The development of the war against Iran, which began with the US-Israeli offensive on February 28, is in the focus of American and British publications, BTA writes.
US President Donald Trump grossly underestimated Iran's ability to block global oil supplies, which has caused a “completely predictable“ price shock, writes the British newspaper „Telegraph“.
Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes, has led to a sharp jump in energy prices after the start of the US-Israeli strikes against Iran, the publication points out.
The US Navy is not yet willing to escort ships through the strait, as it still considers it too dangerous, commented „Telegraph“. The newspaper quotes Dr. Eric Heginbotham of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Research Program, according to whom the US has not mobilized enough ships for such an operation, and in any case, its navy is not well enough prepared to deal with the threat posed by naval drones.
Meanwhile, the „Guardian“ writes that Pentagon officials informed US lawmakers during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday that the cost of the war against Iran has already exceeded $11.3 billion in the first six days, but the real cost is likely to be even higher.
The publication cited a source familiar with the matter, according to whom the Pentagon's estimate appears to include only the cost of ammunition and does not reflect the full cost of the first days of the conflict. Additional costs that must be taken into account include funds for supporting forces deployed in the region, medical costs, as well as replacing military aircraft lost in the war, the newspaper noted.
The rapid depletion of the most modern US ammunition is also likely to force the US Congress to pass an additional defense spending package for the purchase of new ammunition to replenish stocks, the publication noted. The Trump administration has not yet committed to the duration of the war with Iran, and lawmakers from both parties, Republican and Democratic, are increasingly skeptical of approving additional funding without an established plan to end the hostilities.
The position of Iran's new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, on whether Iran should begin developing nuclear weapons is currently largely a mystery, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Khamenei's close ties to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has in the past expressed support for acquiring nuclear weapons, have raised concerns in the Trump administration that the new leader will abandon his father's long-standing position against building a nuclear bomb, the publication said.
U.S. intelligence agencies have long believed that the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was adopted a strategy to maintain the development of nuclear weapons while avoiding the costs and risks of actually creating them, the Los Angeles Times reports. That doctrine is now in question. The new supreme leader is likely wounded and hiding underground after a US attack that devastated the Iranian military and killed his father, as well as his mother and sister and other family members. Ultimately, this may push him to the conclusion that a nuclear deterrent is necessary for the regime's survival, the publication comments.
Since the first missiles of the US-Israeli campaign began hitting Iran, Russian state media and political commentators have been heatedly commenting on one question: do negotiations with the US always end with missile strikes on the negotiating country's capital?, writes the newspaper “Washington Post“.
Trump's decision to assassinate Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while Iran was actively negotiating with the US president's envoy Steve Witkoff and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has reinforced the feeling among hard-liners in Moscow that diplomacy is fragile – perhaps even pointless – in a world where the US is prepared to use military force to achieve its goals, the publication emphasizes.
“The Washington Post“ quotes Vladimir Pastukhov, a Russian political scientist and professor emeritus at University College London, who said that a war with Iran would likely strengthen Putin's conviction that he was right to invade Ukraine.
“In fact, the entire logic behind the way the West resolves crises, as observed by the Kremlin - from Belgrade in 1999 to Tehran in 2026 - convinces Moscow that the one who waits until the last to strike will be the first to be crushed”, Pastukhov commented. “Now it will be difficult to convince Putin that he was wrong about anything. He will point to Tehran to his allies who are having doubts and tell them: “We would have been in their place”, the expert concluded.