The latest developments in the war on Iran include a partial U.S. pullback from an all-out energy infrastructure war, mixed regional responses, and the expansion of the conflict into new geographic and strategic domains. After the Israeli strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field on March 18 and Iran’s subsequent retaliatory attacks targeting similar infrastructure in Qatar, the United States reacted with alarm. President Donald Trump publicly distanced Washington from the South Pars strike - despite reporting indicating the U.S. was intimately involved - and signaled that further attacks on Iran’s major energy infrastructure should not continue unless Iran again targets regional facilities. If Iran targets Qatar again, Trump vowed to destroy the entire South Pars gas field.
The part of the message that emphasized restraint appears to reflect a recognition that a sustained energy war could trigger uncontrollable global economic consequences, harming the United States. At the same time, this does not represent a broader de-escalation. U.S. and Israeli attacks are continuing and any rhetoric suggesting restraint may not restrain future action. Each side is continuing full military pressure while seeking to mitigate reactionary global economic shocks.
The latest dialing back of rhetoric follows a rapid and visible reaction in global markets. Oil and gas prices surged sharply after the South Pars attack and Iran’s strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex, with European gas prices and global oil benchmarks rising significantly. Initial reports indicate that Iran’s strikes knocked out 17% of the Ras Laddan complex’s LNG production capacity for up to five years, a significant blow to one of the world’s most critical LNG hubs. The damage raised concerns about long-term global supply disruption, demonstrating that damage to energy infrastructure has immediate global consequences.
At the same time, Iranian strikes appear to have reached into Israel’s core energy infrastructure. Damage to the Haifa oil refinery, one of Israel’s most important energy facilities that supplies a major share of the nation’s fuel, signals an expansion of Iran’s retaliation into Israel’s economic backbone. Israeli authorities asserted that the damage was limited and did not impact core facility functions. Regardless, together with attacks in the Gulf, this suggests that Iran’s response has been multi-front and strategically coordinated, targeting both regional and Israeli energy systems.
From Iran’s perspective, the recent actions appear to follow a clear retaliatory doctrine. The strikes on Persian Gulf energy infrastructure suggest that Tehran aimed to mirror the attack on South Pars and demonstrate an ability to inflict calculated damage. Iranian officials have indicated that further escalation will depend on whether its own infrastructure is targeted again, suggesting a conditional pause rather than full de-escalation.
However, the escalation was not without cost. Twelve Islamic and Arab countries in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain and Syria strongly condemned Iran’s attacks in a joint statement, particularly those affecting civilian and energy infrastructure in the Gulf. These states emphasized that such actions are unjustifiable and threaten both regional stability and global energy security. At the same time, many of these countries continue to criticize Israeli actions elsewhere, reflecting a dual position: opposition to escalation from all sides, but increasing concern about Iran’s direct impact on neighboring states.
In response to criticism, Iran has noted that the U.S. and Israel are using the soil and airspace of Gulf monarchies to conduct attacks on Iran. Recent reporting from the Wall Street Journal indicates that evidence shows the U.S. has begun using ground-launched ballistic missiles against Iran with a range of roughly 200–300 miles, including from locations in Bahrain. Iran’s Foreign Minister has also suggested that Kharg island was fired upon from positions in the United Arab Emirates. Thus, even as the Gulf monarchies respond with understandable outrage, Iran does not view some of them as neutral bystanders to the war.
Qatar’s reaction has been significant. Following the attack on Ras Laffan, Doha condemned Iran’s actions, took diplomatic measures. and signaled a breakdown of trust. Yet, on Thursday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani - standing alongside Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan - called for an immediate end to the war and suggested only Israel benefited from it. “This war needs to stop immediately. The aggression needs to stop immediately.” He continued, “Everyone knows who the main beneficiary of this war is, and dragging the whole region into this conflict is.” The intervention adds nuance to the earlier condemnatory statement. Qatar has previously served as a key mediator between Iran and the United States, and with its shared energy resources with Iran, could lose significantly in a further escalation of tensions.
Similar calls for deescalation have accompanied Oman’s condemnations of attacks on energy infrastructure. The Oman Foreign Ministry called for “de-escalation, an end to military operations and the prioritising of diplomatic solutions to resolve disputes in a way that preserves security and stability and safeguards the interests of the region and the wider world.”
The broader international response reinforces the trend of Iran’s isolation. The United Kingdom announced increased defensive support to Gulf states, describing Iran’s actions as a serious escalation that risks further destabilizing the region. At the same time, global powers have emphasized the need to secure the Strait of Hormuz and maintain energy flows, while countries like Japan have expressed deep concern about the economic impact but remain cautious about direct involvement. This reflects a broad international alarm without unified military escalation.
New military developments highlight the continued intensity of the conflict. Reports indicate that an American F-35 fighter jet was struck while flying over Iran and was forced to make an emergency landing, with the pilot in “stable condition.” The F-35 is considered the most advanced fifth generation stealth aircraft in operation. Those advocating for war had argued that the June war, along with earlier Israeli strikes, had rendered Iranian skies clear for combat aircraft. Yet, there have been numerous incidents signaling that this is not the case. Just detailing confirmed information, Iran has shot down many drones operating in its airspace, a refueling aircraft was shot down in Iraq and now the most advanced fighter jet in the world was damaged, apparently, by Iranian fire. This signals that Iran’s airspace is far from uncontested. If confirmed, it would indicate that Iran retains the capability to challenge high-end U.S. military assets despite sustained strikes on its infrastructure.
Perhaps the most strategically significant shift is the opening of a northern front inside Iran. Strikes on Bandar Anzali and related infrastructure are highly consequential because this region is a key trade corridor linking Iran to Russia through the Caspian Sea. At a time when southern routes are under pressure and the Strait of Hormuz is unstable, northern connections have become critical for Iran’s trade, logistics, and strategic resilience. Targeting this area suggests a shift in military pressure toward areas that have not been hit as hard thus far, creating additional pressure on Iran’s economy, supply chains, and military logistics, potentially significantly increasing the cost of the war for Tehran.
Overall, the current moment reflects a paradoxical shift. On one hand, the United States appears to be shying away from an all-out energy war, and Iran signals that its retaliation for South Pars may be complete. On the other hand, the conflict is expanding geographically and strategically, with new fronts, deeper strikes, and broader regional involvement. The result is not true de-escalation, but rather a continuation of a consequential and multifaceted conflict. While direct attacks on major energy infrastructure may temporarily slow, the war continues to evolve and shape regional security, global energy flows and critical trade routes.