Middle East Erupts as US-Israel Strike Iran Amid Nuclear Talks

The US and Israel launch joint strikes on Iran while nuclear negotiations continue, triggering retaliatory attacks across the Gulf. Global reactions reveal deep divisions over the escalation.

February 28, 2026: Smoke trails across Doha's skyline as Qatar intercepts Iranian missiles. Just hours earlier, the US and Israel had launched coordinated strikes across Iran—while nuclear negotiators were still at the table.

The Middle East has become a powder keg again. But this time, the parties who were supposed to be talking peace are the ones pulling triggers.

Months in Planning, Moments to Execute

President Donald Trump announced Saturday morning that America was engaged in a "major combat operation" to eliminate threats from Iran's regime. The mission: destroy Iran's missile industry and naval capabilities while urging Iranian citizens to overthrow their government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the attacks as removing an "existential threat." According to Reuters, a senior Israeli defense official revealed the strikes had been planned for months, with the specific timing set weeks ago.

But why now? Why attack a country you're simultaneously negotiating with?

Retaliation Ripples Across the Gulf

Iran's response was swift and sweeping. Tehran didn't just hit back at Israel—it targeted every Gulf state hosting US military assets. Missiles rained down on Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

"All American and Israeli assets and interests in the Middle East have become a legitimate target," a senior Iranian official told Al Jazeera. "There are no red lines after this aggression."

The Gulf states found themselves reluctant participants in a conflict they didn't choose. Qatar condemned the missile strikes on its territory as a "flagrant violation" of sovereignty. The UAE called Iran's attacks "cowardly acts" threatening civilian safety. Bahrain, home to the US Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters, labeled the strikes "treacherous."

These nations host American military bases not by choice alone, but as part of complex security arrangements. Now they're paying the price for Washington's foreign policy decisions.

Global Powers Choose Sides

The international response reveals deep fractures in how the world views this escalation.

European Divide: While EU leaders called for "maximum restraint," individual nations split sharply. France's Emmanuel Macron demanded an emergency UN Security Council meeting, warning of "serious consequences for international peace." But Norway's foreign minister went further, declaring Israel's preemptive strike violated international law: "Preventive attacks require an immediately imminent threat."

East-West Tensions: Russia accused the US of using nuclear talks as "cover-up before military operations"—a charge that stings given ongoing diplomatic efforts. Ukraine took the opposite stance, blaming Iran's "violence and impunity" for causing the current crisis.

Regional Mediators: Perhaps most telling is Oman's reaction. As the key mediator in US-Iran nuclear negotiations, Oman's Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi expressed dismay, urging Washington "not to get sucked in" further. When your mediator is telling you to stop, what does that say about your strategy?

The Negotiation Paradox

Here's the central puzzle: How do you bomb someone while trying to make a deal with them?

The US has been engaged in nuclear negotiations with Iran, with Oman serving as intermediary. These talks were supposed to prevent exactly this kind of escalation. Instead, we're witnessing what Russia's Dmitry Medvedev called using diplomacy as "cover-up" for military action.

This raises uncomfortable questions about American foreign policy consistency. Can you be a credible negotiating partner while planning military strikes? Does this approach strengthen or undermine future diplomatic efforts?

Civilian Cost, Military Logic

The International Red Cross warned of a "dangerous chain reaction" with "potentially devastating consequences for civilians." Belgium's foreign minister echoed this concern: "The Iranian people must not pay the price for their government's choices."

Yet military planners see different calculations. Israeli officials justify their actions as preventing greater future threats. American strategists view Iran's missile capabilities and regional influence as existential challenges requiring decisive action.

The gap between humanitarian concerns and security imperatives has never felt wider.

Global Economic Ripples

Beyond the immediate violence, this conflict threatens global stability. Oil markets are already jittery, and further escalation could spike energy prices worldwide. Supply chains running through the Gulf—a critical shipping corridor—face potential disruption.

For countries like South Korea, heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil, this represents both energy security risks and potential defense export opportunities as regional nations seek enhanced missile defense systems.

Perhaps the real question isn't whether this strategy will succeed, but whether traditional notions of diplomacy can survive in an era where military action and negotiation happen simultaneously. What would you do if you were sitting at that negotiating table right now?"