Written By:
- Date published:
5:31 pm, February 22nd, 2026 - 22 comments
Categories: uncategorized -
Tags:
If Israel and the US attack Iran, the cosy worlds of Europe, Australia and New Zealand could be swept up in an economic catastrophe. Should the Iranians survive a terrifying onslaught, they have vowed to strike back in a way that could crash the global economy. How they could quite possibly do this is the topic of this article.
The leaders of the Islamic Republic – love them or hate them – know that they face an existential threat; that the continued existence of a unified state called Iran is imperilled. They also know that the collective West will not stand up for international law and the proscription on launching wars of aggression. Under these circumstances a state will sacrifice anything to survive, including hitherto unthinkable acts like sinking the USS Abraham Lincoln, the glory of the American war machine.
All the signs are pointing to a new Shock and Awe campaign by the United States. The goal, as it was in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, is a fast knock-out. Mission Accomplished in a few weeks. War, however, seldom goes entirely to plan – the Americans never expected they would spend 20 years in Afghanistan and waste trillions of dollars to move from the Taliban regime to … the Taliban regime.
Here is a selection of options open to the Iranians if they survive the initial onslaught.
Without firing a single missile, Iran can likely bring all flights into and out of the entire Gulf region to a shuddering halt. That’s 500,000 passengers per day. Over 180 million passengers pass through Doha, Abu Dhabi and Dubai every year.
Simply issuing a warning that the entire Gulf region is an air combat zone will put the brakes on all major airlines, effectively severing the primary link between Europe, Asia and Australasia for as long as Iran hangs on. Insurance companies would issue a cancel note on all policies (for airlines, passengers, airports, provisioners) for the entire region.
No airline will defy this interdiction. Would Qantas, for example, fly one of its A380s loaded with mums, dads and kids into a potential kill zone? The Iranians could underscore the seriousness by firing a couple of missiles onto runways or using EW (electronic warfare tools) to spoof or harass planes.
Iran will likely mine the Strait of Hormuz 33 km (21 miles) wide, making it instantly uninsurable for any oil or LNG tanker to move into or out of the Gulf. Huge numbers of smart mines (that can recognize the acoustic signature of a tanker) will be deployed as well as hundreds of semi-submersible drone boats. Spread out across the Gulf are thousands of short-range anti-ship missiles that will be virtually impossible to suppress.
With no tankers in, no tankers out from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Iran itself, the 21 million barrels of oil and LNG that passes through the strait every day will cease instantly. The price shock will be greater than any previous oil spike. Smaller, out of the way places, like New Zealand could find themselves starved of diesel. According to a recent New Zealand government report our agricultural sector would crater within 90 days.
Once seeded into the Gulf, the mines could take months after the war has ended to clear.
A high-value target for Iran would be the Leviathan and Tamar gas platforms in the Mediterranean. Iran, with saturation swarms of drones used in combination with high-velocity ballistic missiles, could likely break through the defenses and devastate a pillar of the Israeli energy system.
Iran, certainly for the moment, has the strike capability to close the Suez Canal.
Western countries have yawned with indifference and not lifted an eyebrow to support the Palestinians throughout the genocide or called out the US and Israel for violent attacks that have shredded the UN Charter. Shutting the Canal, possibly for many months, will definitely get their attention. By severing this artery, Iran and its allies will transfer the shock wave of the war directly to the doorsteps of Western consumers and industry.
Combined, the Houthis and Iran have an arsenal of low-cost loitering munitions, anti-ship ballistic missiles and kamikaze boats that can enforce a blockade. As with the Gulf’s airspace, simply by declaring a Maritime Exclusion Zone across the Red Sea, the Suez Canal route becomes uninsurable for the duration of the conflict, thereby forcing the re-routing of ships around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. This adds two weeks to cargo shipments, ties up about 12% of global freight ships, harms modern just-in-time supply chains and spikes prices for countless products.
Very little attention has been paid to Azerbaijan and yet it could play a pivotal role in the denouement of the upcoming calamity. Azerbaijan, with Iran to the south and the Caspian Sea to the east, is a US-Israeli ally. It supplies Israel with 40% of its oil imports via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline.
If Azerbaijan were to allow US or Israeli planes or militias to launch attacks from its territory, the Iranians might respond by destroying the pipeline and related oil facilities.
After the US and EU largely cut off access to cheap Russian oil and gas, countries in Europe became heavily dependent on US and Qatari LNG. This creates a vulnerability that the Iranians can use to devastating effect. A precision strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan liquefaction trains (that purify, cool, and compress the gas), for example, would drop a bomb into the world’s gas market.
Iran has invested heavily in improving relations with its Arab neighbours; this would be a measure of last resort. Qatar’s Al Udeid is, however, the largest US military base in the Middle East and the country has over 10,000 US troops based there. Any use of force emanating from Qatar would open Pandora’s box.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have invested a lot of energy in restoring relations since the US assassinated General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 as he was reportedly en route to meet the Saudis in Baghdad to advance peace talks (ultimately successfully facilitated in 2023 by China).
Iran will hold off attacking Saudi facilities directly but will do so if there is any attempt to break Iran’s blockade or should the Saudis allow US forces to launch attacks from their territory.
This would also be a strategy of last resort and risk a renewal of hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Desperate people, however, do desperate things. The Kingdom is the world’s second-largest exporter of phosphate fertilizers, providing roughly 20% of the global supply (and approximately 63% of New Zealand’s urea imports). Without necessarily knowing its origin, many Australian and New Zealand farms depend on this resource for food production.
The US President may launch his war of aggression against Iran, for example, with a decapitation strike on the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Who should be held accountable if the USS Abraham Lincoln – the most heavily protected vessel in human history – with up to 6,000 US servicemen aboard, with a nuclear reactor on board, bristling with some 90 aircraft and hundreds of different types of missiles, was sent to the bottom of the sea by a salvo of Iranian hypersonic missiles travelling at Mach 8 (about 10,000km per hour)? According to international law, that would be Donald J Trump, the Nobel Peace Prize aspirant. How would Wall Street react?
In 2025 we learnt that Iran, using its older missiles and a swarm of drones, could turn the Iron Dome into the Iron Sieve. Have the Israelis been able to acquire sufficient air defense interceptors to stop what could be a blizzard of thousands of missiles and drones aimed at the key infrastructure of the Israeli economy? Probably not. Will Iran be able to deploy them? Who knows.
Will the powerful Iraqi Shia militias rise to support Iran and make life untenable for the Americans and other Western interests in Iraq? How will Ansar Allah (the Houthis) respond? Will Hezbollah risk joining the attack?
In truth, none of us know what will happen nor what the Iranians will be willing or able to do after an attack. Time and American violence will provide the answer.
Eugene Doyle
Eugene. A compelling description of possibilities of huge destruction.
Somehow your work seems plausible if horrifying.
Perhaps I could send a little note to Trump asking him to back off. Perhaps not. He might just double down to prove he is the most wonderful most powerful genius President of all time. (I seem to remember Trump Mark 1 cancelling a nuclear treaty with Iran?)
Thankyou for the heads up but I hope that you are wrong.
This isn’t a credible military or political analysis; it fundamentally misreads Iran’s actual capabilities, exaggerates what asymmetric tools can achieve, and ignores both counter-force dynamics and economic reality.
Iran’s doctrine is built around asymmetric deterrence: missiles, drones, mines, proxy networks, and anti-access tactics in confined waters such as the Strait of Hormuz. That allows Tehran to impose disruption and raise costs; it does not give it the ability to wage sustained, multi-theatre conventional warfare against the United States and its allies while simultaneously crippling the global economy.
The piece strings together every hypothetical escalatory option: mining Hormuz; shutting Gulf airspace; closing Suez via proxies; destroying LNG infrastructure; even sinking a US carrier. It presents them as if they could all be executed effectively and sustained under heavy counter-attack. That assumes near-perfect Iranian execution and minimal Western suppression. In reality escalation is interactive: mines are cleared; coastal batteries are targeted; missile launch sites and naval swarms degrade quickly under concentrated ISR and air dominance. Each escalatory move invites retaliation that rapidly reduces Iran’s own capacity.
It also confuses chokepoint vulnerability with systemic fragility. Yes, Hormuz matters; yes, Suez matters. But we have just lived through COVID supply shocks, a European energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and prolonged Red Sea disruption. All produced price spikes and inflation; none crashed advanced economies. Shipping reroutes; strategic reserves are released; markets adjust. The global economy is tightly coupled, but it is adaptive.
Iran can disrupt; it cannot impose decisive, long-term attrition on Western economies without triggering retaliation that would devastate its own. The only economy genuinely at risk of collapse in a sustained high-intensity war is Iran’s.
You are confusing a lack of political will with a lack of capability. The fact that Washington chose not to fully escalate in the Red Sea does not mean it lacks the ability to dismantle a state navy or suppress coastal missile infrastructure if the strategic calculus changes. Treating restraint as impotence is not serious analysis; just tankie wishcasting.
I'm confused by your "Treating restraint as impotence is not serious analysis".
.Whose restraint are you referring to ? Iran's? Or do you see Trump as restrained?
And I'm sorry, anyone who uses the word "tankie" as a rebuttal is not serious about a debate, shorthand slurs just shut down discussion , they add nothing.
Francesca, US policy towards Iran has been restrained. Even the Trump administration has so far resisted uncontrolled escalatation via kinetic action, despite their rhetoric.
As for being mortally offended by being labeled a tankie, if Eugene didn't want to he called one the simplest solution would be to stop posting breathless pro-Iranian propoganda.
You're only enaging in tone policing because you know you can't engage on substance.
If your terms of restraint include assassinating Soleimani. and collaterally nine others, in Iraq, when his mission was to de escalate with the Saudis, and the threat to kill Khamenei's son , and countless other unhinged threats , then the meaning of restraint needs to be revised
It seems any view that's critical of the US gets a very rapid response from you, portraying that view as a breathless propaganda piece for…. name the current adversary
Don't get me wrong: I'm deeply sketchy about Trump's foreign policy and his rhetoric towards Iran. Tehran needs to be constructively encouraged to rejoin the international community through de-escalation, dialogue, and the staged removal of sanctions. Not bombed arbitrarily.
I'm not pro-US. Or defending imperialism. All I'm arguing for is basing foreign policy analysis on a pragmatic evaluation of real constraints, capabilities, and intent.
And that involves acknowledging neither side is acting in good faith. But that only one regularly sponsors internationally recognised terrorist organisations as a matter of public policy.
That word 'pragmatic' is crucial in considerations I think. And looking at schema thoroughly for good outcomes, defining what they would be, and effects. And then what type of attack would be most beneficial for that outcome. There seems an unholy glee for mayhem at present.
I've been reading about the early 1800s and fencing comes into it. There was art and skill in their fighting, though often as stupid as at any time. But now we need more of their skill and tactics:
Assist says – Fencing is a modern combat sport that involves sword fighting using three main types of weapons: foil, épée, and sabre. It combines physical skill with strategic thinking, often described as a "game of chess" with swords.
Iran doesn't have the capability to do what you believe they could do. Hypersonic missiles sound impressive, but to sink a US Navy aircraft carrier, the missile must hit the ship, a near miss will do nothing. Hypersonic missiles will hit what they are aimed at prior to launch, aircraft carriers are fast moving ships, they routinely alter course during operations for this exact purpose. Also it's highly unlikely that the hypersonic missiles have a radar system to lock onto the aircraft carrier, even if they do, the defensive systems would jam the internal guidance system of the missiles.
They had enough trouble hitting individual (and stationary) street blocks in Tel Aviv with normal theatre ranged ballistic missiles, let alone the hypersonic missiles there is no evidence for them having in any meaningful quantity.
Much of this analysis appears highly unlikely to be attempted, be successful if attempted, or have anything like the impact which is proposed.
For example:
Even assuming that Iran had both the capacity and the execution to shut down the Suez canal – the impact on world shipping would be minimal.
As the result of the Houthi piracy – major international shipping (apart from the dark fleet) – has already largely abandoned the Suez passageway – in favour of the long haul via the Cape of Good Hope. This is beginning to recover, but would easily revert if a 'hot' war happens with Iran.
Note: the shipping which would be *most* affected is the dark fleet trade, where Russian oil is supplied to China. Especially if a Suez blockade was combined with mining of the Red Sea and Giving both of those countries a very significant incentive to squash any Iranian militarism.
Your statement:
Is entirely unsupported by the facts. The shock wave of the war will be at the doorsteps of Russia (missing out on the oil revenue) and China (missing out on the oil).
Saudi Arabia – very much not a friend of Iran, might also have just a little to say about mining or interdicting the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea…. which would have a direct impact on their ability to trade – and their entire economy is supported on oil revenues.
Also your entire analysis is predicated on "should the Iranians survive a terrifying onslaught" – to which the answer is 'no, they would not'.
If the US seriously attacks Iran – the government will cease to exist.
The military differential in power is overwhelmingly on the side of the US.
And the Iranian regime is increasingly unpopular with it's own citizens (witness the recent widespread repressions).
The most likely outcome would be a failed state – analogous to Syria – devolving into different warlord-controlled regions, and with neighbouring states biting off chunks.
With a possible 'oil enclave' US controlled area in the South on the Gulf.
Its hard to win a war when the Americans, Saudis, and Israelis are happily plinking away at every launcher, missile stockpile, radar, and command and control node with total impunity and your economy is being slowly turned into rubble.
The reason Israel's war on Iran only lasted 12 days in 2025 was because a significant percentage of Iran's missiles evaded the Iron Dome defence, hitting ports and many buildings in Israel. This suggests that Iran could hit multiple strategic targets in the Middle East.
We should also hope Netanyahu was lying about the given basis for that attack (damaging Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program). If he was telling the truth about that then Iran is surely an undeclared Nuclear armed power. Both Israeli and US intelligence told their leaders attacking Iran's Nuclear program would accelerate weapons development, not hinder it. We know stocks of 60% enriched material were transferred from Fordow, and also since its a purification process the step from 60% to 90% is much easier than the first step to 60% enrichment. We also know from the 12 days war that Iran has the capability to reach targets in Israel with missiles.
I still think Netanyahu was relying on the decree from the ayatollah that Iran would not use nuclear weapons, but this is a bit duplicitous in getting the US involved in attacking Iran to begin with. Also there are plenty of other actors within the Iranian state some of who may well have advanced Nuclear weapons development regardless of religious leader intent.
We also know that both Israel (land based) and the US (naval/air) have the capacity to reach targets in Iran.
Almost certainly with considerably greater accuracy.
This is not a war that Iran can win. Of course, that doesn't mean that they won't try. Especially if it looks as though they are losing control internally (the situation has stabilized following the January protests and repression – but the issues haven't gone away)
https://studies.aljazeera.net/en/analyses/iran%E2%80%99s-internal-challenges-and-confrontations-abroad
You make a good point, Iran certainly won't be starting this.
Fortunately, Iran's ability to wreak widespread devastation was tested in the 12-day war last year, in which they managed to damage some Israeli buildings and kill an Israeli Arab, so it's unlikely they could manage anything like this list in reality.
However, the list does serve to demonstrate how important it is that regimes like this get taken down. The rest of the world giving pompous speeches about "monitoring the situation" isn't much use against a government that will cheerfully murder tens of thousands of its own citizens to remain in power.
Taking down regimes by other warlike inchoate-primitive. pretentious regimes, different but depressingly as stupid and unenlightened. 'Taking down a regime'; not looking at the psychological reasons for it 'cheerfully murdering thousands' of citizens or others – well that is what humans do in their regular outbursts of tangled negative evil emotions that brook no self-awareness. We need to think harder, less posturing of disgust at others.
GPS spoofing is already used in the area
Psych….Iran's missiles damaged around 500 buildings, killed 33 and injured 3500. Many of the buildings were in and around the port of Haifa.
This is what is reported online. But anybody who trusts such information coming out of Israel must be crazy….they are masters of lies and propaganda.
The interesting thing is how quickly Israel accepted peace with Iran after just 12 days. Unlike Lebanon and Gaza the bully had found someone who would fight back.
The key word in that reporting is “around.” There’s a big difference between precision strikes on specific facilities and saturation attacks on broader urban-industrial areas.
Israel (with US backing) has the ability to assemble complex strike packages: ISR, EW, standoff munitions; designed to hit defined aimpoints with a high degree of accuracy, even against layered air defence.
Iran’s long-range toolkit is structurally different: large volumes of ballistic missiles and drones aimed at wider target zones, accepting lower accuracy and relying on numbers to get effects through. That’s not a moral claim, it’s a technical one.
And if this were a sustained conflict, those launches would be happening under heavy pressure as Iranian C2 and air defence systems were being targeted.
So, I don’t think Israel stopped because it was ‘scared.’ More likely it was a bounded campaign: degrade specific capabilities, demonstrate reach, restore deterrence, then take the off-ramp before escalation risks and costs outweigh further gains.
Sounds right RP. This is the objective reasoned analysis that helps understanding. Thanks.