By Gustavo de Arístegui,
March 23, 2026
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The war against Iran—launched jointly by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2016, under the names Operation Epic Fury (American) and Operation Roaring Lion (Israeli)—enters its fourth week with an escalation of cross-threats against critical infrastructure that threatens to further destabilize global energy markets and water security throughout the Persian Gulf region. President Trump has issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Tehran’s jihadist oligarchy to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to destroy major Iranian power plants, while Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are responding with threats to “irreversibly” attack all energy infrastructure and water desalination plants in the Gulf states. Simultaneously, peace negotiations between the United States and Ukraine continue in Miami without Russian participation, while a spying scandal rocks the European Union (EU) following revelations by the Washington Post about leaks from the Hungarian Foreign Minister to the Kremlin. Brent crude oil surpassed $107 a barrel on Monday, in what the International Energy Agency (IEA) described as “the biggest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Trump’s ultimatum to Iran: 48 hours to reopen Hormuz or destruction of its power plants
Facts
President Donald Trump issued a direct threat to Iran on Saturday night: if the Strait of Hormuz is not fully reopened within 48 hours, the United States will destroy its power plants, “starting with the largest.” The deadline expires this Monday. The response from the Iranian jihadist oligarchy has been immediate and multifaceted: Parliamentary spokesman Qalibaf declared on the social media platform X that all energy infrastructure, desalination plants, and information technology facilities linked to the United States and its allies in the region will be considered “legitimate targets” and destroyed “irreversibly.” For its part, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that, in the event of an attack on Iranian power plants, the Strait of Hormuz will be “completely closed and will not be reopened until the destroyed plants are rebuilt.” The US administration argues that the IRGC controls much of Iran’s civilian infrastructure and uses it to sustain the war effort, a position that international jurists consider legally complex but not without foundation in International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Implications
The cross-threat of attacks against civilian infrastructure constitutes a qualitative escalation of enormous gravity. For the Persian Gulf states—which rely on desalination for 100% of their drinking water in Bahrain and Qatar, over 80% in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and 50% in Saudi Arabia—an Iranian attack on these facilities would represent an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. It is particularly revealing—and profoundly hypocritical—that Iran, which has spent three weeks attacking refineries, civilian airports, ports, residential neighborhoods, hospitals in Israel, and water desalination plants in the Gulf states, is now invoking International Humanitarian Law and denouncing as a “war crime” the possibility of attacks on its own power plants. The double standard is blatant: those who justify Iranian attacks as “self-defense” cry out in outrage when the threat is returned in identical terms. Curiously—not to say scandalously—some of those who defend this position are the same ones who applaud Putin’s war crimes in Ukraine. The stance of certain TV and newsstand “experts” is particularly egregious; they parade around television studios pontificating with encyclopedic ignorance about the affairs of a region where the vast majority have never even set foot, not even on vacation. Make no mistake, this legion of “opinion-makers” boasts sometimes astounding credentials (some are civil protection graduates, others retired low-ranking military officers—who then add the title of “expert” to their on-screen names—and there’s even a professor of Arab history who opines… on 21st-century Iranians without ever having been there).
Perspectives and scenarios
The most likely short-term scenario anticipates increased volatility in global energy markets when they open this Monday, with Goldman Sachs analysts warning that if flows through the Strait of Hormuz remain at 5% for ten weeks, Brent crude will surpass its 2008 record high. The diplomatic window is extremely narrow: Iran is keeping the Strait open to countries that are not considered “enemies”—essentially China and India—effectively creating a selective embargo with profound geoeconomic implications. The IEA has already mobilized 400 million barrels from strategic reserves, but analysts agree that no palliative measure can replace the reopening of the Strait, through which 20% of the world’s oil supply normally passes.
2. Iran attacks Dimona and Arad: missiles near Israeli nuclear reactor and Netanyahu calls for a global coalition
Facts
On Saturday night, Iran launched ballistic missiles at the southern Israeli cities of Arad and Dimona, very close to Israel’s nuclear research center. The attack injured more than 180 people, including children, and caused severe damage to residential areas. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the impact site in Arad on Sunday and called the night a “miracle” because there were no fatalities. In an unequivocal tone, Netanyahu urged world leaders to join Operation Epic Fury, warning that Iran “has the capability to strike targets deep in Europe” and that it “has everyone in its sights.” Netanyahu declared: “We are going after the regime, after the IRGC, this criminal gang. We are going after them personally, their leaders, their facilities, their economic assets.” In parallel, Iran launched for the first time long-range ballistic missiles with a range of 4,000 kilometers against the US-British military base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, dramatically expanding the range of the conflict.
Implications
The attack on Dimona—home to Israel’s undeclared nuclear program—represents a qualitative leap in the strategic audacity of Tehran’s jihadist oligarchy. Although the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claim to have intercepted 92% of the more than 400 ballistic missiles launched by Iran since the start of the conflict, Tehran’s ability to strike top-priority strategic targets demonstrates that, despite three weeks of intense bombardment that has seriously degraded its conventional military capabilities, the regime retains a significant capacity for retaliation. The launch against Diego Garcia—more than 4,000 kilometers away—sends a deterrent message to Europe: Iranian missiles can reach the European continent. Netanyahu, understandably and legitimately, does not miss the opportunity to emphasize this.
Perspectives and scenarios
Netanyahu’s call for a global coalition is, as always, a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is legitimate and pertinent: Iran poses a global, not just regional, threat. On the other, the lack of significant European support—beyond France, which has deployed Rafale fighter jets to protect its bases in the UAE—reveals once again the strategic paralysis of a Europe that prefers rhetoric to action. The G7 has issued a statement condemning the Iranian attacks against the Gulf states and reaffirming the importance of freedom of navigation, but there is a chasm between condemnation and action that Europe stubbornly refuses to cross.
3. Saudi Arabia expels Iranian military diplomats after new missile attack on Riyadh
Facts
Iran launched three ballistic missiles at Riyadh early Sunday morning, one of which was intercepted, while the other two landed in unpopulated areas. Eleven drones targeting the Eastern Province were also destroyed. Saudi Arabia took the unprecedented diplomatic step of declaring the Iranian military attaché, his deputy, and three additional embassy staff persona non grata, giving them 24 hours to leave the Kingdom. Since the start of the conflict on February 28, Saudi air defenses have intercepted at least 45 ballistic missiles, 7 cruise missiles, and more than 600 Iranian drones. The UAE reported on Sunday that it had intercepted 4 ballistic missiles and 25 drones, bringing its total to 345 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles, and 1,773 drones. Bahrain reported 143 missiles and 244 drones destroyed. The Turkish foreign minister, speaking from Riyadh where Arab and Muslim leaders are meeting, warned that Gulf states could be “forced to retaliate” against Iran.
Implications
The expulsion of Iranian military diplomats is a gesture of the utmost diplomatic force, placing Saudi Arabia on the brink of a complete break in relations with Tehran, barely three years after the restoration of ties under the Beijing Accords. But let us not forget that Qatar, a country unfairly accused of being close to Tehran, took even more forceful measures a week ago. The position of the Gulf states is tragically paradoxical: they did not want this conflict, they did not participate in the launch of Operation Epic Fury, yet they are suffering the consequences of Iranian retaliation against the US bases deployed on their territories. The IRGC—true to its nature as a terrorist organization disguised as an army—continues to attack the Gulf countries despite President Pezeshkian’s apologies, highlighting the internal fracture between the Iranian civilian government and the Revolutionary Guards, the true power brokers within the jihadist oligarchy.
Perspectives and scenarios
Saudi Arabia has already signed contracts to purchase interceptor missiles from Ukraine and is diverting oil exports through the East-West pipeline to the port of Yanbu on the Red Sea, but these measures are insufficient palliatives. Turkey’s warning of possible Gulf retaliation against Iran introduces a new and potentially destabilizing element: the entry of the Gulf states into the conflict as active belligerents would radically transform the nature and scope of the war.
4. Peace negotiations between the United States and Ukraine in Miami: Russia absent
Facts
The U.S. and Ukrainian delegations concluded a second day of bilateral talks in Miami, Florida, on Sunday, focused on advancing a comprehensive peace agreement to end Russia’s four-year war against Ukraine. The Ukrainian delegation, headed by National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Secretary Rustem Umerov, included Kyrylo Budanov, head of the Presidential Office, First Deputy Chief of Staff Serhiy Kyslytsia, and parliamentary leader David Arakhamia. The U.S. side was led by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Both sides described the talks as “constructive,” focused on “narrowing down and resolving outstanding issues to move toward a comprehensive peace agreement.” Russia did not participate in the talks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the trilateral negotiations are “on hold,” and that Moscow is only engaged in bilateral contacts with Kyiv on humanitarian issues. President Zelensky stated: “The key question is to what extent Russia is prepared to move towards a real end to the war, and whether it is prepared to do so in an honest and dignified manner.”
Implications
The Miami talks reflect the complex current diplomatic reality: the Iran-Contra affair has absorbed Washington’s strategic attention, delaying the negotiation timetable originally envisioned for reaching an agreement before June 2026. The trilateral meeting scheduled for March 5 in Abu Dhabi was postponed following the start of Operation Epic Fury, and Russia has found in the Iranian crisis a perfect excuse for a “situational pause” that allows it to consolidate its position without ceding diplomatic ground. Territory remains the main sticking point: Moscow demands the cession of all of Donbas, including areas it does not control, a demand that Kyiv categorically rejects.
Perspectives and scenarios
The outlook is moderately pessimistic in the short term. Russia is in no hurry: every week that passes without an agreement means another week of pressure on Ukraine and further Western exhaustion. With more than 8,000 Russian soldiers killed or seriously wounded in the last week, according to Ukrainian sources—bringing the cumulative total to nearly 1,288,000—Russian losses are unsustainable in the long run, but Putin is betting that Western fatigue and the Iranian distraction will allow him to maintain his territorial gains. The next trilateral round will depend on an agreement between Washington and Moscow on a date and venue, which is not currently in sight.
5. Espionage scandal: Hungarian foreign minister leaked EU Council deliberations to the Kremlin for years
Facts
A Washington Post investigation, citing a senior European security official, has revealed that Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has been providing Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with “live briefings” on the content of EU Council meetings for years. According to the source, “every EU meeting for years has basically had Moscow sitting behind the table.” The report also notes that Russian hackers penetrated the Hungarian Foreign Ministry’s computer networks. Szijjártó has dismissed the information as “fake news” intended to benefit the Hungarian opposition. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated that the news “shouldn’t surprise anyone,” adding, “We’ve suspected this for a long time; it’s one of the reasons why I only speak when absolutely necessary and say exactly what is essential.” Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar (Tisza Party) called Szijjártó a “traitor to Hungary.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Russian intelligence services proposed staging a fake assassination attempt against Orbán to boost his popularity ahead of the April 12 parliamentary elections.
Implications
If fully confirmed—and the reaction of Tusk and Sikorski suggests that European capitals consider the information highly credible—this would be the biggest espionage scandal within the EU since the Cold War. That a foreign minister of a member state of both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would act as an intelligence source for Moscow is not only a betrayal of intra-community trust, but also a very serious breach of European collective security. This episode, coupled with Orbán’s blocking of the €90 billion loan for Ukraine and the twentieth round of sanctions against Russia, establishes a pattern of behavior that positions Budapest as the Kremlin’s main Trojan horse in the West.
Perspectives and scenarios
The Hungarian elections of April 12 now take on an existential dimension for European security. Polls show Magyar’s Tisza party leading with 48% to Fidesz’s 39%, although Orbán’s campaign—which portrays Magyar as a “puppet of Kyiv”—has narrowed the gap. The revelation of the staged attack orchestrated by Moscow to benefit Orbán constitutes textbook election interference of the most blatant and ruthless kind. Europe must seriously ask itself how much longer it can afford to have a Kremlin ally—now possibly a de facto agent—at the decision-making table of the Atlantic Alliance and the EU.
6. Energy markets on the brink: Brent crude surpasses $107 and analysts do not rule out $200
Facts
Brent crude is trading around $107-$113 per barrel on Monday, with extreme volatility triggered by Trump’s ultimatum and the crossfire of threats regarding energy infrastructure. US WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude is nearing $100. The spread between the two benchmarks exceeds $14, the widest in years, reflecting the greater vulnerability of international markets compared to the relatively more insulated US market. IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol stated on Monday that the situation is “very serious” and “far worse than the two oil shocks of the 1970s and the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on gas, combined.” The IEA describes the crisis as “the biggest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market,” with Gulf production reduced by at least 10 million barrels per day. Goldman Sachs warns that if traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains at 5% for ten weeks, Brent crude will surpass its all-time high of $147 set in July 2008. Analysts like Vandana Hari (Vanda Insights) point out that benchmark crudes from the Persian Gulf—Oman and Dubai—have already exceeded $150 per barrel, and they do not rule out Brent reaching $200 if the Strait remains closed.
Implications
The economic impact is already devastating and promises to worsen. The average price of gasoline in the United States has reached $3.94 per gallon. Asian stock markets fell more than 5% at the opening on Monday, with the Nikkei and the Kospi leading the declines. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) warns of particularly serious repercussions for developing countries, already burdened with debt and with little fiscal space. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that every 10% increase in the price of oil sustained for a year translates into an additional 0.4% of global inflation and a 0.15% reduction in economic growth. The energy crisis is, ultimately, Iran’s main remaining strategic weapon, and it is using it with ruthless effectiveness.
Perspectives and scenarios
Analyst John Kilduff (Again Capital) projects a two-week timeframe: if the Strait is not reopened within that timeframe, prices will experience a second dramatic surge, forcing Asia to reduce industrial activity and the world to prepare for energy shortages. The OPEC+ (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) operation to increase production by 206,000 barrels per day is insufficient in the face of a disruption of 10 million barrels. Saudi Arabia is diverting crude oil through the East-West pipeline to Yanbu, but capacity is limited to 1-1.5 million barrels per day. Resolving the energy conflict inevitably hinges on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and that depends on the course of the war.
III. MEDIA RACK
Anglo-Saxon media outlets— The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London, The Guardian, and the Financial Times—all highlight the escalating threats against critical infrastructure as the most dangerous element of the past 24 hours. The Wall Street Journal emphasizes the damage to US tanker aircraft at Prince Sultan Air Force Base. Fox News stresses the strength of Trump’s position and the legitimacy of the ultimatum, while CNN and CBS focus on the resignation of Joe Kent—former director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)—and the rift within the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. CNBC leads the coverage of the impact on the markets, with a detailed analysis of the Brent-WTI spread and warnings from Goldman Sachs.
European media: Le Monde and Le Figaro analyze Europe’s energy vulnerability in light of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, noting that 12-14% of European liquefied natural gas (LNG) transits through this waterway from Qatar. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and Die Welt focus on the implications of the Szijjártó scandal for EU security. Corriere della Sera highlights Pope Leo XIII’s call to end the conflict. Libération and France Info cover the deployment of French Rafale fighter jets to protect French bases in the UAE.
Middle Eastern and Israeli media outlets: Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel Hayom, and the Jerusalem Post extensively cover Netanyahu’s visit to Arad and his call for a global coalition. Haaretz publishes internal criticism from Yair Golan, who accuses Netanyahu of prolonging the war for political survival. Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya provide extensive live coverage of the attacks on Gulf states, emphasizing that these countries “did not want this war.” Arab News reports the expulsion of Iranian military diplomats from Riyadh. Gulf News (UAE) and Khaleej Times document the damage to civilian infrastructure. Asharq Al-Awsat publishes analysis of the rift between Pezeshkian and the IRGC.
Russian media outlets Russia Today (RT) and TASS present the Iran-Iraq War as proof of “US-Zionist imperialism” and downplay Russian military losses in Ukraine. TASS covers the Putin-Orbán phone call focusing on Hungarian citizens mobilized in Ukraine and the energy impact of the Iranian crisis.
Asian media: The South China Morning Post analyzes China’s position as a strategic beneficiary of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, given that Iran is keeping the passage open for Chinese vessels. The Times of India and Hindustan Times report the deployment of Indian destroyers to escort oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. The Yomiuri Shimbun covers Japan’s willingness to send mine-clearing experts to the Strait if a ceasefire is reached.
Ukrainian media outlets Ukrainska Pravda and The Kyiv Independent are leading the coverage of the Miami talks and the Szijjártó scandal, which confirms what Kyiv has been denouncing for years: Hungary is acting as a Kremlin agent within the EU. Ukrinform is documenting daily Russian losses and Ukrainian drone attacks against the Saratov refinery and the Engels-2 airfield.
Latin American media: Clarín and El Mercurio cover the impact of oil on Latin American economies, while Reforma analyzes the implications for Mexico as a crude oil exporter.
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
🔴 RED — Critical Risk
Strait of Hormuz / infrastructure war: Trump’s 48-hour ultimatum and the Iranian threat of a massive attack on desalination plants and power plants in the Gulf mark the most dangerous moment of the conflict. Risk of an unprecedented global humanitarian and energy catastrophe.
Energy markets: Brent crude above $107, with a real risk of reaching $150-$200 if the Strait remains closed. The IEA is calling it the biggest supply crisis in history.
Latent nuclear escalation: the Iranian attack near Dimona and the Israeli response against Natanz introduce the nuclear dimension as a permanent backdrop to the conflict.
🟠 ORANGE — High Risk
Entry of the Gulf states as belligerents: the statements of the Turkish Foreign Minister from Riyadh and the expulsion of Iranian diplomats in Qatar and Saudi Arabia significantly raise this possibility.
Lebanese front: The head of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) declared that the fight with Hezbollah “has only just begun.” Israel has ordered the demolition of homes in border villages and the destruction of bridges over the Litani River.
European security / Szijjártó case: Hungarian espionage in favor of Moscow compromises years of EU strategic deliberations.
🟡 YELLOW — Moderate Risk
Ukraine-Russia negotiations: prolonged stalemate with no prospect of short-term trilateral progress, aggravated by the distraction of the Iranian war.
MAGA internal fracture: Joe Kent’s resignation and Tucker Carlson’s criticism reveal tensions within the Trump base regarding the war, although polls show 77-90% support among Republicans.
Global recession: The IMF warns that the combination of high energy prices, supply chain disruptions and geopolitical uncertainty could trigger a global recession.
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
There are moments in history when contradictions accumulated over decades erupt simultaneously, as if the clock of geopolitics were determined to settle all outstanding accounts at once. This is one of those moments. The war against the jihadist oligarchy in Tehran—which is not a theocracy, as so many conveniently repeat with intellectual complacency, but rather an oligarchic network where the Revolutionary Guards control a cosmically corrupt economic empire while exporting terrorism, instability, and death throughout the Middle East—is entering an escalating phase targeting critical infrastructure. This should give pause to those who still believe this crisis can be resolved with statements and good intentions.
The paradox of decapitation—that situation in which a militarily weakened regime becomes more unpredictable and dangerous precisely because it has less to lose—is now manifesting itself in all its starkness. Iran has lost its navy, its air defenses, and much of its conventional missile capability . President Trump, with his usual bluntness, declared three days ago that from a military standpoint, “Iran is finished.” Yet missiles continue to rain down on Arad, Dimona, Riyadh, Doha, Dubai, and Manama. The IRGC continues to attack refineries, airports, civilian ports, residential neighborhoods, and hospitals—but when threatened with retaliation, the jihadist oligarchy rushes to denounce “war crimes” before the United Nations Security Council. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
What is truly worrying, beyond the cross-threats, is the absence of a clear strategy for the “day after.” Trump himself inadvertently acknowledged this when he said, “We want to talk to them, and there’s nobody to talk to. And you know what? We like it that way.” That statement, uttered with the president’s characteristic nonchalance, contains a profound contradiction: one cannot declare victory and simultaneously admit that there is no interlocutor with whom to negotiate peace. The resignation of the eccentric former director of the Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent—who, while a veteran of 11 combat deployments who cannot be dismissed as weak or cowardly, is nonetheless prone to holding opinions that are, at best, ” conspiracy-minded” —reveals that even within the MAGA movement there are those who question the logic of a war with no defined end in sight.
That said, it is worth emphasizing that Kent’s position is profoundly mistaken and irresponsibly complacent on one essential point: his assertion that Iran “did not represent an imminent threat” deliberately ignores forty-seven years of continuous aggression by the jihadist oligarchy against regional stability, its funding and direction of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen, the pro-Iranian terrorist militias in Iraq, and its clandestine nuclear program. The export of terrorism, the tens of thousands of victims in different countries caused by this band of bloodthirsty and corrupt individuals. The Iranian threat was not future: it was present, active, real, permanent—not imminent—and lethal. What can and should be debated is the strategy, the objectives, and the planning for the “day after,” not the legitimacy of acting against a regime that is, in essence, a vast criminal organization with military capabilities.
Meanwhile, Europe remains in its usual state of strategic paralysis, now exacerbated by the revelation that Hungary—a member of both NATO and the EU—has acted for years as the Kremlin’s liaison office in Brussels. The Szijjártó case is much more than a scandal: it confirms that the European security architecture has a structural flaw that cannot be repaired with mere statements of condemnation. If the Hungarian elections on April 12 do not result in a change of government, Europe will have to seriously reconsider Budapest’s status within the allied institutions.
In Ukraine, the war of attrition continues with its slow but relentless pace of destruction. The Miami talks are a necessary but insufficient exercise as long as Russia refuses to participate in a trilateral format. Putin, as always, plays on time: the Iranian distraction allows him to buy precious weeks without having to make any concessions. The more than 8,000 Russian soldiers killed in the last week—a figure that would have triggered a political crisis in any democracy—are just one more drop in the ocean of blood that fuels the Kremlin’s indifference to human life, including that of its own citizens.
The world is teetering on the brink of an unprecedented energy crisis. Oil at $107 is just the beginning if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened in the coming weeks. The IEA is not exaggerating when it speaks of the worst crisis since the 1970s: it is worse, because the volume of supply at stake is incomparably greater. Developing countries, the most vulnerable, will be the first to suffer the consequences of soaring food and energy inflation. Europe, which obtains 12-14% of its LNG from Qatar via Hormuz, should be leading the diplomatic and military response. Instead, it is engaged in debate and issuing statements.
Let me reiterate what I said earlier: I believe that the nonsense spouted by self-proclaimed “experts”—who, by virtue of their self-imposed wisdom from watching action series or listening to conspiracy theories, spread absurdities that go beyond mere audacity and veer into dangerous irresponsibility. That’s why I repeat: Let’s not be fooled. This legion of “opinion-givers,” with their sometimes astounding credentials (some with diplomas in civil protection, others retired low-ranking military personnel—who then add the title of “expert” to their online profile—and even the occasional professor of Arab history offering opinions on 21st-century Iranians without ever having set foot there), is truly appalling.