arabia were struck, while the Habshan gas facility in Abu Dhabi was also targeted. The United Arab Emirates subsequently shut down the affected facility.

There has been no official response from Iran regarding Mr Trump’s warning as of the time of filing this report.

Analysts say the latest attacks on critical energy infrastructure could deepen the global gas supply crisis. Prices of gas and other petroleum products have already climbed sharply since late February, when the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran.

The ongoing conflict has claimed more than 1,500 lives, with most of the casualties reported in Iran.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

United States intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran has not resumed efforts to rebuild its nuclear enrichment programme following the destruction of key facilities in a joint US-Israeli strike in June 2025. The finding contrasts with President Donald Trump’s justification for his ongoing military campaign.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard disclosed the assessment in a written submission presented during an annual threat review before the Senate intelligence committee. However, she did not repeat the position while addressing lawmakers in person.

“As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” Gabbard said in the testimony to the Senate intelligence committee.

When questioned by a Democratic senator over the omission during the hearing, Gabbard explained that time constraints prevented her from reading the full statement. She did not dispute the conclusion.

President Trump has consistently defended the February 28 strike on Iran, which was carried out alongside Israel. He cited what he described as an “imminent threat.” After the 2025 bombing, Trump stated that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been completely destroyed. More recently, he has claimed that Tehran was close to producing a nuclear weapon. That position is not widely supported by analysts and comes amid ongoing negotiations over a possible nuclear agreement.

Meanwhile, a senior aide to Gabbard stepped down on Tuesday. The official said there was no “imminent threat” and argued that Trump had been misinformed by both Israel and sections of the media.

In her remarks to senators, Gabbard noted that Iran had suffered significant damage in recent weeks of attacks. The strikes included the killing of longtime supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Despite this, she said the country’s governing system remains in place.

The US intelligence community “assesses the regime in Iran to be intact but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities,” Gabbard said.

She added that if the current leadership remains, it may attempt to rebuild over time.

“If a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a years-long effort to rebuild its military, missiles, and UAV forces,” Gabbard said.

By Prof. Abdalla Uba Adamu 

On Saturday, March 14, 2026, Dr Muhsin Ibrahim shared a newspaper report with me announcing the passing of Jürgen Habermas. The German philosopher died at the age of ninety-six in Starnberg, an affluent town in Upper Bavaria. Muhsin was well aware of how deeply I had drawn on Habermas’s theory of the structural transformation of the public sphere in my research on Muslim Hausa media cultures. 

His passing marks the end of an era in critical social theory. Habermas’s work on communication, rationality, and society made him one of the most influential philosophers of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, as well as a major intellectual figure in postwar Germany.

Many Africanists did not initially read Habermas directly. Rather, they encountered his ideas through mediated theoretical engagements in the writings of scholars such as Brian Larkin. I myself first became aware of the public–private sphere debate as part of the broader Frankfurt School theoretical repertoire in Larkin’s studies of media culture in northern Nigeria. His work contributed significantly to later “post-public sphere” discussions by demonstrating how Habermasian insights could be adapted to different social, cultural, and technological environments.

Of Habermas’s many publications, the one that proved most decisive for me was The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Originally published in German in 1962 and translated into English by Thomas Burger (with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence) in 1989, it is an extraordinarily dense text. One often needs the guidance of someone already conversant with its arguments to appreciate its analytical elegance. 

I was fortunate to own a copy—purchased for me in the pre-digital era by Gillian Belben, then Director of the British Council in Kano. I read it several times before fully grasping how powerfully it provided a framework for understanding public reactions to Hausa films and the emergence of censorship debates.

Habermas’s study retraces the historical emergence of the bourgeois public sphere as a communicative domain distinct from the state, in which private individuals could assemble to discuss matters of common concern. By analysing the transformations of this sphere, he recovered a concept of enduring importance for social and political theory. In simplified terms, the argument draws attention to differentiated social spaces—those of the home and those of the wider public—and to the ways in which each structures particular forms of discussion and social interaction.

I relied heavily on this analytical distinction when I presented my first international seminar at the Institut für Afrikanistik, University of Cologne, on November 15, 2004. Titled “Enter the Dragon: Shari’a, Popular Culture and Film Censorship in Northern Nigeria,” the seminar explored how Hausa films often rendered visible aspects of domestic life traditionally regarded as private, thereby provoking moral anxieties and regulatory responses. By destabilising the boundary between the two spheres, Hausa cinema helped produce new forms of mediated public debate. A dramatic illustration of this dynamic emerged in the widely discussed Hiyana scandal of 2007, in which a private act became publicly circulated, with far-reaching cultural consequences.

The communicative arena that Habermas conceptualised as the bourgeois public sphere appears today in a historically transformed guise within the networked environments of social media. In Muslim societies such as those of northern Nigeria, digital platforms have intensified the long-standing negotiation between domestic moral order and public cultural expression. 

Conversations once confined to living rooms, mosque courtyards, or informal viewing gatherings now unfold in algorithmically structured yet widely accessible communicative spaces. These interactions do not reproduce Habermas’s ideal of rational-critical debate in any straightforward manner. Rather, they reveal plural, affective, and technologically mediated publics in which questions of religious legitimacy, gendered visibility, and cultural authority are continually contested. Social media, therefore, represent not the revival of the bourgeois public sphere but a new phase in its structural transformation — what might tentatively be described as a “third space.”

The world of critical social theory will undoubtedly feel the loss of Jürgen Habermas. Yet his conceptualisation of the public–private divide will continue to shape scholarly reflections on media, communication, and cultural change for years to come.

Readers interested in further discussions of the public–private debate in Islamic contexts may consult:

Kadivar, Mohsen. 2003. An Introduction to the Public and Private Debate in Islam. Social Research 70 (3): 659–680.

Iranian state media has announced the death of Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, following reported Israeli air attacks carried out overnight.

The confirmation came after Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, stated that Larijani and Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani were killed during the strikes.

In a statement issued by his office, Katz alleged that both men lost their lives in the operation.

“I have just been updated by the Chief of Staff that Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and the head of the Basij — Iran’s central repression apparatus — (Soleimani), were eliminated last night,” Katz claimed in a statement released by his ministry.

Earlier reports from Israeli media indicated that Larijani was the intended target of the overnight assault.

The development marks a significant escalation in tensions between Iran and Israel, as both sides continue to exchange accusations over ongoing military actions.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

President Donald Trump has responded to the resignation of Joseph Kent, Director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, following controversy linked to U.S. military action against Iran.

Trump spoke on the development during an interview with Fox News, where he shared his views on Kent’s position on national security and the ongoing conflict involving Iran.

He claimed that he had long held concerns about Kent’s approach. “I always thought he was weak on security. Very weak on security. I didn’t know him well. But I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy. But when I read his statement, I realised that it’s a good thing he’s out because he said Iran was not a threat,” Trump said in a video released by Fox News on Tuesday.

Kent stepped down earlier the same day. His resignation followed criticism of the war in Iran and questions about the reasons behind the military engagement.

In a letter addressed to the president, Kent stated that his decision came after careful consideration. “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” he wrote.

He explained that he could not align himself with the administration’s current foreign policy, especially its military actions. “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he stated.

Kent added that his views were based on principles he believed had guided previous policies. “I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, 2024, which you enacted in your first term. Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation,” he said.

He also criticised what he described as the role of external influence and media narratives. Kent said “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” promoted misinformation that “wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments” encouraging military action.

The former counterterrorism chief warned that U.S. leaders may have been misled about the level of threat posed by Iran. “This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie,” he said.

Reflecting on his personal experience, Kent pointed to the cost of war. “As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives,” he said.

He concluded his message with a call for a policy rethink. “I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for. The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards,” he wrote.

Kent ended his letter on a note of appreciation for his time in office. “It was an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great nation.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, Joseph Kent, has stepped down from his role, citing disagreement with Washington’s military involvement in Iran and questioning the factors behind the conflict.

Kent conveyed his decision in a letter to President Donald Trump. He said he reached the conclusion after careful thought and confirmed that his resignation takes immediate effect.

“After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” he wrote.

He stated that he could no longer support the administration’s current foreign policy, especially its decision to engage Iran militarily.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he stated.

Kent noted that his position reflects principles he believes once shaped U.S. foreign policy.

“I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, 2024, which you enacted in your first term,” Kent wrote.

“Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation.”

He also accused “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” of driving what he described as a misinformation effort. According to him, the campaign “wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments” that encouraged action against Iran.

Kent argued that U.S. leadership received misleading information about the situation.

“This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie,” he said, while drawing a comparison with events that preceded the Iraq war.

He pointed to his own military background to stress the human cost of war.

“As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives,” he said.

Kent urged the president to reconsider the current approach and warned about possible long-term consequences.

“I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for. The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards,” he said.

He ended his letter by expressing gratitude for the opportunity to serve. “It was an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great nation.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has issued a threat against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying it will pursue him and kill him.

The threat appeared in a statement released on Sunday through Sepah News, the official website of the IRGC. In the message, the Iranian military body described Netanyahu as a “child-killing criminal” and warned that it would continue efforts to locate him.

“If this criminal, the killer of children, is still alive, we will continue working to hunt him down and kill him with all our strength,” the statement reads.

The development came as speculation circulated on social media about the Israeli leader’s health and whereabouts.

Israel’s prime minister’s office dismissed the claims. It said the reports spreading online were false and confirmed that Netanyahu was in good condition.

“These are fake news; the Prime Minister is fine,” the office told Anadolu Agency in response to claims circulating on social media that Netanyahu had been killed in retaliation for the strikes.

The rumours intensified after a video of Netanyahu circulated online. Some social media users claimed the clip showed him with “six fingers”.

The unusual detail raised suspicion that the footage might have been created with artificial intelligence. This added to the speculation about the Israeli leader’s condition and location.

The IRGC’s threat comes as the confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the United States continues. The conflict has now entered its 16th day.

On the morning of February 28, the United States and Israel carried out air strikes inside Iranian territory.

Iran responded with military action. Its forces launched ballistic missiles and drones toward Israel. The country also carried out missile and drone attacks against United States bases and targets in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan.

By Dr. Umar Musa Kallah

As the US-Israeli war against Iran enters its second week, the initial narrative of a rapid Western triumph has collapsed. What began with coordinated strikes on Iranian leadership and infrastructure has instead unleashed a sophisticated Iranian counter-campaign rooted in decades of preparation, control of global chokepoints, and asymmetric warfare. Verifiable maritime data, energy market reports, and military analyses confirm that Iran is not merely holding ground, it is systematically eroding the economic foundations of American power and its Gulf allies.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz stands as Iran’s most potent immediate weapon. Since Iran’s declaration and attacks on transiting vessels in early March 2026, shipping traffic has effectively halted, with oil and LNG flows, representing roughly 20% of global trade is severely disrupted. Global crude prices have spiked, insurance markets have pulled coverage, and Asian importers face acute shortages. This is no bluff: tanker tracking and satellite imagery show near-total cessation of commercial traffic, directly strangling revenues for US-aligned Gulf states.

Tehran has complemented this blockade with hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones targeting US military installations and infrastructure across Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Strikes have damaged communication systems, radar sites, and air bases, including the US Fifth Fleet headquarters and Al Udeid Air Base. The cost asymmetry is telling: cheap Iranian drones and missiles exhaust multimillion-dollar Western interceptors at a pace that cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Iran has also struck desalination plants and power infrastructure critical to Gulf freshwater supplies. With over 90% of drinking water in several Gulf nations dependent on energy-intensive desalination, these targeted hits are creating humanitarian pressure and accelerating economic paralysis. By weaponizing both energy exports and water security, Tehran is holding civilian populations and regional economies hostage.

This economic siege directly undermines the Gulf sovereign wealth funds that have bankrolled much of America’s AI boom. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala have channeled tens of billions into US tech, data centers, and AI ventures. With oil revenues frozen, airspace closed, and infrastructure under fire, these funds are already curtailing new commitments to American projects. The resulting capital drought threatens Silicon Valley valuations and risks triggering a broader stock-market correction, a strategic blow at the heart of US technological supremacy.

None of this is improvised. Iran has spent decades building precisely this capacity: an estimated pre-war arsenal of thousands of ballistic missiles, mass-produced drones, and resilient proxy networks designed for attrition warfare. Its high-ranking scientists and engineers have indigenously advanced these systems through reverse-engineering and innovation, often drawing on historical technological exchanges. Battle-hardened IRGC commanders , seasoned warlords operating with decentralized command, coordinate the response, while a population of over 90 million, tempered by generations of sanctions and pressure, demonstrates profound civilizational resilience and refusal to surrender easily.

This internal steel is coupled with broader strategic depth from longstanding partnerships. Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan have provided diplomatic condemnation of the US-Israeli aggression, alongside decades of technological collaboration in missiles, drones, and defense systems that now equip Iran to endure. While direct military intervention has been limited, these ties  combined with Iran’s own preparations will ensure sustained resistance that outlasts Western political will and munitions stockpiles.

The world now faces Tehran’s calculated endgame: choking global energy arteries, disrupting vital water supplies, and redirecting Gulf capital away from American innovation. Every day of blockade, every intercepted drone salvo, and every sign of Iranian societal cohesion deepens the strain on Washington and its partners. Iran did not stumble into this conflict; it prepared for it across a lifetime of strategic patience. As oil prices climb, water crises intensify, AI investments falter, and resilient Iranian forces continue to dictate the tempo, the balance of power is shifting decisively.

The verifiable data from shipping trackers, strike assessments, and resilience analyses  is clear: Iran is not on the defensive. It is leveraging geography, technology, alliances, and unbreakable national will to hold the world ransom. Tehran is on course to prevail.

Dr Umar Musa Kallah, a writer and community advocate, can be reached via yakubunasirukhalid@gmail.com.