By Gustavo de Arístegui,
March 20, 2026
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The twentieth day of Operation Epic Fury—the joint US-Israeli military campaign against the Iranian jihadist oligarchy—marks a day of significant escalation on multiple fronts. The Israeli attack on the South Pars gas field—the world’s largest natural gas field, shared by Iran and Qatar, which call it the North Dome—has triggered a series of Iranian retaliatory strikes against energy infrastructure in the Gulf States, including severe damage to the Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Qatar, which accounts for twenty percent of global LNG exports. Brent crude has fluctuated between $108 and $119 per barrel in the last twenty-four hours, reflecting the extreme volatility of a global energy market under unprecedented pressure since the 1973 oil crisis.
Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has announced that the Pentagon will request up to $200 billion in additional funding from Congress to finance the operation, a figure equivalent to nearly a quarter of the annual defense budget, sparking intense debate on Capitol Hill. Europe remains divided and strategically irrelevant, unable to formulate a coherent response while its own energy and security interests are severely compromised. In the eastern Mediterranean, Israel is expanding its ground offensive in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah, and in Ukraine, Zelensky’s negotiating team is heading to Washington for talks this weekend in an attempt to revive peace negotiations that the Iranian war has dangerously sidelined.
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 24 HOURS
1. Energy escalation: Israel attacks South Pars and Iran destroys LNG infrastructure in Qatar
Facts
Israel carried out an attack on Iranian facilities at the South Pars gas field in Bushehr province, the world’s largest natural gas deposit. The attack represented a qualitative escalation from previous bombings of fuel depots, as it targeted energy production infrastructure for the first time. Hours later, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched missiles at LNG facilities in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The damage to Ras Laffan Industrial City in Qatar has been described as extremely severe by Qatari Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi, who estimated a loss of $20 billion in annual revenue, a 17 percent reduction in the country’s LNG capacity, and a repair timeframe of three to five years. Qatar has expelled the military and security attachés from the Iranian embassy. Saudi Arabia has declared that the “little remaining trust in Iran has been completely destroyed.” The UAE intercepted seven Iranian missiles and fifteen Shahed drones on Thursday alone.
Implications
The partial destruction of Ras Laffan constitutes one of the most severe blows to the global energy architecture since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Qatar supplies LNG to China, South Korea, Italy, and Belgium, among others. The disruption will have cascading effects on gas prices in Europe and Asia for years, not months. Iran’s strategy of internationalizing the costs of war—by striking neighboring countries’ energy infrastructure to raise the price of escalation until pressure to de-escalate becomes irresistible—is rational in terms of asymmetric logic, though it has dramatically isolated Tehran from the Gulf States, its last potential regional interlocutors.
Perspectives and scenarios
If the energy escalation continues, Saudi officials estimate that Brent crude could surpass $180 a barrel by the end of April, according to the Wall Street Journal. The most likely scenario in the short term is a combination of diplomatic pressure from the Gulf States on Washington to curb Israeli operations against energy infrastructure, along with an intensification of regional air defenses. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced that Washington might lift sanctions on some 140 million barrels of Iranian crude stored on tankers to ease pressure on prices, a move that reveals the inherent contradictions of waging war against a country whose oil you need to keep flowing.
2. The Pentagon requests $200 billion from Congress: war without parliamentary authorization (most American constitutional experts agree that it is not necessary for an operation of this nature).
Facts
The U.S. Department of Defense has submitted a request to the White House for approximately $200 billion in additional funding to sustain Operation Epic Fury, according to reports in the Washington Post and Bloomberg. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did not deny the figure during a press conference at the Pentagon, though he noted that “that number could move,” adding bluntly that “it takes money to kill the bad guys.” Hegseth also announced that “the largest package of strikes to date” would be executed on Thursday, stating that the United States has struck more than 7,000 targets in Iran and destroyed or damaged more than 120 Iranian naval vessels. However, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard acknowledged before the Senate that the Iranian regime “appears to remain intact,” albeit “long degraded.”
Implications
The figure of $200 billion—equivalent to the annual defense budget of every other country in the world except the United States—highlights the true scale of an operation that the Trump administration initiated without congressional authorization (Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF). The paradox is striking: a president who promised not to embark on new wars in the Middle East is now requesting funds that far exceed the annualized cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at their peak. Fiscal hawks in the Republican Party—which controls both houses of Congress—have already expressed reservations, and the Democratic opposition will demand detailed plans before approving such an expenditure.
Perspectives and scenarios
The request is likely to become a de facto referendum on the war itself in Congress. Trump’s ability to maintain the cohesion of his congressional majority will depend largely on the evolution of gasoline prices in the United States—an indicator that voters feel in their wallets every day—and on military casualties, which to date stand at thirteen. A protracted negotiation process is expected, in which the final figure will be significantly lower, but the mere debate will expose the internal fractures within Trumpism that have been intensifying for some months.
3. Europe fractures in the face of the crisis: six countries agree to cooperate in the Strait of Hormuz after pressure from Washington
Facts
After days of transatlantic tension in which NATO’s main European allies rejected Trump’s demand to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz—with Germany declaring that “this is not our war” and the UK stressing that it “was never intended as a NATO mission”—six countries (the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan) issued a joint statement expressing their “willingness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe transit” through the Strait. This was certainly about time, especially for the UK, which has been lagging behind on geostrategic issues for years. The statement came shortly after Hegseth criticized Europe’s “ungrateful allies.” Kuwait, meanwhile, dismantled a Hezbollah-linked terrorist cell that was planning to attack the country’s critical infrastructure. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has announced that it will begin negotiations to establish a humanitarian corridor to allow the evacuation of some 20,000 sailors trapped in the Gulf.
Implications
The declaration by the six countries is a notable tactical shift from their outright rejection of the situation a few days ago, but it remains an expression of intent, not an operational commitment. Europe—and this deserves serious reflection—has been reacting to the crisis for three weeks with a mixture of moral outrage and strategic paralysis that confirms all diagnoses of its geopolitical irrelevance when circumstances demand more than mere statements. The European Union was not consulted before the start of hostilities, lacks the independent military capacity to project power in the Gulf, and is critically dependent on the gas that is now burning in Qatar. Its only real asset—diplomatic capacity—has not been deployed with the determination that the circumstances demanded, due in part to the cacophony of dissenting European voices, which are all too often saccharine and cowardly.
Perspectives and scenarios
European cooperation in the Strait of Hormuz will foreseeably materialize in a modest and defensive contribution: minesweepers, surveillance drones, and perhaps one or two frigates per country. This will be insufficient to reopen the Strait as long as Iran maintains its coastal interdiction capabilities—cruise missiles, armed fast boats, unmanned maritime vehicles, and mines—but it will suffice for Washington to present a “coalition” to the public. What is truly worrying is that Europe is spending its limited political capital on a dispute over the Strait of Hormuz while the Ukrainian issue languishes.
4. Israel expands ground offensive in southern Lebanon: towards the Litani River line
Facts
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) continue to expand their ground operation in southern Lebanon, deploying two additional divisions to join the three already stationed along the border. The stated objective is to seize control of the entire area south of the Litani River and dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure. Israel has destroyed bridges over the Litani to sever the militia’s supply lines. Israeli airstrikes have killed more than 1,000 people in Lebanon since the start of the conflict, and more than 1 million have been displaced. The Lebanese government has banned Hezbollah’s military activities, ordering it to surrender its weapons to the state, but lacks the capacity to enforce this order. Hezbollah continues to launch rockets into northern Israel, with salvos of more than 100 projectiles in a single attack.
Implications
Hezbollah’s decision to join the war on March 2—launching rockets at Israel in solidarity with Iran, its patron, leader, indoctrinator, and financier—has once again demonstrated the predatory nature of the Tehran regime’s proxies, which use Lebanon as a platform for aggression with no regard for the sovereignty, stability, or well-being of the host country. Lebanon, as always, pays the price for the irresponsibility of those who have turned its territory into an Iranian arsenal. The Israeli operation seeks to create a buffer zone similar to the one that existed between 1985 and 2000, which would entail a prolonged occupation with all the political and military risks that this implies.
Perspectives and scenarios
The historical precedent is not encouraging: the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon between 1982 and 2000 failed to eradicate Hezbollah and, in fact, contributed to strengthening it. However, the current situation presents substantial differences: Hezbollah has lost its historic leader (Hassan Nasrallah), much of its chain of command, and its main source of funding—Iran—is being subjected to a systematic campaign of destruction. Another fundamental difference is that Hezbollah was able to maintain a bloody grip on much of Lebanon due to its very close association with the now thankfully defunct Syrian regime of the Al-Assad family. Without the army and the assassins of the Syrian Mukhabarat (Intelligence and Internal Security Service), Hezbollah is, for all these reasons, a much weaker organization than it was then. The most likely outcome is a further and intensified degradation of Hezbollah’s capabilities, but not its complete elimination, which will necessitate a political solution that inevitably involves strengthening the Lebanese state and its army.
5. Iran’s war strengthens Netanyahu, weakens Trump and punishes the Gulf States (Reuters)
Facts
A Reuters analysis published on March 19 concludes that if the war ended today, the verdict would be unequivocal: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would emerge strengthened, while President Trump would be caught in the middle of managing the shock to global markets and to Gulf allies who have borne the brunt of the costs. According to Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East negotiator and senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “There is a clear winner and a clear loser; Netanyahu is by far the main winner.” The war has redrew the Israeli political map on Netanyahu’s terms, shifting attention away from Gaza—where criticism was intense—toward Iran, where national consensus is stronger and its security credentials resonate more powerfully. The air campaign has been functionally divided: Israel is concentrating on western and northern Iran—ballistic missile sites and nuclear facilities—while the United States is operating in the east and south, including the Strait of Hormuz, to degrade Iranian naval capabilities. Israel has led the elimination of senior Iranian officials, including security chief Ali Larijani on Tuesday and intelligence minister Esmail Khatib on Wednesday. Defense Minister Israel Katz has confirmed that he and Netanyahu have authorized the armed forces to target any senior Iranian official they locate, without requiring further approval.
Implications
The Reuters analysis hits a nerve that deserves to be examined frankly. For Trump, the war presents three options, all of them bad: prolong the air strikes indefinitely, declare victory and hope that Tehran will surrender—something the Director of National Intelligence has implicitly denied by acknowledging that the regime remains intact—or escalate dramatically with ground forces, an option Trump has publicly ruled out but which the Pentagon continues to explore. Meanwhile, the economic narrative that propelled his return to power—promises of prosperity, lower prices, and the restoration of American leadership—is eroded every day that Brent crude remains above $100. The Gulf States, for their part, find themselves in the most vulnerable position in their modern history: the vision for the future they had built—economic diversification, tourism, technology, and a global logistics hub—is teetering under the impact of Iranian missiles against their infrastructure. As Miller points out, “the notion that the Gulf represents the future of the region is now in question.”
Perspectives and scenarios
The central paradox is that the military successes—real and undeniable—do not bring the war any closer to its end. Iranian sources cited by Reuters indicate that Tehran is calibrating its escalation to impose maximum costs, rebuild its deterrence, and extract sanctions relief, offering Washington an off-ramp only at a high price. Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu advisor, warns that the war will be judged in binary terms: either the regime falls, or it does not. Any intermediate outcome—a weakened but surviving regime—would turn the initial military gains into a political liability for Netanyahu, who has framed the campaign as a quest for “total victory.” If Khamenei’s system endures, even in a weakened state, the narrative will shift from triumph to overreach, reopening the unresolved threats of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The fundamental question this analysis raises is a classic one in strategic theory: tactical superiority does not guarantee strategic victory if you lack an achievable political objective. And to date, no one has precisely defined what the “day after” will look like.
6. Ukraine: Zelensky’s negotiating team travels to Washington as the war of attrition continues
Facts
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced that his negotiating team is heading to the United States for a meeting scheduled for Saturday, in an attempt to revive stalled peace talks. On the military front, Russia has lost offensive momentum in recent weeks: according to data from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russian forces lost a net 30 square miles of Ukrainian territory in the week of March 3-10, reversing previous gains. Ukraine successfully struck a major military microelectronics factory in Bryansk with Storm Shadow missiles and deployed anti-missile and anti-drone equipment in the Persian Gulf at the request of the United States and its allies. Slovakia has warned of “further measures” over the Druzhba oil pipeline dispute with Ukraine. Hungary continues to block a €90 billion EU loan to Kyiv.
Implications
The Iran-Contra conflict has had a devastating effect on Ukraine’s prospects. First, it has diverted Washington’s strategic attention and military resources to the Middle East. Second, the Trump administration temporarily lifted restrictions on purchases of Russian crude to offset rising prices, providing Moscow with an immense financial lifeline: the Financial Times estimated that Russia had already received an extraordinary windfall of between $1.3 billion and $1.9 billion in tax revenue from oil exports (in reality, the figure is closer to $100 million per day). India has increased its imports of Russian crude by 50 percent. Third, Western stockpiles of interceptor missiles and munitions are being depleted in the Gulf, reducing their availability for Ukraine.
Perspectives and scenarios
The weekend meeting in Washington is critical. The peace framework negotiated in Paris in January—with security guarantees from the “coalition of the willing,” US-led ceasefire verification mechanisms, and French and British commitments to deploy forces on Ukrainian soil—remains viable, but it requires a renewed diplomatic push that the Iranian crisis has greatly hampered. Russia shows no interest in serious negotiations as long as its position on the battlefield is favorable and its adversary’s attention is divided. Realism dictates that Putin will interpret every day Washington devotes to Iran as a day gained in Ukraine.
III. MEDIA RACK
The New York Times/The Washington Post: Comprehensive coverage of the Pentagon’s $200 billion budget request, with emphasis on the lack of congressional authorization. Detailed analysis of the South Pars attack and the contradictions between Trump and Netanyahu regarding the coordination of the operation. The Washington Post first revealed the budget figure.
The Wall Street Journal/Financial Times: Granular tracking of energy markets. The WSJ reports that Saudi officials expect Brent crude to rise above $180 if the crisis continues until the end of April. The FT estimates the windfall profit for Russia from the temporary sanctions waiver at between $1.3 billion and $1.9 billion.
CNN / CBS / Fox News / CNBC: CNN documents the 20th with live updates. CBS covers Hegseth’s statements and the $200 billion request. Fox Business reports on Bessent’s proposal to lift sanctions on floating Iranian crude. CNBC details India’s cooperation with Iran regarding transit through the Strait and its increased purchases of Russian crude.
Al Jazeera/Al Arabiya: Al Jazeera confirms the death of IRGC spokesman General Ali Mohammad Naeini in a US-Israeli attack. Live coverage of the Iranian attack on the Haifa oil refinery. Al Arabiya highlights the escalation of attacks on Gulf infrastructure.
Le Monde / Le Figaro / Libération / France Info: France, between ambiguity and action. Macron described the attacks as “outside international law” but allows the use of French bases. Deployment of the nuclear aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean. France joins the declaration of the six on the Strait.
FAZ / Die Welt / Die Zeit: German Shift: From Pistorius’s “This is not our war” to joining the Strait declaration. Internal debate over Merz’s inconsistency, who declared in Washington that he was “on the same page” as Trump regarding Iran, only to later distance himself.
The Times / The Telegraph / The Guardian / BBC: Analysis of the British position: Starmer balances criticism of the Iranian regime with calls for de-escalation. Deployment of British mine-clearing drones. The Guardian emphasizes the humanitarian crisis in Iran. The BBC details military options in the Strait.
Haaretz / Jerusalem Post / Israel Hayom / Yedioth Ahronoth: Netanyahu declares that Israel “acts alone” in South Pars but abides by Trump’s request not to repeat the operation. Haaretz reports the expansion of the ground operation in Lebanon with two additional divisions. Israel Hayom highlights that Iran has lost uranium enrichment and ballistic missile manufacturing capabilities.
Reuters/AP/AFP: Reuters reveals the Trump administration is considering deploying thousands of additional troops to the region. AP documents the humanitarian crisis of the 20,000 stranded sailors. AFP reports the Iranian ambassador in Berlin’s statements regarding the Ramstein airbase.
The Kyiv Independent / Ukrinform: Zelensky sends negotiating team to Washington. Ukraine deploys anti-drone defense equipment in the Gulf. Successful attack on military microelectronics factory in Crimea. Slovakia threatens “additional measures” over the Druzhba pipeline dispute.
South China Morning Post / China Daily: Tracking the impact on LNG supply chains to China. Beijing bolsters its strategic reserves. Prospects that energy costs will erode China’s export competitiveness.
Russia Today/TASS: Moscow presents the war as proof of US “imperialism.” Emphasis on NATO divisions and Trump’s contradictions. Silence on the economic benefits the crisis provides to Russia.
Arab News / Asharq Al-Awsat / Gulf News: Widespread outrage over Iranian attacks on Gulf states. Saudi Arabia declares that “trust in Iran has been completely destroyed.” The UAE declares its willingness to cooperate in reopening the Strait.
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
🔴 RED — Strait of Hormuz / Global Energy Market: Critical Risk. The combination of attacks on energy production infrastructure (South Pars, Ras Laffan), the effective closure of the Strait, and the escalation of Iranian retaliation against the Gulf States constitutes the biggest global energy crisis since 1973. Direct impact on inflation, food and fertilizer prices, and global economic stability.
🔴 RED — Military escalation in Iran: The $200 billion request and the consideration of deploying ground forces—including the possible occupation of Khark Island—indicate that Washington is preparing for an operation of much greater duration and scope than initially anticipated. The rate of Iranian missile launches is decreasing, suggesting depletion of arsenals, but the capacity for asymmetric damage remains.
🔴 RED — Lebanon / Hezbollah: The Israeli ground offensive toward the Litani River, with five divisions deployed, expands the war front and risks a prolonged occupation. One million displaced. Risk of collapse of the Lebanese state.
🟠 ORANGE — Transatlantic Cohesion: The Iranian crisis has exposed deep fractures in NATO and the transatlantic relationship. Trump has explicitly questioned the Alliance’s future. The crisis with Spain adds a worrying bilateral dimension.
🟠 ORANGE — Ukraine: The Iran war is diverting resources and attention from Ukraine. The temporary exemption from sanctions on Russian crude directly benefits Moscow’s war machine. Peace negotiations are at risk of collapsing due to Washington’s strategic fragmentation.
🟡 YELLOW — China / Indo-Pacific: Beijing is closely watching the dispersal of US military resources in the Middle East. The global energy crisis is impacting its economy, but it is also creating opportunities to advance its interests in the South China Sea and Taiwan while the world’s attention is focused on the Gulf.
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
The twentieth day of Operation Epic Fury places us at a crossroads that deserves to be analyzed with the frankness that the circumstances demand, devoid of the calculated ambiguity that characterizes much of contemporary geopolitical commentary.
The Iranian jihadist oligarchy—that regime which for decades has exported terrorism, destabilized Lebanon through Hezbollah, financed Hamas, armed the Houthis in Yemen, controlled militias in Iraq, and massacred its own people—undoubtedly deserved a forceful response from the international community. For forty-seven years, the mullahs’ regime has been the primary source of instability in the Middle East, and its clandestine nuclear program posed an existential threat not only to Israel but to the entire regional security architecture. The removal of Khamenei and the degradation of Iranian military capabilities are, in themselves, strategic outcomes of enormous significance.
That said, the execution of the operation raises legitimate questions that cannot be ignored from an intellectually honest standpoint. The attack, in my opinion, is perfectly justified; the aggression of the Iranian jihadist regime has been constant and uninterrupted for the past 47 years. The legal justification is that it is a RESPONSE to the ongoing aggression of the last 47 years, not a PREVENTIVE ATTACK, which is where analysts who are unfamiliar with the Middle East and Near East (two distinct regions) or whose memory has been conveniently erased to fabricate arguments against the attacks are mistaken. Incidentally, no one complained or criticized the thousands of extrajudicial killings ordered by President Obama during his two terms. It is no less true that the attacks were launched without any consultation with allies, which confirms the Americans’ fear of leaks of sensitive information and intelligence. Although the attacks were launched without congressional authorization, the “Big Eight”—the eight most powerful members of Congress (Senate and House)—were informed. What is particularly shocking is that the eccentric Director of National Intelligence admitted in a Senate hearing that “there was no intelligence to support the theory of an imminent Iranian preemptive strike.” It wasn’t imminent; it is, and has been, constant and relentless.
The $200 billion request reveals that the true costs of the operation were underestimated. And the decision to temporarily lift sanctions on Russian oil to cushion the price increase constitutes a strategic contradiction that directly benefits the West’s main adversary in Europe: Vladimir Putin, and Iran itself, which has seen the efficient and prudent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent lift sanctions on the Iranian phantom fleet so that it can place no less than 140 million barrels to help contain crude oil prices in international markets.
Europe, for its part, has offered the pathetic spectacle of its usual irrelevance. Three weeks of contradictory statements, tactical shifts dictated by fear of Trump, and a pathological inability to articulate a common position. Germany’s case is especially worrying: Chancellor Merz, one of the best figures in a very mediocre global political class today, declared at the White House that he was “on the same page” as Trump regarding Iran, only for his Defense Minister to assert a week later that “this is not our war.” So, what’s the verdict? Strategic coherence seems to be a luxury that Berlin can no longer afford.
As for Spain, President Sánchez’s position is an exercise in opportunism disguised as principle. Invoking international law to condemn the operation against a regime that has violated every norm of international law for almost five decades is legitimate in theory, but inconsistent in practice when the same government that says “no to war” sends the frigate Cristóbal Colón to the eastern Mediterranean to protect British bases in Cyprus, maintains troops deployed in Lebanon under a UN mandate, and remains in the NATO mission in Iraq. Foreign policy cannot be built on election slogans without bearing the costs of inconsistency. What is truly at stake is not international law—which Sánchez selectively invokes—but Spain’s position within the Atlantic Alliance and its credibility as a reliable partner and ally. What alarms me is that very high-level Americans have told me quite bluntly in private conversations that “we already know we can’t count on Spain.” They didn’t say, “We can’t count on Sánchez.” The damage, perhaps irreparable, is to the reputation of Spain, not to that of the Spanish Prime Minister.
The Iran war is not, ultimately, a “war of choice” in the sense that Iraq was in 2003—the Iranian threat was real, imminent, and growing—but the way it has been conducted reveals the dangers of American leadership that combines tactical audacity with strategic negligence, whether through ignorance, arrogance, or a failure to listen to those who know the issues. You can eliminate a regime’s supreme leader, destroy its nuclear facilities and air force, and cripple its navy, but without a political plan for the aftermath—and to date, there is no evidence that such a plan exists—you risk creating a power vacuum that the history of the 21st century teaches us is always filled in the worst possible way.
The Strait of Hormuz must be reopened. The Gulf’s energy infrastructure must be protected. The Iranian regime must be dismantled, first and foremost for the benefit of the long-suffering Iranian people, who have been held hostage for decades by a jihadist-military oligarchy that has plundered their resources and murdered their children. But all of this requires an integrated strategy, strong alliances, and a clear political vision. Lacking any one of these elements is dangerous; lacking all three is reckless.