Tariq Saeedi
As I step back and look at the broader picture after nearly three weeks of fighting, one truth stands out: this is not a conventional war with clear lines between opposing forces. It is a composite conflict, layered with multiple battles playing out simultaneously—military, economic, informational, and ideological.
Not every participant is firing shots; some are watching carefully from the sidelines, calculating risks and opportunities.
The absence of a straightforward termination point is becoming increasingly apparent. There is no single objective whose achievement would allow both sides to declare victory and walk away.
At its core, the war carries a religious dimension that neither side openly emphasizes but that quietly shapes their resolve. American and Israeli rhetoric has at times invoked biblical framing, while Iranian statements draw on Shia eschatology and the tradition of endurance through martyrdom.
Each side finds justification in its own prophetic texts, turning what began as a security operation into something deeper and harder to resolve through conventional diplomacy. This does not make it a medieval crusade in the literal sense, yet the underlying convictions add a layer of persistence that pure geopolitical calculations might not sustain.
Without clear, measurable goals, the conflict risks continuing until one side exhausts its material resources or its collective will. That prospect places President Trump on particularly thin ice.
Earlier actions—the swift operation in Venezuela, unilateral tariff measures, and public musings about acquiring Greenland and Cuba—have already eroded some of his international credibility.
He has emphasized that his decisions are guided primarily by his own judgment rather than external constraints. In a conflict without defined endpoints, that personal latitude becomes both a source of flexibility and a point of uncertainty for allies and adversaries alike.
Public sentiment across much of the world adds another dimension. While governments tread carefully, ordinary citizens in many countries appear to be quietly rooting for Iran’s ability to withstand pressure—not out of particular affection for Tehran, but from a deeper instinct of self-preservation. The question echoes in private conversations and online discourse: if Iran falls quickly under this model of pre-emptive action, who stands next? That collective unease limits open support for escalation and keeps many capitals on the sidelines.
Israel’s objectives remain harder to define in public statements. The original concern over Iran’s nuclear programme was presented as urgent, yet independent assessments before the strikes suggested the threat was not yet operational.
The current fighting may, ironically, accelerate Iran’s determination to develop such capabilities rather than eliminate the possibility. What began as a targeted operation has broadened into a wider contest whose end conditions are difficult to specify.
Meanwhile, new economic and geopolitical vectors continue to emerge. China has announced zero-tariff treatment for imports from 53 African countries, effective from May 1, 2026. The move is largely symbolic in immediate trade volume but carries a clear message about alternative poles of economic gravity at a moment when traditional alliances are under strain.
The petrodollar system itself—oil priced and settled primarily in U.S. dollars since the 1970s—faces growing pressure. While the majority of global oil trade remains dollar-denominated, parallel channels have expanded. Significant volumes, particularly in trade involving Russia, China, and sanctioned producers, are now settled in yuan or other currencies, with some estimates placing non-dollar portions of certain flows in the 20–30 percent range in recent years.
Iran has stated it will allow passage through the Strait of Hormuz for tankers whose crude was purchased in yuan rather than dollars. These shifts, though gradual, illustrate a broader contest between raw power projection and control over economic architecture.
In that contest, the so-called Board of Peace surrounding the U.S. administration has disappointed many who place faith in institutional checks, democratic norms, and the rule of law.
At the same time, Iran—operating within far more constrained resources—has demonstrated a level of adaptive sophistication that has earned measured respect even from critics. Its use of low-cost, persistent systems alongside careful diplomatic outreach has complicated assumptions about technological and material superiority.
The growing interest in alternatives to SWIFT, such as China’s CIPS, reflects the same underlying tension. When the dollar’s reach is perceived as a tool of enforcement rather than neutral infrastructure, incentives to build parallel systems intensify.
All of these threads—religious conviction, economic realignment, public unease, and the absence of agreed endpoints—suggest that this composite conflict lacks a natural off-switch.
Exhaustion is a possible conclusion, but not a desirable one.
A negotiated settlement, however imperfect, remains the more rational path. The sooner serious diplomacy can create a face-saving framework that addresses core security concerns on all sides, the less likely the region—and the wider world—will pay a prolonged price for a war whose boundaries and conclusion points were never clearly drawn. /// nCa, 17 March 2026