From airstrikes to chokeholds: How the Iran war shifted into an economic battle

• The Iran war evolved from large-scale missile and air campaigns into a struggle over energy routes, sanctions, and economic pressure.
• The Strait of Hormuz has become the center of a wider confrontation between Washington’s military campaign and Tehran’s economic leverage strategy.

By: Rana Salahat 

The Middle East’s latest confrontation moved through several distinct phases, transforming from a direct military clash into a broader battle over economic pressure and control of strategic trade routes.

During Ramadan 2026, the region witnessed one of its most severe military escalations in decades. The confrontation began with large-scale US and ‘Israeli’ strikes targeting Iranian nuclear, missile, and military infrastructure, followed by Iranian drone and ballistic missile attacks against ‘Israel’ and US positions across the region.

The fighting also placed the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy corridors, at the center of the crisis after Iran moved to restrict maritime movement through the waterway.

The short-lived ceasefire, followed by the June Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), briefly shifted the confrontation from battlefield operations to diplomacy. However, the collapse of the truce in July reopened direct hostilities and introduced a new phase focused on economic leverage.

From missile barrages to maritime pressure

During the initial phase of the war, both sides relied on direct military force. US and ‘Israeli’ operations focused on degrading Iran’s strategic capabilities, while Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks aimed at regional targets.

After the ceasefire, Iran changed its approach by focusing on economic pressure. Tehran sought to use its influence over the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic tool, imposing tighter maritime controls and increasing pressure on commercial shipping.

The shift reflected a move from direct destruction toward what analysts describe as economic warfare, where control over trade routes became as important as battlefield gains.

July strikes reopen direct confrontation

The diplomatic track collapsed in July after US President Donald Trump declared the interim agreement “dead” following attacks on commercial vessels.

The US military then launched expanded strikes inside Iran, targeting missile sites, radar systems, and drone facilities, including locations in Hormuzgan province and Abu Musa Island.

Iran responded by widening its attacks against US-linked positions in the Gulf, including facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait, increasing fears of a broader regional escalation.

The confrontation has moved beyond traditional battlefield objectives, with both sides targeting the other’s ability to maintain economic and military pressure.

‘Israel’s’ changing role

During the Ramadan phase, ‘Israel’ played a central role in direct military operations against Iran, coordinating closely with Washington on intelligence and airstrike campaigns.

However, during later diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran, ‘Israel’ was not directly involved in negotiations.

Despite the diplomatic track, ‘Israeli’ officials maintained a hardline position, warning that any agreement between the US and Iran would not necessarily restrict ‘Israeli’ military decisions.

At the same time, ‘Israel’ continued operations against Iranian-linked groups, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, as part of efforts to limit Tehran’s regional influence.

Regional alliances become less coordinated

The early stage of the war was marked by coordinated actions among Iran and its regional allies, with attacks from different fronts occurring alongside Tehran’s missile operations.

However, the post-ceasefire phase has seen a more fragmented landscape.

Iran entered negotiations seeking possible limits on its missile program in exchange for sanctions relief and reconstruction assistance, while regional armed groups increasingly operated under separate conditions.

The result has been a shift from a unified regional confrontation into several separate battles, with groups aligned with Iran facing intensified pressure.

A struggle over global trade routes

The conflict’s transformation shows that neither side achieved a decisive victory during the initial military phase.

Instead, the confrontation evolved into a wider geopolitical struggle over economic access and strategic influence.

Washington is using military force to challenge Iran’s control over critical energy routes, while Tehran is using the Strait of Hormuz as a tool to pressure the US and its allies.

The battlefield has expanded from nuclear facilities and missile bases to the arteries of global trade, where control over shipping lanes and energy flows may determine the next phase of the war.