The United States and Israel attack Iran in the midst of negotiations

The Middle East is sliding into a military confrontation with incalculable regional consequences.

Indeed, the joint offensive launched on the morning of February 28, 2026, was presented by Washington as a preemptive action and by Tel Aviv as “Operation Lion’s Roar.” The attack mobilized a combination of cruise missiles, armed drones, and fighter jets, targeting several Iranian regions, including Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, Kermanshah, and Tabriz. Explosions were reported in urban areas, causing damage to residential neighborhoods and disruptions to electricity and telephone networks.

The strikes targeted not only military installations but also civilian and industrial infrastructure. Media reports mention, in particular, the attack on a girls’ school in Minab, in Hormozgan province, where several dozen students were killed, raising serious concerns about the potentially indiscriminate nature of the operation. Military targets included ballistic missile production sites, drone depots, and the residences of Iranian military and civilian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

This strategy is part of a maximum pressure campaign aimed at neutralizing what US authorities consider an imminent nuclear threat. However, the choice to use force when a diplomatic compromise was possible constitutes a deliberate sabotage of the international negotiation process.

Russia’s warning and the global nuclear issue

The international community – from Africa to the Caribbean, and across Asia and Latin America – reacted swiftly, notably through the strong condemnation issued by the Russian Foreign Minister. He described the strikes as an unjustified act of armed aggression and warned that their consequences could extend throughout the Middle East and affect strategic balances involving Russia. China, Brazil, and virtually all countries of the Global South adopted the same stance, with the exception of the Arab world, from the Maghreb to the Gulf, which appears to support Washington and Tel Aviv.

Russian concerns focus primarily on the humanitarian, economic, and radiological risks associated with attacks on sites under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In an interview with Al Arabiya, published on his ministry’s official website, Lavrov recalled that previous strikes – notably those planned for 2025 – had already targeted Iranian nuclear facilities monitored by the IAEA, creating a “direct risk of a nuclear incident.” He emphasized that, according to information from Iranian counterparts, the situation had “partially stabilized,” but that the recent attacks compel Tehran to reconsider the physical security of nuclear materials under international supervision, facilities that, he asserted, “should never have been targeted.”

This situation also reveals a weakening of the global non-proliferation regime. By targeting facilities linked to international nuclear control, the attacking powers have undermined the authority of the IAEA and called into question the commitments of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The crisis thus illustrates a clash between the logic of strategic coercion and security-based multilateralism.

Iran’s response as a sovereign defensive deterrence strategy

In response to the aggression, Iran immediately launched a coordinated military response. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched salvos of ballistic missiles and drones targeting several strategic locations in Israel, including the areas surrounding Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa.

The Iranian response also extended to US military bases in the Gulf, including facilities in Bahrain (headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet), Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. These strikes triggered air raid alerts and the implementation of emergency measures in several countries in the region.

Tehran justifies this action by invoking the right to self-defense recognized by international law, asserting that its response was calibrated to defend national sovereignty without provoking a full-scale war. This stance reflects a deterrence strategy aimed at demonstrating Iran’s military capability while avoiding a direct confrontation that could transform the crisis into a widespread regional conflict.

Regional fragmentation and the risks of conflict spreading

The current crisis is exacerbating the geopolitical divisions in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and other regional countries have already openly expressed their intention to support the US-Israeli coalition should the conflict escalate, illustrating the persistent polarization of the regional system.

Since the political upheavals of recent years, the region remains vulnerable to strategic rivalries and proxy wars. The absence of an effective collective security mechanism fosters cycles of military escalation and increases the likelihood of a wider confrontation involving multiple state actors.

Global strategic challenges

Beyond the military confrontation, the crisis highlights the relative failure of traditional diplomatic mechanisms in the face of power dynamics. The use of force during nuclear negotiations reveals the priority given to strategic coercion at the expense of a gradual approach based on compromise.

The current escalation undermines the stability of the international security system and exposes the vulnerability of humanitarian law to major geopolitical rivalries. Civilian and nuclear infrastructure under international supervision must be protected to prevent incidents with catastrophic consequences.

The future of the Middle East will depend on the ability of international and regional actors to prioritize diplomatic de-escalation, restore credible multilateral dialogue, and strengthen regional security governance. The current crisis transcends mere military considerations; it represents a historic test for international cooperation and the collective management of conflicts.

It is therefore clear that this military escalation illustrates the fragility of the contemporary security order in the Middle East. The current confrontation is not limited to a military clash but represents a confrontation between different visions of international security. The strategic priority remains the search for a lasting diplomatic solution in order to avoid an irreversible conflagration in the region and to preserve the foundations of regional stability based on international law and collective cooperation.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook