Iran-Israel War: US Reliance on Ukraine & Global Oil Supply at Risk

The assessment from Donald Trump – “I think the war is very complete, pretty much” – rings increasingly hollow as the conflict between Israel, the United States, and Iran enters its third week. Whereas the US president claimed Iran’s military capabilities are decimated – “They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no air force” – recent events, including attacks on merchant ships near the Strait of Hormuz, suggest a far more resilient adversary. The reality on the ground is far more complex than the narrative of a swift victory, and increasingly points to a situation where both Israel and the US are entangled in a conflict of their own making, facing unintended consequences and escalating risks.

The US military’s own actions betray the optimistic rhetoric. Facing depleted stocks of missiles and anti-drone weaponry, the Pentagon is reportedly considering shifting missile defense systems from South Korea, a move that has understandably raised concerns in Seoul. Further illustrating the strain on resources, the US is even seeking to purchase low-cost anti-drone defenses from Ukraine, a stark admission of the challenges in countering Iran’s capabilities.

The Limits of Military Superiority

For Israel and the US, which initiated the conflict with surprise airstrikes on February 28th, Iran’s continued ability to respond has been a significant surprise. Over 1,000 Iranians have been killed, including the former supreme leader, yet the regime remains functional and capable of retaliatory action. This resilience underscores a critical miscalculation at the heart of the conflict: an underestimation of Iran’s defensive capabilities and its willingness to endure significant costs.

Two key elements are now defining the trajectory of the war. The first centers on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who appears to have walked into a strategic trap. It’s likely Netanyahu anticipated a swift Israeli-American victory following the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader, hoping to bolster his domestic approval ratings ahead of this year’s Israeli general election. However, with the late leader’s son now appointed as his successor, a true victory for Israel now necessitates the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. Anything less would leave Israel in a potentially more vulnerable position than before the attacks, as a surviving regime would almost certainly prioritize rebuilding its nuclear capabilities.

Achieving this “total destruction” is proving far more difficult than anticipated, largely due to Iran’s extensive network of underground tunnels. These tunnels, which house naval drones, anti-ship missiles, and sea mines – as evidenced by footage released by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps last year – provide a critical layer of protection for Iran’s military assets and complicate efforts to neutralize its offensive capabilities.

The Dahiya Doctrine and Iran’s Response

The second, more recent development is the apparent adoption of the Dahiya Doctrine by Israel and the US. This Israeli military tactic, rooted in the deliberate destruction of infrastructure and the targeting of civilian populations to undermine support for an opposing leadership, is now being applied to Iran. The expanded bombing campaign is increasingly focused on civilian targets, resulting in a spiraling death toll, the displacement of over a million people, and the destruction of essential infrastructure like banks and hospitals.

Israel has previously employed the Dahiya Doctrine in conflicts with Hezbollah in Lebanon (2006) and Hamas in Gaza (2007-2021, and ongoing since 2023). While these campaigns did not achieve their ultimate objectives – the complete dismantling of Hezbollah or Hamas – they demonstrated Israel’s willingness to inflict significant damage to achieve strategic goals.

However, Iran is now turning the tables, employing a strategy that mirrors the Dahiya Doctrine against Israel itself. Unable to directly defeat the combined military power of the US and Israel, Iran is leveraging its control over a significant portion of the world’s oil and gas supply – approximately 20% transits through the Strait of Hormuz – to exert economic pressure. By disrupting oil flows, Iran aims to create instability in global energy markets and generate pressure on the US to seek a ceasefire, regardless of Netanyahu’s objections.

The International Energy Agency has already described the situation as “dire,” warning that the war in the Middle East is causing the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. Oil production from Gulf countries has fallen by at least 60%, leading to climbing prices and fears of long-term economic fallout, as reported by NBC News. Without a swift resumption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, supply losses are expected to worsen.

What Remains Unclear

While Trump maintains that the war is “very complete,” the situation on the ground suggests otherwise. The extent of Iran’s ability to sustain its economic warfare strategy remains uncertain. The long-term impact of the conflict on regional stability and global energy markets is also unclear. The potential for escalation – either through direct confrontation between the US and Iran, or through the involvement of other regional actors – remains a significant concern. The precise details of the Pentagon’s plans to shift missile defenses from South Korea, and the terms of the agreement with Ukraine for anti-drone technology, are also yet to be fully disclosed.

The Shifting Sands of Diplomacy

Diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict have so far yielded limited results. Trump has repeatedly called on nations to help reopen shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, but has received little enthusiasm for military support. Iran, meanwhile, has consistently denied seeking a ceasefire, stating its readiness to defend itself “as long as it takes.” The conflicting narratives and entrenched positions of both sides suggest that a negotiated settlement is unlikely in the near term.

The current situation highlights the dangers of miscalculation and the unintended consequences of military intervention. Both Trump and Netanyahu appear to have underestimated Iran’s resilience and overestimated their ability to achieve a swift and decisive victory. As the conflict drags on, the risks of escalation and regional instability continue to grow. The path forward will require a shift in strategy, a willingness to engage in meaningful diplomacy, and a recognition that a military solution may not be achievable.

Looking ahead, the immediate focus will likely be on containing the economic fallout from the disruption to oil supplies. The US and its allies will need to explore alternative energy sources and work to stabilize global markets. Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire and de-escalate the conflict will need to be intensified. However, given the deep-seated mistrust and conflicting interests of the parties involved, a lasting resolution will likely require a fundamental reassessment of regional security architecture and a commitment to addressing the underlying causes of instability.