Liberation or Destruction? The Iranian Question
- MUN-UPD ERT
- Mar 2
- 11 min read
Iran's Supreme Leader is dead. U.S. warplanes are in the air. And 2.4 million Filipinos are waking up to the sound of bomb sirens; the crossfire has already started.
The sirens follow President Donald J. Trump’s announcement at approximately 5:00 a.m. EST on February 28, 2026, U.S. that the United States had begun "major combat operations" against Iran. Within hours of this declaration, the conflict escalated from targeted strikes into open regional warfare, with Iran retaliating against U.S. assets and allies across the Gulf. The death of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, subsequently confirmed by Iranian state media, has left a critical power vacuum atop Iran's leadership structure.
What began as a diplomatic effort in Geneva had become the most significant military confrontation in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The attacks followed the collapse of diplomatic talks in Geneva. Indirect talks initiated by the Trump administration in early 2026 had shown flickers of progress across multiple rounds in Geneva, with Omani mediators describing a "positive push" after discussions on February 22 and noting "significant progress" as recently as February 26. However, on February 27, those talks collapsed. Oman's foreign minister announced that Iran had agreed to degrade its nuclear stockpiles, yet President Trump, while stating his preference for diplomacy, warned that "all options" remained available. Less than 24 hours later, he made good on that warning, announcing the US-Israel strikes.
The American operation was followed later that day by coordinated Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, including sites in and around Tehran. Iran responded immediately by launching air and missile strikes across the region, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. The initial US-Israeli strikes also killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with his daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter. His death marks only the second leadership transition since Iran's 1979 revolution and plunges the country into a power vacuum that extends far beyond its borders. This void carries profound implications for regional stability, the Palestinian conflict, Iran's proxy networks, and the over 2.4 million Filipino nationals living in affected areas.
Geopolitical Origins
This ongoing struggle is a byproduct of long-standing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East since the turn of the 20th century. This period of struggle can trace its origins back to 1953, when Operation Ajax was executed by the collaborative efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the British Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6. This operation oversaw the ousting of then-democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after his policies of nationalizing Iran's oil industry, which was previously under the influence of Western interests, particularly the United Kingdom. Within the ensuing power vacuum, the Shahdom gained central authority over Iran under then-Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Iran served as a key Western ally in the Middle East. The Shah's autocratic tendencies, however, were unpopular among the general populace, causing unrest that would eventually culminate in the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
The Iranian Revolution's success overturned Iran's foreign policy, shifting toward a hostile stance against Western powers, particularly the United States—a key policy of the Islamic Republic that followed under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his theocratic form of government. U.S.-Iranian relations soon reached their lowest point by 1980 during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, wherein Iranian students infiltrated the United States Embassy and took its officials hostage for 444 days, causing both states to formally sever diplomatic ties.
Continued American operations within the Middle East further exacerbated tensions, especially during the Iran-Iraq War, where Iraq formally received U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic backing. Nevertheless, American intervention during that conflict was nuanced in order to contain both powers and ensure the balance of power. This policy was publicized under the Iran-Contra affair. In clear contrast to the overt American stance, the affair exposed evidence of arms deals between the United States and Iran, further eroding America's credibility and solidifying anti-American sentiments that extended from Iran to neighboring countries.
The United States' War On Terror, triggered by a terrorist attack on U.S. soil commonly known as 9/11, had also inflicted significant harm on the U.S.-Iran relations, initially providing a unique window of opportunity for reconciliation through Iran's initial support for U.S. anti-terrorism policies, such as the 2001 Bonn Conference. President George W. Bush's branding of Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" diminished those hopes of reconciliation.
Proxy conflicts within the Middle East sustained hostile relations between the two. An example would be Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas actively harming the interests of Israel, a key American ally. There is also the Houthi movement's alignment with Iran. Another form of this rivalry's tangible presence in proxies would be Iran's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the United States' support for opposing rebel factions. The United States had also directly funded Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists like Osama Bin Laden to counter external influence other than that of the U.S which consequently caused further destabilizations in the Middle East.
In light of the present context, the most relevant aspect of American-Iranian tensions would be the collapse of the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Signed in 2015 by several world powers, including Iran and the United States, the deal heavily restricted Iran's capability for developing nuclear weapons in exchange for economic relief through the lessened intensity of U.S.-imposed sanctions. This course of action not only maintains the United States’ monopoly on economic pressure within the region, but also that of sheer force. Despite Tehran and Washington's initial agreement, U.S. President Donald Trump's claim that the deal failed to curtail Iran's ballistic missile programs and Iran's backtracking of its previous pledges due to the resumption of hostile policies led to the collapse of said deal.
Motivations and Political Divide
Trump's motivations for engaging in the current conflict may be attributed to his administration's consolidation of executive powers. It is noteworthy that the current conflict faces controversy within the apparatus of the United States government due to America's direct engagement in Iran lacking congressional approval. A key feature of the U.S. government is that presidents lack the agency to singlehandedly start conflicts with other countries without the direct approval of Congress via the War Powers Act that was adopted in 1973. The aforementioned law is designed to require the President to consult Congress beforehand in matters of introducing the United States armed forces into hostile acts with other state forces. The Trump administration's failure to abide by this resolution has circumvented the precedent wherein the collective judgment of Congress, not the sole decision of the U.S. president, commits the nation to armed conflict. The implications of such actions deeply challenge the separation of powers that is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution.
Inevitably, President Trump's political opponents strongly condemned his actions. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, under the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, stated that the administration's actions are part of an "illegal, regime-change war against Iran." Furthermore, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has claimed that Trump attacked Iran without congressional approval, abandoning diplomacy and leaving U.S. troops vulnerable to retaliation.
Conversely, President Trump's political allies promote rhetoric that deems the U.S. response to be justified and necessary: "Today, Iran is facing the severe consequences of its evil actions. President Trump and the Administration have made every effort to pursue peaceful and diplomatic solutions in response to the Iranian regime's sustained nuclear ambitions and development, terrorism, and the murder of Americans—and even their own people," as House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson remarked. As the situation unfolds, the commonality between both sides is that of the debate regarding the present relevance of the War Powers Act.
While only recently being contested, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's death being confirmed by Iranian state media consequently amplifies discussions regarding the current conflict's roots in regime change. Even before the conflict, Iran has been marked by periods of instability and civil unrest due to the unpopular policies of the Islamic Republic, ignited by worsening economic conditions assuming concrete expression through soaring prices. This, coupled with the regime's longstanding infamy for infringing on the rights of its citizens mainly through the harsh enforcement of Islamic fundamentalist policies, has intensified calls for regime change in Iran not just locally, but globally. This serves as a critical opportunity for Iran's enemies, mainly the United States of America and Israel. President Trump has already capitalized on this, appealing to the Iranian people to "take over the government" and to "seize control of your destiny."
Despite branding the Iranian government as that of being oppressive and abusive, President Trump’s attempt to discredit and oppose the United Nations had exposed ironies in his foreign policy. Trump’s “Board of Peace”, a novel peacekeeping organization in place of the UN, had reached out to several governments who are notoriously undemocratic and are constantly a subject to human rights abuse cases such as Russia. It’s also worth mentioning the Board’s lack of mentions about human rights in its charter, which has been pointed out by critics in order to question President Trump’s dedication to “free” the people of Iran.
Escalation Across the Region
Within hours of the initial strikes, Iran's retaliation immediately escalated this conflict into a regional one with calculated attacks on U.S. bases across the Middle Eastern and North African region (MENA). The U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan have all reported Iranian missiles entering and being intercepted in their respective airspaces. Distressingly, these retaliatory attempts have affected not only military areas but also civilian areas. In the United Arab Emirates, Dubai International Airport was hit with a strike, injuring four staff and causing passenger evacuations. The Fairmont Hotel on Palm Jumeirah was also set ablaze due to these strikes. A strike also occurred in its capital of Abu Dhabi, wherein a drone struck Zayed International Airport, killing one civilian and injuring seven others. In Qatar, authorities have reported that over 66 Iranian missiles were intercepted, although shrapnel from the barrage injured 16 individuals across the country. In Bahrain, Bahrain International Airport sustained damages after Iranian missiles struck near the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet stationed in Manama. Kuwait International Airport also sustained damages due to drone strikes, resulting in employee injuries. Similarly to Qatar, the Jordanian government reported 73 incidents of falling missile debris along with drone interceptions across multiple regions, causing property damages. Strikes were also reported within Israeli territory.
International Response
Such developments were immediately convened upon at the United Nations Security Council. According to U.N. Chief António Guterres, the conflict is "igniting a chain of events that nobody can control in the most volatile region of the world." He added that "everything must be done to prevent further escalation." This notion is backed by the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Colombia, all of whom support immediate de-escalation in favor of regional stability and civilian welfare. Israel, however, argues that its actions are an act of necessity under existential threat. The United States sided with Israel by remarking that moral clarity is needed at this very moment, therefore implying that its strikes against Iran are a principled stand against an immoral and oppressive regime. However, the United States itself stands in tension with its historical record in promoting moral principles, particularly during the Iran-Iraq war where the United States actively supported Iraq’s regime. This was the case in spite of Iraq’s repeated weaponization of chemical weapons and human rights abuses. The United Nations Security Council had also failed to implement any meaningful solutions during this particular conflict due to great powers like the United States, influencing the council to remain passive.
Implications and Power Struggles
Khamenei's death leaves a void at the apex of Iran's governance, leading the Islamic Republic into a deep internal crisis since its founding. Analysts suggest the immediate future may see a transition toward collective leadership or, more likely, a military-heavy administration led by the IRGC to prevent state fragmentation. Multiple names are circulating as potential successors, each representing different political currents. Hardline cleric Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, reformist-linked Hassan Khomeini, and military figures like Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Ali Larijani are among those who could shape the transition. Khamenei's son Mojtaba remains a powerful behind-the-scenes figure, though the late leader reportedly opposed a hereditary succession.
In the hours following the strikes, the IRGC has moved to bypass constitutional norms, seeking to appoint a successor outside the Assembly of Experts even as parts of the military chain of command face disruption. The Assembly's formal role in selecting a new supreme leader has been sidelined amid the chaos. Russia has condemned the attack as an "unprovoked act of armed aggression," while the U.N. has convened emergency meetings as fears of wider war and humanitarian consequences grow. Secretary-General António Guterres warned of "a chain of events that nobody can control" in the world's most volatile region.
Subsequently, the power struggle in Tehran carries immediate consequences for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran and Israel have been engaged in a proxy conflict since 1985, with Tehran providing decades of financial, military, and political support to Palestinian factions as a cornerstone of its regional strategy. Today, supply lines via the IRGC-Quds Force to Hamas are severed, forcing the group into a survival posture with no prospect of external reinforcement. This severely damages the "Axis of Resistance," potentially creating a strategic window for Israeli military action in Gaza and the West Bank. However, the situation carries countervailing risks. While Khamenei's signature strategy of a coordinated multi-front threat is expected to dissolve as proxies lose consistent support, these groups may act independently. Iranian retaliation across the region signals that proxy networks could escalate attacks to prove relevance, paradoxically increasing instability around Israel and Palestinian territories. Most importantly, the regional escalation raises the risk that the localized Palestinian conflict becomes absorbed into a wider, multi-front confrontation, a shift that would fundamentally alter the nature of a struggle that has defined the Middle East for decades.
Filipinos in the Conflict Zone
As a nation with over 2.4 million overseas Filipino workers, the Philippines faces urgent concerns as conflict escalates across the Middle East. Iran's retaliatory strikes have targeted Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, which are all countries that host major U.S. military bases and large Filipino communities. Explosions have been reported near civilian areas in Abu Dhabi and Manama due to missile interceptions. Additionally, several airspace, including those of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE, have been closed. Flights bound for Riyadh and Doha from Manila were diverted or forced to return to NAIA on March 1, 2026.
In response to the escalating crisis, the Philippine government has activated its full emergency apparatus under the direct oversight of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has placed Philippine Embassies in the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Jordan on Full Alert. Filipinos in these areas are advised to "limit movement" and identify the nearest bomb shelters. The DFA is also identifying "exit points" for the approximately 800 Filipinos in Iran, ensuring that evacuation routes are prepared should the situation deteriorate further. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has been placed on standby to assist in large-scale humanitarian and evacuation operations if the situation escalates beyond the capacity of local embassies to manage. As of the latest advisories, one Filipino fatality has been reported.
Ultimately, the sparking of the Iran-US conflict reveals how fragile global security has become in the absence of effective diplomacy and proper international intervention. What the world must be most wary of is not only open war, but the normalisation of unilateral military action and retaliation. How much of the Iranian question defines our current moment lies in its exposure of the limits of our current international order, particularly how deterrence and multilateral diplomacy may no longer be the guaranteed safeguards against escalation we are used to. In the coming days, the Middle East will likely face prolonged instability rather than immediate resolution, shaped by Iran’s internal power struggle and the strategic calculations of regional and global powers. The capacity of the UNSC to respond decisively remains constrained and casts doubt on its ability to de-escalate this situation. After all, this moment is more than just a regional crisis, it is a test of whether international institutions and national governments can still protect civilians amid the unraveling certainty of global stability.
This article was written by Salam Joaquin Landicho and Charmel Nacorda, with editing from Patrick Raphael Ulibas and Ariana Lugay.
Comments