At dawn on 28 February 2026, American and Israeli warplanes struck Iran in an operation codenamed "Epic Fury." Within hours, the Natanz enrichment facility burned, residential neighborhoods in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz lay in ruins, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated. Washington and Tel Aviv presented these strikes as pre-emptive self-defense against an imminent threat. The reality is more disturbing: this was calculated aggression that shredded international law, paralyzed global institutions, and unleashed economic devastation now crushing the world's most vulnerable nations. Sixteen days in, the catastrophe clarifies hourly. At least 1,332 Iranian civilians are dead, including 180 children. Twenty schools and thirteen healthcare facilities have been destroyed. The Strait of Hormuz, conduit for one-fifth of global oil, has become a tanker graveyard. Brent crude has surged past $119 per barrel, with projections of $200 if disruption persists. For developing nations already economically precarious, this war threatens to erase a generation of development gains.
The legal justifications collapse under minimal scrutiny. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the strikes countered an "imminent" threat to American forces. President Trump invoked an Iranian nuclear weapon as "global danger." But Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had testified days earlier that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and had made no effort to rebuild enrichment capabilities following June 2025 attacks. The intelligence community's annual threat assessment confirmed that even if Iran chose to build a weapon, the process would take years. The "imminent threat" was fabrication; the nuclear justification, a lie. This manipulation of intelligence to justify predetermined military action follows a familiar pattern: cherry-picked assessments, suppressed dissent, and public narratives designed to legitimize wars conceived in secrecy.
International law offers no ambiguity. The Nuremberg Tribunal established that initiating a war of aggression constitutes "the supreme international crime." Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires all states to refrain from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The International Court of Justice has affirmed this prohibition binds all nations without exception. The strikes lacked Security Council authorization and were not a response to any armed attack triggering self-defense under Article 51. They were, by definition, acts of aggression. However, the overt embrace of regime change as war aim, Trump declaring "the hour of freedom" to the Iranian people, Netanyahu proclaiming the goal to "remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime", represents a frontal assault on sovereign equality itself. Forcible regime change is explicitly prohibited by international law. The attempt to overthrow a foreign government through military means attacks the foundational premise underpinning the entire international system.
The UN Security Council, charged with maintaining international peace and security, held an emergency session on 28 February and accomplished nothing. Russia condemned the strikes as unprovoked aggression. China expressed shock that military action launched during ongoing diplomatic negotiations mediated by Oman. Western members offered only equivocation. The United States insisted its actions were lawful. The United Kingdom expressed concern while confirming British participation in coordinated operations. France and Germany condemned Iranian retaliatory strikes while remaining silent on the initial aggression. No resolution was adopted. No meaningful action was taken. Then, the United States and allies rushed to the Security Council, demanded action, imposed unprecedented sanctions, and supplied billions to the victim state while invoking territorial integrity and the prohibition on force. In 2026, when Washington and Tel Aviv are the aggressors, those principles have been conveniently forgotten. This selective application of international law, as Global South scholars and diplomats have long warned, undermines its credibility as a universal framework. When law applies only to the weak, it ceases to be law and becomes merely an instrument of power.
The economic consequences have proven immediate, severe, and global. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed, with nearly two hundred vessels stranded. Qatar, the world's largest LNG exporter, has declared force majeure on multiple shipments. Insurance premiums have increased tenfold. Major shipping groups have suspended operations, rerouting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope and adding ten to fifteen days to journey times. Aviation is paralyzed across Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Jordan, with thousands of flights grounded and Gulf hub routes eliminated. Manufacturing worldwide braces for impact as supply chains for automotive production, electronics, and chemicals shatter.
For Bangladesh, this conflict has transformed from distant geopolitics into human crisis. Between 28 February and mid-March, at least five hundred Dhaka-Middle East flights were cancelled. More than thirty thousand Bangladeshi workers, who invested heavily in overseas employment often by selling land or taking debt, are stranded at home with visas nearing expiration. Since fiscal year 2025, approximately 8.6 million Bangladeshi workers have travelled abroad, substantial numbers to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. Their remittances sustain the national economy and household consumption. Escalation threatens this system entirely, with migrant workers typically first to face job losses when economic activity slows. Even limited remittance reduction would strain Bangladesh's external balance, deepening pressure on fragile foreign exchange reserves.
Bangladesh's dependence on imported energy, crude oil, refined fuel, and LNG, leaves it highly vulnerable to global price surges. Fuel station queues have formed; the government has closed universities and introduced fuel rationing. Rising oil prices deplete reserves, pressure the taka, and raise costs for electricity, transport, and industry. Policymakers face an impossible choice: expand subsidies, straining fiscal resources, or pass costs to consumers, intensifying already elevated inflation. Food inflation reached 9.8% by February 2026, with non-food inflation at 7.2%. Further oil price increases will push these higher as transport, irrigation, and distribution costs rise. This pressure coincides with Bangladesh's transition from Least Developed Country status, bringing structural challenges as preferential trade benefits decline. Key sectors like the garment industry must compete in more demanding markets requiring investment and stability. Instead, Bangladesh faces uncertainty, inflation, and disruption that actively place development gains at risk.
The most disturbing revelation came from Rubio himself: "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We had to act to manage the consequences." This exposed a captured foreign policy, the United States responding to a predetermined Israeli plan, intervening to shape fallout from a decision made in Tel Aviv. Senator Bernie Sanders captured widespread recognition: "Netanyahu wanted war with Iran. Trump just gave it to him." Equally troubling is the treatment of contradictory intelligence. Gabbard included in written testimony that Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear program, then omitted this from oral remarks, claiming insufficient time to read her own testimony. A senior aide resigned, stating publicly there was no imminent threat and the President had been misled. When the narrative collapses, the architects move on, leaving others to count the dead.
Sixteen days in, no one knows how this ends. Iran declares it will not surrender. The United States dispatches additional marines. Israel mobilizes reserves. The Security Council remains paralyzed. The diplomatic track lies in ruins. The victims are not the generals or politicians. They are the children of Minab, killed in their school by a bomb meant for a nonexistent military target. They are the Bangladeshi workers in Dhaka, watching visas expire and debts mount. They are the Tehran families mourning while the world argues about legality. The prohibition on aggression is not ambiguous. Article 2(4) contains no exceptions for powerful states. The crime of aggression has been committed in broad daylight by states claiming to defend the rules-based order. And the institutions designed to prevent this have failed. The strong did what they could. The weak suffered what they must. From Dhaka to Dakar, Jakarta to Johannesburg, the world watches and waits, hoping the fire does not spread. But it will. The oil surge becomes food surge becomes debt crisis becomes political crisis. The interconnectedness globalization promised as benefit has revealed itself as vulnerability. When the Gulf burns, the world burns with it.
This writer is the editor of Geopolits.com
