Military Watch: 

U.S. Begins Withdrawing THAAD Missile Defence Systems From South Korea to Replenish Losses in War with Iran

North America, Western Europe and Oceania , Missile and Space

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

March-10th-2026

---

Missile Launchers From THAAD System

United States officials speaking to the Washington Post on March 10 confirmed that the U.S. Army has begun moving parts of its THAAD anti-missile system from South Korea to the Middle East, a week after South Korean sources first reported that a withdrawal of components of THAAD systems, and possibly full systems, was under consideration. This follows confirmation from South Korean government sources on March 9 that U.S. Army MIM-104 Patriot long range air defence systems have also been prepared  for redeployment from South Korea to the Middle East, and that heavy U.S. aircraft transport planes, likely C-17s, have flown to Osan Air Force Base to move them. The U.S. Army had previously redeployed two Patriot systems and approximately 500 personnel from South Korea to the Middle East between March and October 2025, which reinforced defences at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. These systems were then relied on to blunt Iranian strikes on the facility on June 23, albeit with less success than the U.S. Armed Forces initially claimed.

Surface-to-Air Missile Launchers From MIM-104 Patriot System

Unconfirmed reports from Western sources have indicated that anti-ballistic missile interceptors from the Patriot and THAAD systems had already been withdrawn from South Korea to shore up stocks at Middle Eastern facilities preceding the initiation of attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel on February 28. The decision to make further withdrawal from Korea is an indicator of the extent of losses of key radar and missile defence systems, and the sustained intensity of Iranian counterattacks, which there are multiple indications have significantly exceeded Western expectations. South Korea is the only foreign country that hosts a permanent foreign deployment of U.S. Army THAAD systems, which were initiated in 2016, with the systems’ location so close to Chinese territory having been considered an invaluable strategic asset by the United States. 

Launchers From U.S. Army THAAD System in South Korea

The THAAD system’s AN/TPY-2 radar has provided the capability to peer almost 3,000 kilometres into Chinese territory, with South Korean security commentator and retired navy captain Yoon Sukjoon referring to it as “part of the U.S.’ global anti-China united front... a strategic tool for containing China from one of the closest countries.” While it appeared likely that the U.S. Army would withdraw only interceptors for THAAD systems to replenish stockpiles in the Middle East, the destruction of two AN/TPY-2 radars in the region have raised the possibly that radars in Korea will also be withdrawn. South Korean sources, including President Lee Jae-myung, have highlighted these withdrawals as an indicator of the necessity of reducing reliance on the United States for security.  

AN/TPY-2 Radar From THAAD System in Jordan Destroyed in Engagements with Iranian Forces

The stockpiles of interceptors for THAAD systems are far from sufficient of a sustained conflict with an adversary with advanced ballistic missile capabilities, with only approximately 600 interceptors having been in service in the U.S. Army at the beginning of 2025, of which over 150 were expended during under 12 days of hostilities with Iran from June 13-25, 2025, despite just a single system having been deployed to defend Israel. The deployment of two systems, one in Israel and a second in Jordan, and the far greater intensity of Iranian strikes, has led analysts to estimate that the Army likely has approximately 200 or less interceptors remaining, with a significantly lower figure remaining possible. The withdrawal of almost all remaining interceptors in South Korea thus remains likely. The viability of replenishing these interceptors after hostilities with Iran cease will depend on multiple factors, including the state of the U.S. economy after the war, and the successes the U.S. may or may not have in expanding production of interceptors to replenish wartime expenditures. The consequences for the balance of power in Northeast Asia remain significant, highlighting how the global scale of the U.S. military presence, when combined with significant shortfalls in stockpiles and production capacities, can led to events in one theatre seriously influencing others.  

US-Israel war on Iran: A brief history of mission creep and false promises

US-Israel war on Iran: A brief history of mission creep and false promises


The history of modern wars shows how easily leaders meet the rhetorical burden of justification while avoiding the strategic burden of ending a war on terms that do not create the next one

Graves being prepared for the victims, mostly children, after an Israeli-US strike at a girls' elementary school in Minab, Iran, March 2, 2026 [Iranian Foreign Media Department via AP]

By Awad Joumaa
Published On 9 Mar 2026


Wars rarely begin as “forever wars”.

Leaders sell a short, controlled operation with a defined target. But mission creep turns that pitch into a pattern – retaliation cycles, credibility politics, alliance pressures and market shocks – that pull those governments deeper into a crisis and make stopping the assaults harder.

Governments start with narrow goals (“degrade”, “disrupt”), then drift towards open-ended aims (“restore deterrence”, “force compliance”) – objectives their airpower cannot conclusively deliver.

When the rationale for war becomes abstract, the endpoint becomes negotiable.

How wars become open-ended

The bombs falling on Iran follow a long history of interventions by the United States abroad. President Donald Trump, reportedly encouraged by a military operation in January that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, boasted of helping to rebuild Venezuela.

However, Venezuela remains embroiled in a protracted political and economic crisis.

In the case of Iran, US allies in Europe were more sceptical as they invoked the lessons for the West from the 2003-2011 Iraq war.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez warned that Western leaders were “playing Russian roulette” by threatening Iran while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged restraint and warned against destabilising the country.

Their message was that a “limited” military operation is often a pitch for the first few days of a conflict, not a description of what comes next.



How oil is at the center of the US-Israel war with Iran


But the US insisted it still controlled the narrative – and the events unfolding in the Middle East.

Trump said the US-Israel campaign in Iran could last “four to five weeks”, adding that the war has the “capability to go far longer than that”. That formulation – “short if it goes well, longer if it must” – is one of the oldest accelerants of mission creep.

Why mission creep happens and why it’s hard to contain

Mission creep is a chain reaction. It is accelerated by several factors:

Retaliation ladders: Each side’s “measured response” becomes the other side’s justification for the next strike, quickly shifting the war’s goals and timelines.

Domestic politics, allies and markets: These factors accelerate the slide into open-ended campaigns.

Leaders keep redefining success instead of pausing the attacks because admitting limits to their strategy could mean weakness. Allies add to the pressure as war coalitions fragment under stress, prompting states to take escalatory steps to prove reliability or avoid blame.

Finally, markets act as accelerants as energy prices, shipping insurance, trade disruptions and inflation become part of the ongoing war, forcing leaders to manage the economic effects of the war back home.

Credibility traps: These deepen the crisis as leaders shift focus from concrete tasks (hitting enemy sites, destroying military stockpiles) to abstract goals, such as “resolve” and “deterrence”. Analysts warned that states take risks to defend a war’s credibility even when underlying interests are limited.

Pivoting aims: When initial results disappoint, leaders pivot towards behavioral or political aims, like restoring deterrence or weakening a regime – objectives that airpower alone cannot deliver, turning the “operations” into “systems”.

The historical pattern


From Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Syria, Gaza and now Iran, the pattern of mission creep is clear.

Korean War: US President Harry Truman framed the 1950 aggression as ensuring collective security, but the conflict escalated into a three-year war, entrenching a long-term US military position in South Korea. The fighting ended with an armistice in 1953, leaving the war technically unresolved.

Vietnam War: US escalation of the war, triggered when the US military reported an attack on one of its warships in the Gulf of Tonkin, expanded an initial “response” into a long and costly conflict whose aims kept shifting. The war, which included large-scale aerial herbicide spraying, ended with a US withdrawal in 1973 and the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975. Later investigations revealed that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.

Iraq and Syria: The First Gulf War in 1991 ended quickly, but the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq set off a conflict that latest nearly nine years. The invasion, sold on claims of weapons of mass destruction, continued with new goals, like political stabilisation, after the original justification collapsed.

Similarly, the 2014 campaign against ISIL (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, despite aiming to avoid a large ground war, still embedded the US in a long-running deployment, illustrating incremental escalation.

Historian Max Paul Friedman noted that successive US presidents repeat the mistake of believing overwhelming military power can substitute for a viable political endgame. While the US has the capacity to “smash up states”, ensuring and installing a better replacement is a far rarer case.

While Trump claims the war in Iran could end in weeks, history – as we saw above – warns us otherwise.



US public approval of Iran war hits 27 percent, lower than Vietnam War


Israel learning from its sponsor

Israel is learning the war playbook from its biggest sponsor: the US, which historically has set a clear pattern on selling a military escalation as “security”, wins the first few battles but then struggles to control what comes next.

Since the 1970s, the so-called Israeli “security” wars have been reshaping the Middle East.

Like the US, Israel’s war on Lebanon is an example of mission creep with a regional twist: Operations framed as border security are repeatedly expanded into deeper campaigns, triggering long-term blowback from forces like Hezbollah.

In 1978, Israel invaded southern Lebanon in what became known as Operation Litani. The United Nations Security Council responded with Resolution 425, calling on Israel to withdraw and creating a peacekeeping force, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

In 1982, Israel launched a broader invasion that reached Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, and ended up occupying parts of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then emerged as a central actor in resisting the Israeli occupation in the south, which continued until 2000.

UNIFIL’s own historical record ties its mandate and continuing presence to that escalation cycle and the repeated failure to stabilise Lebanon’s border.

In the 1990s, Israel ran major military campaigns in Lebanon. These episodes sharpened a pattern that still shapes the region: Leaders promise to restore deterrence quickly, but deterrence becomes a permanent file rather than an outcome.

In 2006, the Israel-Hezbollah war lasted for 33 days and destroyed major infrastructure in Lebanon. The war ended with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for the cessation of hostilities and an expanded monitoring architecture centred on UNIFIL. Diplomats still treat 1701 as a cornerstone framework whenever escalation between Israel and Lebanon spikes precisely because none of the deeper political problems disappeared.

This history matters now because it shows how “bounded” campaigns create new systems: new armed actors, new front lines, new “deterrence” doctrines and a permanent state of tension and escalation.


Gaza: A genocidal war without an end date

Gaza illustrates a corrosive form of mission creep: military operations that are bound to fail with each round of escalation manufacturing the next.

After initial messaging in October 2023 suggested a swift campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the end of that year that the war would continue for “many more months”. He has since dragged it into its third calendar year, leading to catastrophic civilian losses and accusations of genocide.

While human rights groups and UN experts have said Israel has committed genocide or carried out genocidal acts, Israel has rejected the characterisation.

Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu, former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and late Hamas commander Mohammed Deif over the war.



Trump-Netanyahu’s 'war in search of a strategy'


What Iran war tells adversaries and allies

Without a clear and credible political end goal, any military action turns into a loop, morphing an “operation” into a “system”.

Rhetoric that accelerates such escalation includes the language of “imminent threat”, which compresses debate and makes a pause (truce, ceasefire) appear reckless.

In Iran’s case, Western leaders have also used nuclear warnings for decades. If a threat is permanently kept “only weeks away”, a war can be permanently presented as “necessary”.

As US and Israeli bombs rain down on Iranian territory, Washington is telling its adversaries – and allies – about energy, shipping and regional stability risks. Meanwhile, their European allies are reaching for the Iraq war analogy early on to avoid being dragged into a conflict that may have outgrown its sales pitch, as was seen with several nations condemning the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on the first day of the war.

The lesson is not how to run a war “better”. It is that leaders often sell a war as “limited” to win permission to start one. Then they incentivise escalation and punish restraint.

The history of modern wars shows how easily leaders meet the rhetorical burden of justification while avoiding the strategic burden of ending a war on terms that do not create the next one.

When war becomes a system, the hardest decision is no longer how to start one but how to stop it.

Which US and Israeli military companies (MERCHANTS of DEATH) are profiting from the Iran war?

Which US and Israeli military companies are profiting from the Iran war?

Defence stocks reach all-time highs, driven by need to produce billions of dollars of weapons systems.



By Hanna Duggal and Mohamed A. Hussein
Published On 9 Mar 2026


The biggest defence companies in the United States have agreed to “quadruple production” of what President Donald Trump describes as “exquisite class” weaponry after a meeting at the White House.

The meeting on Friday was attended by the chief executives of RTX (formerly Raytheon), Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, L3Harris Missile Solutions and Honeywell Aerospace, all of which are sitting on billions of dollars of order backlogs, some of which dwarf the gross domestic products (GDPs) of several nations.

The US is already the world’s largest military spender at nearly $1 trillion in 2025, exceeding the combined total of the next nine countries. Trump aims to increase this amount to $1.5 trillion by 2027.

Billions of dollars have already been spent by the US on weapons in the war with Iran, making war a highly profitable business for defence contractors.

Last week, stock prices for major arms-producing companies in the US have all risen, including for Northrop Grumman (up 5 percent), RTX (up 4.5 percent) and Lockheed Martin (up 3 percent).

So which weapons are being used in the war in Iran and which defence contractors are benefitting from this rapidly intensifying conflict?

Which weapons is the US using against Iran?

According to the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), Operation Epic Fury has drawn on more than 20 distinct weapons systems across air, sea, land and missile defence forces.

Missiles, munitions and missile systems

The Tomahawk missile has been the Pentagon’s long-range strike weapon of choice for three decades. The missiles travel at subsonic speeds, hugging the terrain at low altitude to avoid radar detection. They have been fired from Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the Arabian Sea, with each destroyer capable of carrying more than 90 Tomahawks.

(Al Jazeera)


The US has also launched the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) for the first time against Iranian targets from M-142 HIMARS systems in desert terrain. The short-range ballistic missile is capable of hitting targets 4002km (250 miles) away.

On the defensive side, Patriot missile batteries and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems have been positioned to intercept Iran’s retaliatory strikes with Patriots handling shorter-range cruise missiles and low-altitude threats while THAAD intercepts ballistic missiles at higher altitudes in the final phase of their descent.

(Al Jazeera)

Drones

The assault on Iran has also seen the debut of the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS), a one-way attack drone built by SpekreWorks and modelled on Iran’s own Shahed drone. At $35,000 per unit, LUCAS represents a deliberate pivot towards cheaper, more expendable munitions. It costs far less than the MQ-9 Reaper drone, which has also been deployed and costs up to $40m per aircraft to manufacture. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it shot down a Reaper on March 1.

Strike performance

The US is using B-1 bombers, B-2 stealth bombers, F-15 fighter jets, F-22 Raptor jets and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters to strike Iranian ballistic missile facilities and underground bunkers using 900kg (2,000lb) bombs to destroy Tehran’s stockpiles.

(Al Jazeera)

Reconnaissance

According to local news sources, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets were spotted on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, which is positioned in the Arabian Sea. The aircraft are used to jam enemy radar, communications and missile guidance systems. The P-8A Poseidon plane is also being deployed to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance across sea and land and has been detected circling around the Strait of Hormuz, according to flight path data.

Last month, the US Air Force also deployed E-3 Sentry AWACS radar aircraft to the Middle East, which provide real-time battlefield awareness. US Air Force RC-135 spy planes, such as the Cobra Ball and Rivet Joint variants have also been flying intelligence-gathering missions out of bases in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, monitoring Iranian missile launches, radar systems and communications.

Naval assets

The USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carriers have anchored US naval presence in the Arabian Sea and Mediterranean, respectively, while a fleet of Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers are providing both offensive firepower and missile defence with their Aegis systems.

(Al Jazeera)

Who makes the weapons being used against Iran?

Boeing makes the B-1 bomber, F-15s, EA-18G Growlers, P-8A Poseidon and the RC-135 with modifications provided by L3Harris Technologies.

Northrop Grumman makes the B-2 stealth bombers and provides radar technology to E-3 Sentry AWACS.

Lockheed Martin makes F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters, F-22 Raptor jets, THAAD systems, M142 HIMARS, MGM-140 ATACMS missiles and the PrSM.

The Raytheon division of RTX Corporation makes Tomahawk missiles and MIM-104 Patriot missile systems.

SpektreWorks produces LUCAS one-way attack drones.

General Atomics Aeronautical produces the MQ-9 Reaper drones.

Huntington Ingalls Industries built the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R Ford.

(Al Jazeera)

What are the biggest military companies in the world?

In 2024, the top 100 defence companies in the world made more than $679bn of revenue, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).


US firms dominate with almost half ($334bn) of the revenues, followed by China ($88bn), the United Kingdom ($52bn), Russia ($31bn) and France ($26bn).

(Al Jazeera)


European heavyweights, such as the UK’s BAE Systems, Italy’s Leonardo, the trans-European Airbus, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall, all occupy positions within the top 20 companies with many growing off the back of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The table below breaks down the top 100 arms-producing companies around the world.

What are the biggest defence contractors in the US?

According to SIPRI’s report, 39 US contractors are on its list of the top 100 defence companies, dwarfing China’s eight groups, which have the second most contractors featured in the top 100.

The top five US defence companies are:

Lockheed Martin: The world’s largest defence contractor was formed in 1995 through a merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta. In 2024, it generated $68.4bn in revenue. It has contracts with the US government to manufacture aircraft, such as the F-35, missiles and space systems. Its Department of Defense contracts are worth tens of billions of dollars. This year, the company signed an agreement with the US government to accelerate the production of the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement for air defence missiles.

RTX: It was formed in 2020 after a merger between Raytheon and United Technologies. The three main segments of the business are focused on producing missile systems, jet engines and avionics for the US military and commercial airlines. In 2024, $43.6bn of the company’s revenue came from defence.

Northrop Grumman: The contractor was formed in 1994 after Northrop’s acquisition of Grumman. The company generates revenue from the manufacture of stealth aircraft, such as the B-21 Raider, space systems and nuclear modernisation programmes for the US Air Force and government. In 2024, $37.9bn of its revenue came from defence.

General Dynamics: It develops nuclear submarines, battle tanks, armoured vehicles and the Gulfstream business jet. In 2024, $33.6bn of its revenues came from defence.

The Boeing Company: The aircraft maker was founded in 1916. Most of its revenue comes from the production of commercial aircraft, defence programmes and space systems such as its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, AH-64 Apache and Chinook helicopters and the P-8 Poseidon. In 2024, $30.6bn of its revenue came from defence.

(Al Jazeera)

What are Israel’s biggest defence contractors?

According to SIPRI’s report, three Israeli contractors are on its list of the top 100 defence companies. The Israeli defence industry is experiencing a surge in exports with highly advanced military technology taking the helm.

Elbit Systems: Israel’s largest defence company specialises in drones, surveillance systems, battlefield electronics and military optics. In 2024, $6.3bn of its revenue came from defence.

Israel Aerospace Industries: The state-owned defence and aerospace company specialises in missile defence systems, satellites, combat drones and radar technology. In 2024, $5.2bn of its revenue came from defence.

Rafael: The company is also state-owned and is behind Israel’s much-lauded Iron Dome missile defence system. It also provides precision-guided munitions. In 2024, $4.7bn of its revenue came from defence.

(Al Jazeera)

US defence stocks have surged in recent years

According to SIPRI, global defence spending jumped 9.4 percent in 2024 to $2.7 trillion. In addition, NATO members have pledged to increase their annual defence budgets from 2 percent to 5 percent of their GDPs by 2035, adding hundreds of billions of dollars in annual spending.

To replenish rapidly depleting stockpiles of munitions being used in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, major weapons contractors are investing billions in new orders, responding to increased demand and driving up their stock prices.

The chart below shows the increase in stock prices of the largest US defence contractors from March 2023 to March 2026. RTX has seen the biggest rise at 110 percent, followed by Northrop Grumman at 60 percent, General Dynamics at 57 percent, Lockheed Martin at 37 percent and Boeing at 5 percent.

Some imponderables over Iran conflict

Some imponderables over Iran conflict

P Gunasegaram
Published: Mar 6, 2026 8:00 AM
Updated: 11:18 AM



COMMENT | At this stage, it is pretty difficult to forecast how the US-Israel undeclared attack and war against Iran will pan out, with Iran’s firepower stamina, even in a limited conflict, not easy to assess and differences in opinion as to their strength.

But more to the point, both the US and Israel are headed by extremists - people who don’t seem to be rational and see beyond their immediate political and other needs.

They are also willing to gamble big for gains without thinking of what will happen further out.

The US, in fact, joined in the latest round of bombings, which killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and practically the country’s entire top leadership, while they were negotiating a nuclear limitation deal with Iran. Downright insidious and untrustworthy.

While not many are fans of the oppressive Iranian regime, US President Donald Trump and Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, taking international law and order into their own hands spells global uncertainty and regime change at the whim of foreign powers.


Complete capitulation

Israel has already threatened to kill any successor to the ayatollah, putting paid to any hope of negotiation and paving the way only for complete capitulation of Iran to the US-Israel axis, no different from what Trump and Israel have forced down the throats of millions of Palestinians over Gaza.

The situation may be a bit different with Iran, however, which is a vast strategically positioned country of over 90 million people with long histories and traditions. Some analysts are saying Iran has limited options, which nevertheless could be devastating.

The latest attacks follow illegal ones last June against Iran and Venezuela in January this year, in the latter taking the country’s president and wife captive.

What is worrisome is how far Trump is prepared to go in doing what he thinks is fair - no, good - for the US, with a middle finger to the rest of the world.

The question in European minds following this wiping out of Iranian leaders while negotiations were going on for processes to ensure that Iran does not get nuclear arms must be, when Greenland, and even Canada, are going to be taken over by the US.


An uneasy restraint

There is an uneasy restraint from the US’ main allies, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, with Spain being among the few voices speaking up against war and attacks.

The main allies seem to be fixated on preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons, but don’t seem to have publicly addressed the question of what is and what is not acceptable in international conflicts.

Does the US (and Israel in the Middle East) get everything that it can take?

How can the rest of the world fight Trump’s avarice and lack of scruples when key allies can’t even take a brave stance against what is clearly against international norms and behaviour anymore?

He does not even seem to hesitate to take the conflict across the oceans. An Iranian frigate returning from an Indian port was sunk off the coast of Sri Lanka in international waters two days ago, torpedoed by a US submarine.

“An American submarine sank an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said callously at the Pentagon.

“Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death.”

It looks like the US will take its actions anywhere it can, with no consideration for international law and the legitimate interests of affected nations. A spark may someday soon light the tinder which ignites World War 3.

It’s a stark reminder of how the rise of an incompetent, corrupt, and unstable person to the top position in the world’s strongest military and economic power can have dire consequences not just for the US but the entire world.

Trump does not seem to be concerned at all and continues to enjoy the support of the US legislature for his latest series of dangerous misadventures - the biggest and most volatile component in the shifting equation of international conflict in the Middle East.


What can Iran do?

Some analyses focus on whether Iran can actually force a long closure of the Straits of Hormuz, the gateway to the Persian Gulf (see map), on whose shores are an array of oil-producing countries, which besides Iran include the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.




Reports put the amount of oil flowing through the Straits of Hormuz at around 20 percent of world production, with most of it flowing to Asian countries such as China, India, and Japan, which perhaps explains why Asian shares are taking a beating while the US remains stable.

If Iran can close the Straits of Hormuz permanently, then it exerts not only pressure on world oil prices, but it also damages the economy of the oil-producing countries here as well.

Currently, very little oil is moving through the straits, and if this continues, there can be significant damage to the world economy as well as the producing countries, a very serious scenario.

One analysis says Iran can, by using missiles and drones stored within the protective havens of its mountains, inflict considerable damage on the production of oil in these areas, and it can close the narrow Straits of Hormuz. Others suggest there is little likelihood of this.

So far, the evidence is that Iran does not have much more firepower than it has already used, and it has inflicted only limited damage.

Even if it does have it and is holding it in reserve, it will be suicidal to use it because of the strength of the reprisals that will follow and Iran’s inability to defend itself against it. But desperation and anger mean reason is often thrown out the window.

The net result of all this is that nations that can will develop deterrent nuclear power and those who can’t will develop either alliances with those who have or tread the delicate path of neutrality, hoping that good sense will prevail.

But the new thing is that US allies, especially the Europeans, are being increasingly forced to the unsavoury realisation that they can’t rely on the US to jointly take care of mutual interests, even if Trump only lasts until 2028.

Who knows if subsequent US presidents won’t take a similar path?

Prepare for the next cold war, with some volatile and surprising changes in groupings.

P GUNASEGARAM says wars are always caused by leaders, not by people.

The war in the Middle East and its potential effects on Malaysia

Murray Hunter


The war in the Middle East and its potential effects on Malaysia


Mar 09, 2026





The greatest impact upon Malaysia will be the change in the shape of the ‘world order’ emerging after this war. - March 7, 2026



This is my first column written for The Vibes and published last Saturday March 7. I will try to keep to the meme “from every side”.


The ongoing war in the Middle East has dominated the news since it began with unprovoked attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States on Saturday, February 28.

The first casualty of the war was Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This indicated that Israel and the US had expected a quick regime decapitation. However, this strategy drastically failed, as citizens very quickly fell behind the government with great patriotism.

Since then, the US and Israel have resorted to indiscriminate bombing of Iranian cities. Within the first hour of US-Israeli attacks, news reports emerged that between 100 and 175 school girls aged between 6 and 12 years were killed at Shajareh Tayyebeh, a sign of what was to come for Iranian civilians. The latest strategy is a quest by the US and Israel to arm the Kurds in northern Iran to create civil war in the country.

The war is now drastically escalating as Iran is undertaking the defence of the nation from an existential threat. The damage and death tolls on both sides are still not clear. What is paramount is that Iranian survival as a culture and nation is at stake.

If you read, watch, and listen to the legacy media, you are being told that Iran is struggling to defend itself from overwhelming attacks by Israeli-US forces. The US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a press conference that the US and Israel now completely control the skies over Iran.

In contrast, the independent media offers a vastly different story. Iran’s military response to initial attacks caught the region off guard and put them into defensive positions across the major gulf and Israeli cities. Iran has quickly spread the conflict to the Gulf region, attacking mostly US military facilities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia (now claimed as a false flag), Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, Oman, and Cyprus, where British forces are on standby. Prime targets in these countries have been US military bases and diplomatic posts, not the people of these cities. There have been reports of locals within Gulf cities cheering when Iranian missiles hit US facilities.

At the time of writing, Iran has tended to utilise the older stocks of its missiles and drones at a conservative rate, saving its modern weapons for later in the conflict. Iran is even firing decoys to run down missile defence systems. The aim here is to force opponents to exhaust their anti-missile resources.

Iran’s military strategy is clearly to make the world suffer economically, so it costs the United States both financially and diplomatically. We have already witnessed a rise in fuel prices, with Brent Crude now USD 10 above what it was a week ago. Precious metals like gold and silver are on the rise, and there are rumblings in international equity markets. International air transport is massively disrupted, with airfares dramatically rising.

Iran is banking on chaos within international markets becoming an albatross around US President Trump’s head, forcing the US and Israel to retreat. The war is going to be very expensive for the US, and President Trump’s Republicans are facing mid-term elections this coming November and potentially risk losing both houses of Congress. Commentators claim the US is spending USD 1.0 billion per day.

The blocking of the Straits of Hormuz shipping lanes is starting to disrupt the flow of oil to many parts of the world. This is causing panic in many countries where petroleum stocks may last only a month.

The Israeli army is attacking the Iranian ally Hezbollah in Beirut. France and Saudi Arabia announced they are entering the conflict against Iran, where Pakistan has pledged to help Saudi Arabia. If this war continues to escalate around the Gulf region, some pundits are claiming that Gulf family regimes may themselves come under threat. This would be a far greater disturbance to the region than the Arab Spring was back in 2011.

The attack on Iran that happened less than one week ago is now a full Middle Eastern war. If Iran falters, then nations like Türkiye could become future targets of Zionist Israel.

The important issue from where we are geographically is;

How will Malaysia fare during this conflict?

Malaysia, as a Southeast Asian nation with significant ties to global energy markets, trade routes, and the Muslim world, faces a mix of economic opportunities and risks from the ongoing US-Israel-Iran conflict that escalated with coordinated strikes on February 28. While Malaysia has no direct military involvement, the fallout could manifest through indirect channels like commodity prices, supply chains, and geopolitical tensions.

The Malaysian public is already reacting with some concerns about the prices of subsidised RON95 and diesel, with the escalation of the war in the Middle East. Fortunately, being a net exporter, Malaysia is in a good position with oil and gas. There should be some buffer for Malaysia with the disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and broader Middle East instability. With Brent crude prices expected to rise over USD 100, Petronas should experience more revenue through higher prices, which could boost government revenue. However, on the spending side, the fuel subsidy bill for RON95 could strain the budget in the short term.

Of greater concern will be the effects of the war on the global economy. If global demand decreases and a recession sets in, this could impinge on Malaysian exports. Malaysia will not be immune to global volatilities. Exports are a very important component of GDP growth. Exports make up between 68 and 71 per cent of GDP. The disruption to global supply chains, particularly in semiconductors, petroleum products and palm oil, will be important to watch.

Likewise, a rise in the costs of commodities like wheat, corn, and soybeans could drive up costs for food items, which include bread, poultry feed, and eggs. The cost of transport logistics is set to rise, as they are disrupted by the war. This will have some effect on the cost of living, with a resurgence of inflation. There could be a downward movement in GDP growth later in the year if the war continues.

However, analysts have described Malaysia’s potential exposure as “moderate and manageable,” but a sustained war could exacerbate these issues. The current signs indicate this conflict will have a protracted time span, increasing the economic consequences to the world, as there is a low probability of any ceasefire in the near future.

The greatest impact upon Malaysia will be the change in the shape of the ‘world order’ emerging after this war. Contrary to the narratives the legacy media are putting forward, US influence in world affairs will decline as Russia and China will rise. Both Russia and China have a respect for the global south, which was not seen under the former US unipolar hegemony. We will also see changes within some of the Gulf states and even a rebalance within the Muslim world that is still too early to define.

The unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran was an attack on the global south of which Malaysia is a proud member. This war will be very much a ‘swan song’ for US hegemony over the world. The conflict represents a pathway into a multi-polar world, which Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim recognised and embraced with his overtures to Russia and China over the last 3 years. Malaysia’s gaining partner status in BRICS was very important. Here lies the future of Malaysia, where the development of BRICS will now accelerate even faster than before.

Malaysia must prepare to be part of this new world order culturally, economically, politically, and socially to gain full benefit. – March 7, 2026

The observations reflect the writer’s personal insights and do not necessarily represent the official stance of The Vibes.com

‘No popular support’: China warns against government change in Iran

‘No popular support’: China warns against government change in Iran

Beijing calls for Iran’s sovereignty to be respected and demands ‘immediate stop to military operations’ in the Middle East

China's foreign minister urges 'all sides' of the war to return to the negotiating table 'as quickly as possible' [File: Greg Baker/Pool via Reuters]
By AFP and Reuters

Published On 8 Mar 2026

China has warned against seeking government change in Iran amid the ongoing US-Israeli offensive, saying any such move lacks public support.

“Plotting a ‘colour’ revolution or seeking government change will find no popular support,” China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi told a news conference on the sidelines of an important annual gathering in Beijing, state-run Xinhua news agency reported on Sunday.

Wang also called for the sovereignty of Iran and all countries to be respected, and demanded an “immediate stop to military operations” in the Middle East to prevent an escalation and avoid a spillover of the conflict.

“This is a war that should not have happened, and it is a war that does no one any good,” Wang said. “Force provides no solution, and armed conflict will only increase hatred and breed new crises.”

The people of the Middle East are the true masters of this region, and the region’s affairs should be determined by the countries there independently, he said, urging noninterference in internal affairs.

“A strong fist does not mean strong reason. The world cannot return to the law of the jungle,” he told reporters.

Wang urged “all sides” to return to the negotiating table “as quickly as possible” to resolve differences through dialogue, and work to realise common security.

China, he added, stands ready to work with the regional countries to “restore order to the Middle East, calm to its people, and peace to the world”.

According to a classified US National Intelligence Council report, even a large-scale US military offensive would be unlikely to overthrow Iran’s military and clerical power structure.

The report – published on Saturday by The Washington Post, citing three sources familiar with the classified document – undercuts US President Donald Trump’s assertion that he could “clean out” Iran’s leadership and install a preferred successor, indicating that such an outcome would be far from certain.

Beijing has condemned the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Wang also maintained that China’s relations with Russia, which has been criticised by the West for sustaining the war in Ukraine, remained “steadfast and unshakeable”.

Hassan: Anwar risks legitimacy as PM by ignoring Nurul Izzah, MPs' concerns on MACC

Hassan: Anwar risks legitimacy as PM by ignoring Nurul Izzah, MPs' concerns on MACC

Zikri Kamarulzaman
Published: Mar 9, 2026 7:00 PM
Updated: Mar 10, 2026 11:45 AM



A PKR lawmaker has urged Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is also the party president, not to ignore concerns raised about the MACC.

Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim said if Anwar keeps turning a deaf ear to these complaints - including from his daughter and PKR deputy president Nurul Izzah Anwar - then the premier risks his legitimacy as the head of government.

Speaking to Malaysiakini, Hassan said a prime minister’s legitimacy comes from the support of MPs and political parties, including his own.

Thus, he said, if MPs are ignored and cast aside, it could eventually lead to questions about that legitimacy.

“So, before it gets to that point, Anwar must stop dilly-dallying. Act to save Malaysia from mafias and corruption,” he said when contacted.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim


He was commenting on Nurul Izzah’s statement on Saturday, saying there needs to be answers regarding allegations of a so-called “corporate mafia” - private individuals who collude with the MACC to shake down business rivals.

The PKR deputy president had also criticised the high-handed investigations into the RM1.1 billion government deal with chipmaker Arm Holdings, particularly regarding the MACC’s release of researcher James Chair’s private information.

The statement came a day after Anwar dismissed Bersih’s criticism that the MACC had become a political tool.

PKR deputy president Nurul Izzah Anwar


The prime minister has also been dismissive of the MACC collusion allegations, telling Parliament last Tuesday that news reports quoting sources will only be investigated if there is substance.

He also said DAP’s calls for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the case were premature pending the completion of a government probe into MACC chief Azam Baki's shareholdings.


‘Who will PM listen to if not us?’

Commenting on the stark contrast between the PKR president and deputy president’s views on the MACC, Hassan said he fully supported Nurul Izzah, saying she has always been consistent on the matter.

“The party president must listen to the views of the deputy president as well as the vocalness of Rafizi Ramli on the MACC issue. I myself have spoken up about it in Parliament.

“If the voices of all PKR leaders and MPs are not heard by the PKR president, who will the prime minister listen to?” he asked.

Anwar has been a staunch defender of the MACC and Azam, in particular, saying none were as brave as the latter in pursuing graft cases.

Azam's contract will not be extended, says report

Azam's contract will not be extended, says report


Published: Mar 9, 2026 8:42 PM
Updated: Mar 10, 2026 11:48 AM



MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki’s contract will not be extended after it ends on May 12, Singapore news outlet The Straits Times reported.

The report quoted anonymous high-level government and legal sources saying that the decision comes on the heels of corruption allegations against Azam, whose tenure has already been extended three times.

“The prime minister has repeatedly stressed to the cabinet in recent weeks that Azam’s contract won’t be renewed,” an anonymous official told ST.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had previously defended extending the MACC chief’s tenure amid criticisms, including from his daughter Nurul Izzah, saying Azam had shown “extraordinary courage” in tackling high-level corruption.

In December last year, Azam acknowledged that the repeated extensions of his contract had drawn criticism from certain parties, hinting that his tenure might end upon the expiry of his contract in May this year.

Malaysiakini has contacted the MACC for comments on the report and is awaiting a reply.


Millions in shares, corporate mafia

Last month, Bloomberg and Malaysiakini separately reported that Azam owned significant shares in two companies, exceeding what the civil service allowed.

Companies Commission of Malaysia records revealed that Azam had, at some point, held 17.7 million shares in Velocity Capital Partner Berhad and around 4.52 million shares in Awanbiru Technology Berhad.

The Velocity Capital Partner shares were believed to have been bought for around RM1.5 million, while the Awanbiru shares were estimated to have been valued between RM1.24 million and RM1.38 million at some point.

Subsequently, Bloomberg published another report, alleging that MACC officers had colluded with private individuals to strong-arm business rivals and stage corporate takeovers and that Azam was aware of the collusion and had even acted in support of such acts.

Azam later filed an RM100 million defamation suit against Bloomberg, but this was only on specific allegations regarding his shareholding.

Special task force

On Feb 13, a special task force, headed by Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar, was formed to investigate the claims against Azam.

Dusuki indicated to Malaysiakini, two days later, that the scope of the investigation would only focus on the shareholding allegations.


READ MORE: DAP MP's warning: If Azam stays, Madani goes


Bukit Aman had also launched a criminal investigation against Bloomberg over the report on Azam’s share ownership.

According to federal police Criminal Investigation Department director M Kumar, the probe followed a police report lodged against the media company on Feb 13.

Bloomberg stood by its report.


Calls for RCI

On Feb 17, Suhakam called for the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) to investigate the allegations against Azam.

In a statement, Suhakam stressed the establishment of an RCI rather than relying on a special task force that may lack clear statutory authority and coercive powers.

While it stressed that it does not take a position on the substance of the allegations, Suhakam said corruption - and any perception that it is not addressed seriously and accountably - carries “profound negative human rights consequences”.

READ MORE: 'MACC advisory board has no power to probe commission'

Suhakam also called for Azam to be put on garden leave while the RCI conducts its investigation to prevent any real or perceived influence over the process.

DAP adviser Lim Guan Eng, meanwhile, said the party is set to decide on July 12 whether its officeholders should relinquish their government positions, reportedly suggesting that the decision might be brought forward.

DAP adviser Lim Guan Eng


In an interview with Kwong Wah Yit Poh published on Feb 26, he said that this is if the cabinet meeting on Feb 27 rejects the party’s proposal to establish the RCI to investigate allegations that the MACC is colluding with “corporate mafias”.

DAP leaders have also pressured Anwar to establish the RCI.

On Feb 27, the cabinet agreed to consider follow-up actions, including establishing an RCI, regarding allegations against the MACC and Azam, government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil said.

Fahmi added that the three-member committee led by Dusuki has nearly completed its probe and will submit its report to the cabinet soon.