With Iran war, US goes it alone like never before
Washington (United States) (AFP) – When the United States fought the 1991 Gulf War, president George H.W. Bush boasted of building a broad coalition unseen in decades. When his son attacked Iraq in 2003, he faced wide criticism but secured several steadfast US allies.
Issued on: 05/03/2026 - FRANCE24
Demonstrators against the war in Iran trample on a portrait of US President Donald Trump during a protest as they march toward the US embassy in Baghdad © AHMAD AL-RUBAYE / AFP
Now, a generation later, President Donald Trump has attacked Iran, and he is barely even trying to make friends.
Trump launched the war alongside Israel, which had long pressed the United States to strike Iran's ruling clerics.
Trump's strategy toward other countries has been focused on intensely pressuring them to cooperate and loudly complaining when they say no.
Trump berated crucial ally Britain as "very, very uncooperative" and said of Prime Minister Keir Starmer: "This is not Winston Churchill we're dealing with."
The center-left prime minister had restricted US warplanes to using two British bases and only for "defensive" purposes, saying he did not believe in "regime change from the skies."
Trump threatened to cut off all trade with Spain after left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez refused to let US forces use bases.
The United States and Israel made no pretense of going through the United Nations before launching the war that quickly killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader.
"It essentially sends the message to the world that Trump's United States sees itself above the law and doesn't even think it needs to claim otherwise," said Kristina Kausch, a deputy managing director at the German Marshall Fund.
She said the war only reinforced European perceptions of Trump, who has stunned the continent by threatening to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark.
"The degree to which there is US isolation or loss of soft power will depend on how disastrous the consequences of this decision," she said of the Iran attack.
Now, a generation later, President Donald Trump has attacked Iran, and he is barely even trying to make friends.
Trump launched the war alongside Israel, which had long pressed the United States to strike Iran's ruling clerics.
Trump's strategy toward other countries has been focused on intensely pressuring them to cooperate and loudly complaining when they say no.
Trump berated crucial ally Britain as "very, very uncooperative" and said of Prime Minister Keir Starmer: "This is not Winston Churchill we're dealing with."
The center-left prime minister had restricted US warplanes to using two British bases and only for "defensive" purposes, saying he did not believe in "regime change from the skies."
Trump threatened to cut off all trade with Spain after left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez refused to let US forces use bases.
The United States and Israel made no pretense of going through the United Nations before launching the war that quickly killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader.
"It essentially sends the message to the world that Trump's United States sees itself above the law and doesn't even think it needs to claim otherwise," said Kristina Kausch, a deputy managing director at the German Marshall Fund.
She said the war only reinforced European perceptions of Trump, who has stunned the continent by threatening to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark.
"The degree to which there is US isolation or loss of soft power will depend on how disastrous the consequences of this decision," she said of the Iran attack.
Refocusing on nation-state
Trump has withdrawn the United States from numerous international bodies, vowing to go it alone in an "America First" foreign policy and to re-emphasize the centrality of the nation-state.
Nadia Schadlow, who was deputy national security advisor in Trump's first term, said the war showed how countries cannot rely on the United Nations when they believe security interests are at stake.
A plume of smoke rises after a strike on Tehran © ATTA KENARE / AFP
"I believe that the UN has value for collaboration, for discussion, for debate. But I don't believe it can prevent wars, especially when one country is determined, and feels that it must act in the interests of its national security," said Schadlow, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
"It seems that the decision-makers made a determination that security and surprise were critical and were more important than consultation."
Rare unambiguous statements of support for the war came from the right-wing leaders of Argentina and Paraguay as well as from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia, which has fought alongside the US in every major war.
Albanese backed action "to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney voiced similar support, although he soon called for de-escalation.
French President Emmanuel Macron opposed the attack as running counter to international law, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz voiced hope for an end to the Islamic republic while hoping the war will be short.
Washington has shown little interest in sensitivities of friendly countries.
The United States torpedoed an Iranian warship that had just paid a goodwill visit to India, a frequent US partner, killing at least 84 sailors off Sri Lanka, after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vowed to reject "stupid rules of engagement."
Strategic benefit for China?
Iran, like Venezuela where Trump removed the president in January, had a privileged relationship with both Russia and China -- which were unwilling or unable to defend their allies against US firepower.
China has also relied on the two countries for oil, although it had reduced its dependence.
But the war could also benefit China. US forces are rapidly using up bombs, missiles and other resources that could be used in a theoretical defense of Taiwan, which Beijing claims, and Beijing is able to observe US war operations in Iran, said Jacob Stokes, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
Chinese strategists had described the first two decades of the century as a time of opportunity with the United States preoccupied in Afghanistan and Iraq, Stokes said.
"There is this potential for a grand strategic benefit, as Beijing is quite happy to see the United States get bogged down in the Middle East again," he added.
© 2026 AFP
Trump Says US To Play Role In Choosing Iran’s Next Leader As Conflict Widens
.png)
March 6, 2026
By RFE RL
President Donald Trump said Washington will help choose the next leader of Iran as US and Israeli forces continued air strikes amid growing concerns of a broader conflict after drones launched from Iran struck Azerbaijan and Israel pushed into southern Lebanon.
With the United States and Israel currently engaged in a sixth day of war against Iran, the number of countries in the region to suffer Tehran’s retaliatory strikes, which have targeted both military and civilian infrastructure, grew again on March 5.
Trump, speaking to Reuters in a phone interview, said he wants to be involved in choosing Iran’s next leader, while ruling out Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – a hardliner who has been considered a favorite to succeed his father.
“We want to be involved in the process of choosing the person who is going to lead Iran into the future,” he was quoted by the agency as saying.
“We don’t have to go back every five years and do this again and again…Somebody that’s going to be great for the people, great for the country.”
The supreme leader was killed last weekend in air strikes as US and Israeli military operations pummeled the country.
Since then, a steady barrage of strikes have decimated Iran’s military, communications infrastructure, and other key facilities across the country.
Iran has retaliated with attacks on US military bases across the Middle East, dragging Arab Gulf states — and others such as Turkey and Azerbaijan — onto the frontlines of a war they have long tried to avoid.
Iran’s neighbor Azerbaijan, which has longstanding ties with Israel, reported attacks launched from Iranian territory on March 5.
Two people were injured after drones have struck Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan autonomous region, with one damaging the region’s airport and a second landing near a school, according to Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry.
President Ilham Aliyev said that “Iran committed an act of terror against the territory of Azerbaijan, against the state of Azerbaijan” with the attack, while the Foreign Ministry said Baku “reserves the right to respond.”
Later in the day, Iran’s Foreign Ministry denied that the country had targeted Azerbaijan.
Millions of ethnic Azerbaijanis live in Iran. Azerbaijan is also one of the main oil suppliers to Israel, while Israel has been a key defense partner for Baku for years.
Many in Azerbaijan see Israel’s military supplies as critical during country’s campaign to regain control of the Karabakh region from Armenia.
A day earlier, a ballistic missile launched from Iran was heading toward Turkish airspace and was intercepted by NATO air defense systems, according to Turkish officials.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte condemned Iran but said the incident does not provide immediate reason to trigger the alliance’s mutual defense clause, Article 5.
“The most important thing is that our adversaries have seen yesterday that NATO is so strong and so vigilant, and even more vigilant, if possible, since Saturday,” Rutte said on March 5, referring to when the US-Israeli strikes began on February 28.
Earlier, a State Department spokesman said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan to discuss recent developments and had pledged “full support” for the NATO ally.
Ukraine To Provide Expertise Against Iran’s Drones
As air travel disruptions continued across the Middle East with Iran firing missiles and drones against Israel and other regional countries, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his offers to provide support in countering Tehran’s Shahed drones were accepted.
“We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against Shaheds in the Middle East region,” Zelenskyy said on his social media on March 5.
Tehran has long been an ally of Russia, supplying it with military equipment and technology and fueling Moscow’s war effort against Ukraine. Zelenskyy said earlier that Russia’s military had used at least 57,000 Shahed drones in attacks on his country, including against its civilian and energy infrastructure.
Now, the Ukrainian president said Kyiv will help its partners with expertise: “I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security.”
Ukraine, which has just entered the fifth year of repelling Russia’s full-scale invasion, has been suggesting to share its experience in defending against Iranian-made drones since the first Iranian attacks across the Gulf.
Asked on the matter, US President Donald Trump, who has previously criticized some of the European leaders for failing to provide enough support for US military actions said he’ll take “any assistance from any country.”
Trump: US Holds ‘Strong Position’
Trump on March 4 vowed that there would be no let up with the joint air campaign that has killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other security, military, and political leaders.
He added that Tehran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles was being “wiped out rapidly.”
Trump has said he ordered the attack on Iran to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapon but has also said he wanted Tehran to cease its ballistic missile program and to end violence against anti-government protesters, thousands of whom were killed in a brutal crackdown in recent weeks.
Seeking to counter concerns of American ‘”boots on the ground” in the war, the White House on March 4 said deployment of US ground troops in Iran is “not part of the plan for this operation at this time.”
Instead, Trump backed the Kurds in launching their own offensive, saying he thinks it’s “wonderful that they want to do that.” Asked by Reuters if the United States would offer air cover for such an operation, Trump refused to answer.
Earlier in the week, sources told Axios that the president spoke with Kurdish leaders, who sought consultation on whether and how to attack Tehran’s security forces.
Netanyahu Claims ‘Historic Gains’
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said the two allies had made “historic gains” in their war against Iran, which is in its sixth day.
“Israel and the United States have together made historic gains to protect our citizens and the civilized world,” government spokeswoman Shosh Bedrosian said in a video message.
As Bedrosian also claimed the attack on Iran was necessary as Tehran was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program in “new underground bunkers” and that there were signs it planned “to attack Israel and US forces in the region,” without providing details.
Separately, Israel stepped up its attacks on strongholds of Iran-allied Hezbollah forces in Lebanon after the group launched missiles into northern Israel. According to Israeli military, Tel Aviv’s goal was to create “a buffer…between our residents and any threat,”
French President Emmanuel Macron on March 4 said he urged Netanyahu to refrain from launching a ground offensive in Lebanon.
“I reiterated the necessity for Hezbollah to immediately cease its attacks on Israel and beyond. This escalatory strategy is a grave mistake that puts the entire region at risk,” Macron wrote on X.
“I also called on the Israeli Prime Minister to preserve the integrity of Lebanese territory and to refrain from launching a ground offensive. It is crucial for the parties to return to the ceasefire agreement,” Macron added.
Reports indicate that Israeli ground forces have already crossed the border into Lebanon, although details remain unclear.
On March 5, Israeli military warned residents in Beirut’s southern suburbs to evacuate immediately. “Save your lives and evacuate your residences immediately,” Israel’s military forces spokesman Avichay Adraee said on X.
With reporting by RFE/RL’s Radio Farda, RFE/RL correspondent Alex Raufoglu in Washington
RFE/RL journalists report the news in 21 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established.
Middle East Conflict: Who Benefits? – Interview
March 6, 2026
By Gateway House
The conflict in West Asia is already having global reverberations. The firepower on display on all sides is formidable, increasing casualties and limiting travel, expatriate mobility and trade. The takedown of refineries and energy assets will severely impact the global energy flows. Prices of crude oil and natural gas have already increased as energy flows through the Straits of Hormuz have been affected. Countries across the world are watching nervously. Our experts, Security Fellow Lt. General Narasimhan and Energy Fellow Amit Bhandari, discuss the ongoing West Asian conflict, how it will pan out, and its implications for India.
Q: How will the conflict evolve from this point? How long is it likely to last?
A: This conflict was a long time coming. First, the U.S. and Israel went after Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025, but it was clear that Iran had moved its nuclear infrastructure somewhere safe, and the attacks did not actually achieve what they had sought to. Second, there were already negotiations going on with Iran to sort out the issues of its nuclear programme – and no progress was made even in the last meeting, which was at the end of February. For the U.S. and Israel, it seems to have tilted the balance in favour of launching an offensive. But clearly the U.S. has been preparing for this conflict for almost two or three months now. This is visible by the fact that almost 50% of deployable fighter aircraft have been moved to this theatre, along with aircraft carrier groups and a number of other ships. So the conflict was expected.
Now that it has begun, what happens next? Iran has approximately 2,000 to 2,500 missiles – they have launched only a few so far, 70-100 missiles at the six or seven Gulf countries, which can beat the air defence of that country.
The initial U.S.-Israel attack has wiped out Iran’s leadership – but they had planned for this, and the plans have been implemented. In this case, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) gets split into 31 autonomous units – one for Tehran and the other 30 for each of the provinces. Each of these units can make their own decisions, pick their own targets and do what they have to do. This mosaic defence plan has multiple parts to it, including decentralised decision-making. In case of an attack on Iran, they are to adopt defence in depth, meaning layered defences.
The third part is survivability over winning. Finally, they will also go into asymmetric or guerrilla warfare in case of an invasion by the U.S. and Israel – something that has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their objective is to cause as much damage as they can to the U.S. and Israel.
If the conflict stops at missiles and aerial bombing, it should end within a week or two. But if it goes into an invasion and asymmetric guerrilla warfare situation, there is no limit to how long it can go on for.
Q: Iran has used drones and missiles on a large scale in the conflict so far. Are there any lessons for India from this conflict, especially given our own experience during Operation Sindoor last year? Also, how is the evolution of armed conflicts in the drone era, as witnessed in the past three or four conflicts?
A: The large-scale use of drones started during the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. It was then used in Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, India-Pakistan, and now this West Asia war.
Q: What are the wider geopolitical implications of the conflict, especially for China and Russia? Are there any beneficiaries of this conflict?
A: The first beneficiary of this conflict is of course, Israel. The White House did not expect any kind of a threat from Iran over the next decade. If Iran gets weakened in some form, the first beneficiary is Israel. Second, the U.S. can always boast about regime change and having caused them damage. But they will not be able to take out Iran’s nuclear deterrent.
For China, Iran is a source of oil – China kept importing oil from Iran even during the sanctions period. Chinese ships would switch off their transponders while loading up on Iranian oil in the Gulf. They may have to source this oil from other areas such as Russia. So far, China has made just anodyne statements about a need to end violence.
China will just sit this conflict out, because in any case, either the U.S., Israel, or Iran will be weakened – China will benefit from any or all of this.
India, too, has made anodyne statements. While India seems to have picked a side in the conflict, there hasn’t been any physical support. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Israel just before the conflict began. There is a parallel to that – Russia’s President Putin went to China at the start of the Winter Olympics in February 2022 before the Ukraine conflict began.
Q: What has been the impact of this conflict on the energy space?
A: The perception in the energy markets is that this will be a short conflict, which may be over in two or four weeks. We know that 20% of the global oil supply passes through the Straits of Hormuz, and traffic has reduced considerably in the past few days. Hypothetically, if the traffic were to stop for two or four weeks, or longer, there would be widespread panic in the energy markets. That hasn’t happened – the price for Brent is still $78-79/barrel. If there is a serious concern about the stoppage of traffic in the straits, the price would be far higher.
Iran has started to target a number of energy installations – a Saudi refinery, a Kuwaiti refinery, and a UAE oil platform. The attacks on oil infrastructure are partly an attempt to create panic amongst other countries. Oil buyers don’t worry about where they import oil from – West Asia or somewhere else. If the price of oil goes up, it goes up for everyone. So it may be an attempt to induce a larger panic in the global community so that some kind of a negotiated settlement or off-ramp could be created.
Finally, Russia is going to be one of the beneficiaries of the conflict, as it is the second-largest exporter of oil in the world. At this point in time, when there is a concern around a large source of supply, the world economy cannot have another big supplier being pushed out of the marketplace completely.
About the author:
By Gateway House
The conflict in West Asia is already having global reverberations. The firepower on display on all sides is formidable, increasing casualties and limiting travel, expatriate mobility and trade. The takedown of refineries and energy assets will severely impact the global energy flows. Prices of crude oil and natural gas have already increased as energy flows through the Straits of Hormuz have been affected. Countries across the world are watching nervously. Our experts, Security Fellow Lt. General Narasimhan and Energy Fellow Amit Bhandari, discuss the ongoing West Asian conflict, how it will pan out, and its implications for India.
Q: How will the conflict evolve from this point? How long is it likely to last?
A: This conflict was a long time coming. First, the U.S. and Israel went after Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025, but it was clear that Iran had moved its nuclear infrastructure somewhere safe, and the attacks did not actually achieve what they had sought to. Second, there were already negotiations going on with Iran to sort out the issues of its nuclear programme – and no progress was made even in the last meeting, which was at the end of February. For the U.S. and Israel, it seems to have tilted the balance in favour of launching an offensive. But clearly the U.S. has been preparing for this conflict for almost two or three months now. This is visible by the fact that almost 50% of deployable fighter aircraft have been moved to this theatre, along with aircraft carrier groups and a number of other ships. So the conflict was expected.
Now that it has begun, what happens next? Iran has approximately 2,000 to 2,500 missiles – they have launched only a few so far, 70-100 missiles at the six or seven Gulf countries, which can beat the air defence of that country.
The initial U.S.-Israel attack has wiped out Iran’s leadership – but they had planned for this, and the plans have been implemented. In this case, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) gets split into 31 autonomous units – one for Tehran and the other 30 for each of the provinces. Each of these units can make their own decisions, pick their own targets and do what they have to do. This mosaic defence plan has multiple parts to it, including decentralised decision-making. In case of an attack on Iran, they are to adopt defence in depth, meaning layered defences.
The third part is survivability over winning. Finally, they will also go into asymmetric or guerrilla warfare in case of an invasion by the U.S. and Israel – something that has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their objective is to cause as much damage as they can to the U.S. and Israel.
If the conflict stops at missiles and aerial bombing, it should end within a week or two. But if it goes into an invasion and asymmetric guerrilla warfare situation, there is no limit to how long it can go on for.
Q: Iran has used drones and missiles on a large scale in the conflict so far. Are there any lessons for India from this conflict, especially given our own experience during Operation Sindoor last year? Also, how is the evolution of armed conflicts in the drone era, as witnessed in the past three or four conflicts?
A: The large-scale use of drones started during the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. It was then used in Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, India-Pakistan, and now this West Asia war.
Q: What are the wider geopolitical implications of the conflict, especially for China and Russia? Are there any beneficiaries of this conflict?
A: The first beneficiary of this conflict is of course, Israel. The White House did not expect any kind of a threat from Iran over the next decade. If Iran gets weakened in some form, the first beneficiary is Israel. Second, the U.S. can always boast about regime change and having caused them damage. But they will not be able to take out Iran’s nuclear deterrent.
For China, Iran is a source of oil – China kept importing oil from Iran even during the sanctions period. Chinese ships would switch off their transponders while loading up on Iranian oil in the Gulf. They may have to source this oil from other areas such as Russia. So far, China has made just anodyne statements about a need to end violence.
China will just sit this conflict out, because in any case, either the U.S., Israel, or Iran will be weakened – China will benefit from any or all of this.
India, too, has made anodyne statements. While India seems to have picked a side in the conflict, there hasn’t been any physical support. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Israel just before the conflict began. There is a parallel to that – Russia’s President Putin went to China at the start of the Winter Olympics in February 2022 before the Ukraine conflict began.
Q: What has been the impact of this conflict on the energy space?
A: The perception in the energy markets is that this will be a short conflict, which may be over in two or four weeks. We know that 20% of the global oil supply passes through the Straits of Hormuz, and traffic has reduced considerably in the past few days. Hypothetically, if the traffic were to stop for two or four weeks, or longer, there would be widespread panic in the energy markets. That hasn’t happened – the price for Brent is still $78-79/barrel. If there is a serious concern about the stoppage of traffic in the straits, the price would be far higher.
Iran has started to target a number of energy installations – a Saudi refinery, a Kuwaiti refinery, and a UAE oil platform. The attacks on oil infrastructure are partly an attempt to create panic amongst other countries. Oil buyers don’t worry about where they import oil from – West Asia or somewhere else. If the price of oil goes up, it goes up for everyone. So it may be an attempt to induce a larger panic in the global community so that some kind of a negotiated settlement or off-ramp could be created.
Finally, Russia is going to be one of the beneficiaries of the conflict, as it is the second-largest exporter of oil in the world. At this point in time, when there is a concern around a large source of supply, the world economy cannot have another big supplier being pushed out of the marketplace completely.
About the author:
Lt Gen S L Narasimhan is the Adjunct Distinguished Fellow for China and National Security Studies at Gateway House.
Amit Bhandari is the Senior Fellow on Energy, Investment and Connectivity.
Source: This article was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.
Gateway House
Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations is a foreign policy think-tank established in 2009, to engage India’s leading corporations and individuals in debate and scholarship on India’s foreign policy and its role in global affairs. Gateway House’s studies programme will be at the heart of the institute’s scholarship, with original research by global and local scholars in Geo-economics, Geopolitics, Foreign Policy analysis, Bilateral relations, Democracy and nation-building, National security, ethnic conflict and terrorism, Science, technology and innovation, and Energy and Environment.
