The Editor’s Note
Welcome back to another issue of Outside OX1! This week, the news has been dominated by one rather nuanced and complicated story: Iran. As such, to do the best coverage possible, the Global Affairs team has covered three angles of this conflict: the war, the response, and the repercussions.
First up is the start of the conflict, which began when Israel and the United States began a series of coordinated strikes on Iran. These have since caused over 1,000 civilian deaths, and although the strikes targeted political and military infrastructure, a girls’ elementary school was also struck, killing 165 children. Iran has since launched its own drone strikes and missiles into Israel and other Arab states which host US bases.
Then, the world’s mixed response. With a strike not authorised by the United Nations Security Council or the US Congress, world leaders have simply been forced to react. Many EU states have fallen in line to support the US and Israel. Most remain silent. Some, such as the UK, have oscillated. A few have objected, including Spain, as well as the UN which has claimed that the US is not acting in accordance with international law.
Finally, what the assassination of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei means for the future of Iran. The country first delayed naming a successor due to security concerns, after Israel announced that any named successor would be a target for elimination. Iran has since announced that Khamenei’s second son, Mojtaba, has been chosen – a candidate previously deemed unacceptable by US President Donald Trump, who would prefer to be involved in the next appointment.
US-Israel Strikes on Iran Continue as Civilian Death Toll Climbs
Laura Beard
On 28 February 2026, Israel and the United States began an ongoing series of coordinated strikes on Iran. The attacks, named Operation Epic Fury by the US and Operation Roaring Lion by Israel, led to the death of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the first wave of strikes, and have since caused over 1,114 civilian deaths, according to the US-based NGO Human Rights Activists in Iran.
So far, the strikes have targeted key political and military infrastructure, including the Iranian presidential office, the Supreme National Security Council building, a covert nuclear compound, and missile launch sites and airfields – based on claims made by the US and Israeli militaries. Although Iranian authorities have not confirmed this, satellite imaging does show that extensive damage has been inflicted on many of these sites, including the presidential office, the judiciary complex, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) headquarters. In fact, the US asserts that they have successfully attacked around 2,000 targets.
However, civilian sites have also been attacked; the Shajare Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in southern Iran was struck on 28 February, causing the deaths of around 165 girls under 12 years old, and injuring at least 95 others. Crowds of mourners gathered in the local area to attend funerals for the children. The attack, which UN experts condemned as “a grave assault on children”, had no tactical value: the school was completely walled off from the IRGC compound, and was attended by children without ties to the Iranian military. Both the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and the US have denied responsibility for the strike, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserting that “the United States would not target, deliberately target a school. [The Iranian regime] are, on the other hand, deliberately targeting civilians.” However, US military investigators have suggested that American forces are likely to be responsible for the attack.
In response to the attacks, Iran has launched drone strikes and hundreds of missiles into Israel and other Arab states which host US bases, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan, as well as US-allied Oman and Saudi Arabia. The head of the US Central Command, Brad Cooper, stated that Iran has “attacked 12 different countries and continues to deliberately target civilians”: Iranian attacks killed 6 US personnel, 2 Kuwaiti soldiers, and a civilian in Kuwait, 3 people in the UAE, 1 in Bahrain, and 10 in Israel. Drone strikes have also sparked fires in the US embassy in Riyadh and in a car park near the US consulate in Dubai.
Iran has also implemented a near total internet blackout, increasing the risk of harm to citizens who are now unable to access information about the location of predicted or past strikes, and which medical facilities have been affected.
Both Israel and the US have sought to justify the strikes, describing them as intended to provoke regime change and eradicate Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities. The strikes on Iran occurred only two days after US-Iran nuclear negotiations, hosted in Geneva, failed to achieve an agreement. On Truth Social, Trump asserted that Iran posed a threat to the “core national security interests of the US”, while Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz described the attacks as intending to “remove threats against the state of Israel“. In line with this goal, on 2 March, Israel also began to target Beirut and southern Lebanon with intensive bombing, following Hezbollah’s decision to launch rockets across the border as revenge for Khamenei’s assassination. According to UN reporting, this has caused the displacement of almost 100,000 people, which UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned could constitute a violation of international law. Thousands of Syrian refugees have had to flee Lebanon, returning to Syria after the IDF issued a mass evacuation order.
Some analysts have suggested that the increased weakness of the Iranian regime in recent months may have contributed to the decision to launch strikes. In early 2026, intense protests broke out over economic and infrastructural failings. Although they were forcibly suppressed, student protests revived in late February, right before the strikes. Additionally, several key Iranian allies in the region have been weakened, especially by Israeli military attacks after 2023, as well as the collapse of President Assad’s regime in Syria.
This weakness will no doubt be exacerbated by the loss of Khamanei. Iran has confirmed that the Assembly of Experts, a body of 88 senior clerics, will elect a new supreme leader as soon as possible. Yet persistent strikes make this difficult, especially since the office of the Assembly of Experts was bombed on 3 March, although casualties were avoided. Currently, Iran is led by the transitional leadership council, which includes President Masoud Pezeshkian, judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei and senior cleric Alireza Arafi. However, Trump has asserted his intention to personally select the next leader, in line with his goal of regime change: “The United States will ensure that whoever leads the country next, Iran will not threaten America or its neighbors, Israel, anybody.” US Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to give details on the current candidates but confirmed that a number are under consideration.
Leavitt also confirmed that the strikes will only end once Trump believes Iran no longer “poses a threat.” UN Secretary General António Guterres has urged nations to “stop the fighting and get to serious diplomatic negotiations,” but this seems unlikely to happen immediately. While the White House has suggested that the campaign may take four to six weeks, Pete Hegseth stated that the strikes will last for “as long as it takes” until Trump achieves the “unconditional surrender” which he has demanded.
The World’s Response to the Iran War: From Support to Condemnation, and Everything in Between
Noah Allerton
The bombing of Iran by the United States and Israel was an action not authorised by the United Nations Security Council, or even US Congress. The rest of the world had to simply watch as Operation Epic Fury was executed. The response of world leaders has been mixed: from full support both rhetorically and militarily, to full scale condemnation, and everything in between. Many EU states have fallen in line behind the US and Israel in support, but there are some notable deviations. Meanwhile, the UN has taken a far stronger stance against the action in Iran, claiming that the US is not acting in accordance with international law.
The UK and the EU
The response of the UK has changed and developed over the course of the last week. The UK issued a joint declaration with France and Germany on 28 February, calling for Iran to stop all strikes in the region. The UK has not participated in any strikes on Iran, a decision UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly defended since the start of the war – but one that was criticised by US President Donald Trump for not initially allowing the US to use UK military bases to carry out strikes.
This position, however, changed after a UK military base in Cyprus was struck by an Iranian-made drone. Since then, Starmer has authorised the use of Akrotiri and Dhekelia by the US for defensive purposes only, and has not allowed offensive strikes to be taken from the bases. This came after two more drones heading for RAF Akrotiri were intercepted. Cypriot responses to the use of the bases have been mixed, with some citizens believing that Cyprus is being dragged into a war it does not wish to be a part of. The incident has renewed discussions about the place of British bases in Cyprus at all in the modern age.
Outside the UK, the EU has seen incredibly mixed responses in the face of the war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has called for a “credible transition” in Iran, with a move towards democracy following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. NATO chief Mark Rutte has also argued that the US knows what they are doing in Iran, and that there is widespread support across the alliance for the action. This claim is dubious, however, and the reactions of individual member states have been anything but united.
The most vocal dissenter against the war among the EU and NATO states has been Spain. President Trump issued threats and warnings to Spain during a bilateral press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on 3 March. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez did not allow the US to use jointly-owned bases Móron and Rotafor for carrying out attacks on Iran, and Trump’s threats in response included “stop[ping] everything having to do with Spain, all business having to do with Spain”. Merz reminded Trump that Spain was an EU member state, therefore any trade deal with Spain would equally affect all EU members.
Sánchez hit back at Trump, arguing that he was clearly not on the side of the former Ayatollah, but that he was on the side of international law. He argued that his position was consistent with that taken on Ukraine and Gaza, and that Iran had every possibility of reflecting the same failures of the Iraq War in 2003, with similar economic impacts. Economic impacts of the ongoing war have already been observed, with oil prices surging to their highest since October 2022.
Sánchez has not been the only European leader to stress the importance of adherence to international law. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin stated that conflict should be resolved through “diplomacy and negotiation”, but stopped short of explicitly condemning the US or Israel for the attacks. In response to criticism from Opposition Leader Mary Lou McDonald, Martin argued that the UN Security Council had been “dysfunctional for quite some time” and that it is “impossible to get a UN mandate for even peacekeeping now”. This left some questioning exactly how Martin thought that the action was illegal, if he believed that securing permission from the UN Security Council was not feasible. Perhaps more than any other country, Ireland has attempted to strike a balance between upholding international law and not confronting the US directly; unfortunately, it seems difficult for the two positions to coexist without appearing contradictory, leading to descriptions by some outlets of Ireland’s approach as “schizophrenic”.
Beyond Europe
Beyond Europe, responses to the war have been similarly mixed. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was one of the first world leaders to come out in strong support of the US and Israel, claiming that Ayatollah Khamenei would “not be mourned” and that action had to be taken in order to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran and protect “rules based order”. Later in the week, Albanese announced that “military assets” had been deployed to the region to support Australian citizens, in the form of two heavy transport aircraft. New Zealand preceded Australia’s deployment, sending two aircraft a day earlier for the purposes of repatriation, should the situation further escalate.
President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa offered a slightly more critical evaluation, calling for the cessation of all hostilities and for parties “to exercise maximum restraint and to act in a manner consistent with international law”. Without explicitly criticising the US and Israel, Ramaphosa stressed that “anticipatory self-defence is not permitted under international law and self-defence cannot be based on assumption or anticipation”, referring to the fact that the action taken by the two states was only done in anticipation of a threat from Iran. South Africa’s scepticism is in line with their previous positions taken concerning conflict in the Middle East, with South Africa being the state to move a case against Israel for allegations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (South Africa v. Israel).
Pakistan has borne witness to repercussions of the actions in Iran too; on 1 March, the day after the initial strikes, protesters attacked the US consulate in Karachi, and protests erupted across other major population centres in Pakistan. As many as 35 people are reported to have died in the protests, with 16 of those being in Karachi. This followed Pakistan’s condemnation of the attacks on Iran, with Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar branding the attacks “unwarranted”, and stressing Pakistan’s support for the “urgent resumption of diplomatic engagement”.
Summary
There are few states that have argued that the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a loss that should be mourned. However, when it comes to the way that his death was brought about, and the actions that the US and Israel have taken, there remains divided global opinion. Many governments are still in fear after the failings of Afghanistan and Iraq over 20 years ago, and this war in Iran simply brings back too many memories. There is a delicate balance to be struck for many states, in not condemning the US too strongly out of fear of retaliation – which Trump has proven he will threaten, as has been the case with Spain – but also not wanting to condone what appears to be a violation of international law. The world’s response is truly divided, and there are no clear suggestions of how states will react as the situation develops.
After Khamenei’s Assassination, What Comes Next for Iran?
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Anastasija Vranjes
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated on 28 February in American-Israeli airstrikes, setting off a conflict that has since spread to 14 countries in the region. The abrupt end of the supreme leader’s 36 year reign has left a power vacuum that the Iranian government will now try to fill, while others will attempt to exploit Iran’s political instability to bring down its authoritarian regime.
Following Khamenei’s death, Iranian state media announced the formation of an interim leadership council which led the country until Khamenei’s successor was named. The three men on the council were President Masoud Pezeshkian, chief justice of the Supreme Court Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, and member of the Guardian Council Ayatollah Alireza Arafi. While Pezeshkian is a reformist politician, Mohsen-Ejei and Arafi are hardline clerics.
One of the council’s duties was to oversee the process of naming Khamenei’s successor. According to the constitution, the supreme leader of Iran must be a Shia Muslim scholar, and is selected by the Assembly of Experts, an elected council of 88 members. Additionally, all candidates for the role must be vetted by the Guardian Council, a powerful government body of 12 members, whose appointments were heavily influenced by Khamenei.
Earlier this week, two unnamed officials had disclosed to the New York Times that they were delaying naming a successor due to security concerns. Israel said that it would target whoever is chosen, with Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz stating that any named successor will be “an unequivocal target for elimination”.
Despite this, Ahmad Alamolhoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts, told state media early on Sunday that a successor had been chosen. The identity of the successor remained hidden, with Iran’s foreign minister saying that “no one knows” yet who was selected. Later that day, it was announced by Iranian state media that Khamenei’s second son, Mojtaba Khamenei, had been chosen as his successor.
Many have long considered Mojtaba Khamenei as the favourite for the role of successor. Speculations of his appointment have existed for over a decade, and have grown since the death of Khamenei’s expected successor, Ebrahim Raisi, in a helicopter crash in 2024. Mojtaba Khamenei is considered a hardline, anti-Western figure, and is seen by reformists as a key actor in rigging the 2009 elections and suppressing the protests that followed. He was given the title of ayatollah in 2022, making him a high-ranking religious leader. Among his allies are influential members of Iran’s administration, and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who are believed to have chosen him as their preferred candidate.
United States President Donald Trump had previously rejected Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment, describing it as“unacceptable” and stating that he must be“involved in the appointment, like with Delcy in Venezuela”. It is unlikely that Iran will accept such an arrangement, given its past experiences of foreign intervention from Britain, Russia, and the US. In fact, a significant reason for the 1979 revolution was nationalist resentment over foreign influence, and this sentiment was carried into the new regime by the revolution’s spiritual founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who labelled the US as“the great Satan”.
Even with a new leader named, it remains to be seen whether the Iranian government will be able to uphold its authority. US-Israeli strikes have led to significant losses in leadership, including the deaths of Head of the National Defence Council Ali Shamkhani, Commander in Chief of IRGC Mohammad Pakpour, Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, and a number of Khamenei’s trusted IRGC commanders. Even though Iran has proven to have retained its military capabilities, the BBC has argued that continued fighting could lead to a fragmentation of security forces, and a system breakdown. On the other hand, if Iran’s militant allies join the fight, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the system may be able to survive long enough for a ceasefire to be agreed.
Pezeshkian apologised on Saturday morning to countries in the region for conducting military operations against them, and has promised not to attack any country that does not directly attack Iran. It is unclear whether his promise will be fulfilled, however, as on Saturday afternoon both Qatar and the UAE stated that they had intercepted missiles from Iran. If attacks like this do continue, it will raise questions about the authority of the current leadership, and the extent of their ability to control the IRGC.
In his statement on Saturday, Trump urged the Iranian people to take over their government, suggesting that US strikes will provide the conditions for them so that “it will be [theirs] to take”. Although many in Iran and abroad have celebrated the supreme leader’s death, there have also been mass congregations to mourn Khamenei. At the first Friday prayers since the start of the conflict, people filled the streets to pay their respects, waving Iranian flags, and chanting anti-US and anti-Israeli slogans. Meanwhile, those who are celebrating this moment see it as justice for his brutal suppression of protests in January, in which over 7,000 people are confirmed to have been killed, with 11,000 more deaths under investigation.
Today, Iran is a country with a divided public and a leadership that is starting to show its cracks. Time will tell if the regime will be able to hold on to its power, or if its authority will finally shatter.