The attack on South Pars, a major component of the world’s largest natural gas deposit shared by Iran and Qatar, drove oil prices higher and intensified concerns over global energy supply disruptions.

Trump said Israel had acted “out of anger” and that Washington had no advance knowledge of the operation.

QatarEnergy reported “extensive damage” and sizeable fires at facilities in Ras Laffan Industrial City following missile strikes, while Saudi Arabia said it intercepted four ballistic missiles aimed at Riyadh and thwarted a drone attack on a gas installation in its eastern region.

The strikes mark a significant expansion of hostilities into critical energy infrastructure in the Gulf, a region central to global oil and gas markets. Ras Laffan processes roughly a fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas, making it one of the most strategically important energy hubs globally.

Iran carried out additional missile attacks on Thursday targeting Qatari gas facilities and the Saudi capital, according to officials, heightening fears of prolonged disruption to energy flows.

The South Pars field itself is a cornerstone of Iran’s gas production and is geologically linked to Qatar’s North Field, underscoring the cross-border risks posed by military escalation.In a post on X, Trump said Israel’s strike had been a response to developments in the region but warned Tehran against further escalation.

He described Iran’s subsequent targeting of Qatar’s LNG facilities as “unjustified,” adding that Doha had not been involved in the initial attack.

Trump said the United States would prevent further Israeli strikes on South Pars unless Iran “unwisely” targets Qatar again. He also warned that any such move by Tehran would trigger a large-scale U.S. response against the gas field.

Earlier reporting by the Wall Street Journal said Trump had approved Israel’s plan to strike Iran’s gas infrastructure, though the president said Washington had no prior knowledge of the specific operation.

Regional fallout widensIran’s actions reflect a broader pattern since the conflict began nearly four weeks ago, with Tehran targeting not only Israel but also U.S. diplomatic and military facilities across the Gulf. Iranian officials have also warned neighbouring states against facilitating attacks on its territory.

Saudi authorities said their air defences successfully neutralised incoming threats, while Qatar has yet to detail the full operational impact of the damage to its LNG facilities.

The widening scope of attacks on energy infrastructure has raised geopolitical and economic stakes, with markets reacting to the potential for sustained disruption across key supply routes and production hubs.

Speaking to reporters at the White House during a St. Patrick’s Day visit by Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, Trump said allied governments had expressed support for U.S. and Israeli actions but were unwilling to provide direct military assistance.

Trump noted that several allied countries had indicated they had no immediate plans to deploy naval forces to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass.

The comments followed calls by the U.S. administration for international support to maintain shipping access after Iran responded to joint U.S.-Israeli strikes with drones, missiles and naval mines that have effectively hindered tanker traffic.

Despite the criticism, Trump said he had “nothing currently in mind” when asked whether Washington would retaliate against allies for their stance.

“I think NATO is making a very foolish mistake,” Trump said. “Everyone agrees with us, but they don’t want to help.”

Earlier in the day, Trump struck a different tone on social media, stating that the United States no longer needed NATO assistance due to what he described as “Military Success” in the ongoing conflict, now in its third week.

In that statement, he also singled out non-NATO partners Japan, Australia and South Korea, without elaborating on their roles.

Trump has previously raised the possibility of withdrawing the United States from NATO, though he did not revisit that position in his latest remarks.

The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz has heightened concerns about global energy supplies, as disruptions in the narrow waterway can have immediate implications for oil markets and shipping routes.

The reluctance of NATO allies to engage militarily underscores divisions within the alliance over involvement in the conflict, even as diplomatic backing for U.S. actions appears to remain intact.

Takaichi will be the first major ally to hold face-to-face talks with Trump since he urged Japan and other partners to send naval vessels to escort tankers through the strategically vital waterway, which has been largely disrupted by Iran during the conflict.

“The biggest risk is that Trump publicly presses her for security commitments that she can’t deliver on,” said David Boling of the Asia Group consultancy in Tokyo, a former U.S. trade negotiator with Japan.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly a fifth of global energy supplies, with about 90% of Japan’s crude oil imports passing through it, underscoring Tokyo’s exposure to the crisis.

Japanese officials said Takaichi had initially planned to steer discussions toward concerns over China’s regional posture ahead of a delayed visit, but shifting U.S. priorities have forced a focus on Iran and maritime security.

Japan has received no formal request from Washington, Takaichi told parliament earlier this week, adding that the government was assessing possible responses within the constraints of its pacifist constitution.

Several U.S. allies, including Germany, Italy and Spain, have ruled out joining a Gulf mission. Kaja Kallas said on Tuesday that no country was prepared to risk personnel in the conflict zone.

Public sentiment in Japan also remains cautious. Fewer than 10% of respondents support U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, according to a poll by the Asahi newspaper.

Trump has alternated between criticising allies for their reluctance and downplaying their necessity, singling out countries like Japan that rely on U.S. security guarantees while depending heavily on Middle Eastern oil flows.

Tokyo has historically limited its role in Middle East operations to logistical and intelligence support. Analysts say deploying Japanese vessels into an active conflict zone would face significant legal and political hurdles.

“It has turned into a discussion that shakes the very foundations of the Japan–U.S. security alliance,” said Kazuhiro Maeshima, a politics professor at Sophia University in Tokyo.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump confirmed that contacts with Iran were taking place but suggested negotiations had yet to reach a decisive stage. “Yes, we’re talking to them,” Trump said when asked whether diplomatic efforts were underway to end the conflict. “But I don’t think they’re ready

. But they are getting pretty close.”The war, which has rattled global markets and spread across parts of the Middle East, intensified after coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets on Feb. 28. The opening day of the campaign killed several senior Iranian officials, including Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Trump offered few details about the nature or level of the contacts, and suggested uncertainty about who currently represents Iran’s leadership after the initial strikes.“I’m not sure I want to make a deal, because first of all nobody even knows who you’re dealing with, because most of their leadership has been killed,” he said.

Iranian officials, however, rejected the notion that talks were underway.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran was not engaged in negotiations with Washington and criticized the United States for pursuing diplomacy after launching military strikes.“We are stable and strong enough. We are only defending our people,” Araghchi said in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation” broadcast on Sunday.

“We don’t see any reason why we should talk with Americans, because we were talking with them when they decided to attack us,” he added. “There is no good experience talking with Americans.”Trump nonetheless maintained that Iranian authorities were seeking an agreement to end hostilities.

“They want to make a deal badly,” he said, without elaborating on possible terms or channels for future negotiations.

The conflicting statements highlight uncertainty over whether diplomatic efforts could emerge alongside the continuing military confrontation that has expanded across the region since late February.

Kim Min-seok told reporters in the United States that Trump raised the possibility of meeting Kim Jong Un during a potential trip to China later this year or at another time, adding that the timing was uncertain but dialogue itself remained important.“Meeting (Kim Jong Un) would be good.

It’s really good to meet,” Kim quoted Trump as saying, noting the U.S. president suggested the encounter could occur during an upcoming visit to China or at a later stage.

Washington has for decades led international efforts to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons program through sanctions, diplomacy and negotiations, though these measures have produced limited results.

The Trump administration has recently pushed to revive high-level engagement with Pyongyang, with officials exploring the possibility of a summit with Kim Jong Un later this year.

Kim Min-seok said he and Trump agreed that a meeting occurring soon, potentially around the time of a visit to Beijing, would carry symbolic significance.“If it happens soon, or around the time of the China visit, that would in itself be meaningful,” Kim said.

He added that the U.S. president appeared firmly committed to maintaining some form of contact with North Korea regardless of when a summit might take place.

Trump has repeatedly indicated willingness to engage directly with Kim Jong Un. During a trip to Asia in October, he said he was “100 percent” open to meeting the North Korean leader, though Pyongyang did not immediately respond to the offer.

More recently, Kim Jong Un suggested the United States and North Korea could “get along” if Washington recognized Pyongyang’s nuclear status, a position that conflicts with long-standing U.S. policy aimed at denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.

At the same time, North Korea has signaled skepticism toward diplomatic initiatives from Seoul, describing South Korea’s latest peace efforts as a “clumsy, deceptive farce.”

North Korea continues to advance its military capabilities while maintaining close strategic ties with Russia, developments that have raised concerns among the United States and its allies in the region.

Pyongyang has also condemned the recent U.S.-Israeli military strike on Iran, describing it as an “illegal act of aggression,” reflecting broader geopolitical tensions involving Washington and its adversaries.

The possibility of renewed talks between Washington and Pyongyang comes as regional diplomacy remains fragile, with negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program stalled despite years of international pressure and intermittent dialogue.

David Sacks, who serves as the White House crypto and artificial intelligence adviser, made the remarks during an appearance on the “All-In Podcast,” describing the current moment as an opportunity for the United States to step back from the conflict.

“This is a good time to declare victory and get out,” Sacks said, adding that U.S. operations had degraded Iran’s military capabilities. He also said Washington should look for what he described as an “off-ramp” to prevent further escalation.

Sacks said avoiding a prolonged conflict would require diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing tensions. “If escalation doesn’t lead anywhere good, then you have to think about how do you de-escalate,” he said. “De-escalation involves reaching some sort of ceasefire agreement or negotiated settlement with Iran.

”The remarks marked a rare public call from a prominent figure within Trump’s administration for an exit strategy from the war, which has intensified regional tensions since late February.

The United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, triggering retaliatory strikes from Iran and its ally Hezbollah against Israel and other targets across the Middle East.

The fighting has rattled global financial markets and pushed oil prices higher amid concerns that wider hostilities could disrupt energy supplies from the region.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations said more than 1,300 people have been killed in Iran as a result of U.S. and Israeli attacks.

Israeli authorities say Iranian strikes have killed 12 people in Israel.The U.S. military has reported seven service members killed since the conflict began.

The offer targets 10 officials associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a powerful military force created after the Iranian Revolution and tasked with safeguarding Iran’s clerical political system. The State Department said the individuals command or direct elements of the IRGC that it accuses of planning and executing attacks abroad.

Mojtaba Khamenei assumed Iran’s highest political and religious office after his father, Ali Khamenei, was killed along with several senior Iranian officials in joint U.S. and Israeli strikes that began on Feb. 28.

The younger Khamenei is believed to have been wounded in the attacks and has not appeared publicly since the start of the conflict, though he issued his first statement on Thursday.

In addition to the supreme leader, the reward notice seeks information about Iran’s national security chief Ali Larijani, Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni and two officials from Khamenei’s office.

Larijani appeared on Friday in video footage verified by Reuters alongside Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi during a rally in Tehran.

The appearance came despite comments by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggesting that Iran’s leadership was hiding underground amid ongoing military strikes.

The State Department website also lists four additional officials connected to the IRGC, including the corps’ commander and the secretary of Iran’s defense council, though their names and images were not provided.

Washington has designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization and accuses it of orchestrating attacks that have killed U.S. citizens. U.S. officials have also alleged that Iran planned assassination attempts against U.S. President Donald Trump and other American officials in retaliation for the killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

Iran denies supporting terrorism and has repeatedly rejected U.S. accusations as politically motivated efforts to justify sanctions and pressure campaigns.Officials from the Revolutionary Guards were not immediately available for comment on Friday, Iran’s weekly day of rest.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The discussions inside the White House reflect competing priorities among economic, political and national security advisers as the United States and Israel continue military operations targeting Iran.

Officials involved in the internal discussions said there is no unified view on the desired end point of the conflict, prompting debate among Trump’s advisers over how long military pressure should be maintained.

Some national security hawks are urging the administration to sustain operations against Iran, arguing that continued pressure could weaken the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities and regional influence.

Other advisers are advocating a more limited campaign that would allow the president to declare victory quickly while avoiding a prolonged conflict that could expand across the region.Those differing views have contributed to fluctuations in Trump’s public remarks about the war’s trajectory and possible outcomes.

Members of the administration’s economic team have warned that the conflict could have domestic political consequences if energy prices rise significantly.

The war has already unsettled global energy markets, raising concerns within the administration about the potential for higher gasoline prices in the United States.

Officials familiar with the discussions said economic advisers have cautioned that sustained disruptions to oil supply routes in the Middle East could place additional pressure on consumers and financial markets.

Political advisers close to Trump have argued for a limited and swift operation, according to people familiar with the deliberations. They contend that a shorter campaign could reduce economic fallout while allowing the president to frame the military action as a strategic success.

The competing recommendations have produced what one person close to the discussions described as a complex internal debate over how the administration should define victory and manage the conflict’s political and economic implications.

As the war continues, the policy discussions within the White House are expected to remain fluid as officials monitor developments across the Middle East and assess the broader impact of the confrontation.

The war, which has intensified over the past several weeks, has moved beyond traditional military confrontations and now threatens critical economic lifelines that sustain the global economy.

Attacks on oil infrastructure, commercial shipping routes, and strategic maritime corridors have begun to disrupt international trade and energy markets.
At the center of global concern is the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

Nearly a fifth of the global oil supply normally passes through the narrow waterway linking the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Any disruption to shipping in this corridor can have immediate and far-reaching effects on energy prices and global economic stability.

Recent days have seen a sharp rise in attacks on merchant vessels and oil tankers moving through the region. Maritime security officials say explosive-laden boats and drones have targeted several ships, forcing many commercial vessels to alter their routes or suspend operations altogether. Shipping companies have grown increasingly cautious, and insurance costs for vessels operating in the Gulf have surged dramatically.

The disruptions have already had a significant impact on energy markets. Oil prices climbed sharply after reports that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz had slowed dramatically, with analysts warning that sustained interruptions could push prices far higher.
Governments around the world have begun preparing emergency measures to prevent a broader energy crisis.

Several major economies have discussed releasing oil from their strategic reserves in an attempt to stabilize markets and reassure investors. However, analysts caution that such measures would only provide temporary relief if the conflict continues to escalate.
The military dimension of the crisis is also intensifying. Israeli and American forces have carried out a series of airstrikes targeting Iranian military installations, missile sites, and logistical infrastructure.

The strikes, officials say, were aimed at degrading Iran’s military capabilities and preventing further attacks on regional allies and international shipping.
Iran has responded with a mix of conventional and asymmetric tactics.

Iranian forces and allied groups have launched missile and drone strikes against military positions and strategic infrastructure across the region. Some attacks have targeted energy facilities, including refineries and storage installations, further amplifying fears of a broader supply disruption.

The conflict has also raised concerns about the potential involvement of additional regional actors. Neighboring countries across the Middle East are closely monitoring the situation, wary that the fighting could spill across borders or provoke retaliatory actions that would widen the war.

Beyond the military and economic consequences, the conflict is already producing serious humanitarian impacts. Airstrikes and missile attacks have caused significant damage to urban infrastructure in several areas, forcing civilians to flee their homes in search of safety. Hospitals and emergency services are struggling to cope with the growing number of casualties.

International organizations have warned that continued escalation could produce a large-scale humanitarian crisis, particularly if critical infrastructure such as power plants, water systems, and hospitals becomes further damaged.

The war is also intensifying geopolitical tensions between major global powers. Governments in Europe and Asia are increasingly concerned about the impact of rising energy prices and potential supply shortages. Several countries have called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict before it spreads further.
Despite these appeals, diplomatic progress has been limited.

Deep political divisions between the parties involved, combined with the strategic importance of the region, have made negotiations extremely difficult.
Analysts say the conflict reflects broader shifts in the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape. Long-standing rivalries, unresolved political disputes, and competing security interests have created a volatile environment where even small incidents can escalate rapidly into wider confrontations.

The economic implications extend far beyond the Middle East. Energy-importing nations are particularly vulnerable to prolonged disruptions in Gulf oil supplies. Higher fuel costs can quickly translate into rising inflation, increased transportation expenses, and higher prices for goods and services around the world.

Financial markets have already begun reacting to the uncertainty. Investors are closely watching developments in the region, and volatility in oil prices has spread to stock markets and currency exchanges.
Some economists warn that a prolonged conflict could contribute to a global economic slowdown, particularly if energy prices remain elevated for an extended period.

High oil prices have historically been associated with economic downturns, as they increase production costs and reduce consumer spending power.

The aviation and shipping industries are also facing growing challenges. Airlines have begun adjusting flight routes to avoid potential conflict zones, while shipping companies are reassessing the risks of operating in the Gulf region. These adjustments increase operating costs and could disrupt global supply chains.

Despite the mounting tensions, some analysts believe the conflict may eventually stabilize if both sides seek to avoid a full-scale regional war. However, they caution that the situation remains highly unpredictable.

Much will depend on whether diplomatic efforts can gain momentum and whether regional actors choose to exercise restraint. Even small miscalculations could trigger further escalation, potentially drawing additional countries into the conflict.

For now, the war between Iran, Israel, and the United States stands as one of the most serious geopolitical crises in recent years. Its outcome will not only shape the future of the Middle East but could also influence global economic stability for years to come.

Writing in the Saudi-based outlet Arab News, Egyptian journalist and analyst Abdellatif El-Menawy said the conflict has exposed the limits of American power, the reach of Israeli military deterrence and Iran’s enduring role in the regional balance, while simultaneously revealing vulnerabilities in the Gulf’s security architecture.

The war, he argued, may prolong the Middle East’s crises rather than produce the stable “new Middle East” often invoked in policy debates.

The United States’ strategic thinking surrounding the conflict reflects an assumption seen during the Iraq war era that weakening a hostile regional power could pave the way for a more favorable political order.

.Under this logic, military pressure on Iran’s leadership and infrastructure was expected either to weaken Tehran to the point of strategic retreat or trigger domestic unrest that could alter the country’s political trajectory.

But Iran’s position in the region extends beyond the structure of its government, he argued. The country has established institutions, a complex social structure and networks of influence across several parts of the Arab world.

Because of those factors, analysts say the collapse or severe weakening of Iran could introduce additional instability rather than immediately stabilize the region.

The war has already expanded beyond limited strikes, with Iranian attacks targeting Israel, U.S. military installations and other strategic locations across the Gulf region, according to the analysis.

The conflict’s effects have also spread into global economic systems, particularly energy markets and maritime shipping routes.

Oil infrastructure across the Gulf has faced rising risks, with key pipelines, refineries and export terminals in countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq and Bahrain placed under heightened security pressure as hostilities intensify.

At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints through which roughly one-fifth of global oil trade passes has come under renewed scrutiny amid the conflict.

Any disruption to shipping through the strait could quickly reverberate through oil prices, insurance markets and international trade flows, analysts note, underscoring the region’s continued strategic significance to the global economy.

The broader implication, is that the Middle East’s geopolitical stability cannot be separated from the vulnerabilities of the global energy system.

The conflict has also raised questions in the Gulf about the long-standing security model built around U.S. military protection.

For decades, American bases in the region were viewed primarily as deterrents against external threats. However, the current conflict has highlighted how those same installations can also become targets during periods of confrontation.

This concern has roots in earlier regional shocks, including the 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities that temporarily disrupted global oil supply and raised doubts about the effectiveness of external security guarantees.Such developments have already encouraged Gulf states to diversify their diplomatic and strategic relationships.

A notable example came in March 2023, when Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to restore diplomatic relations in a deal brokered by China. The agreement was widely viewed as part of a broader effort by Gulf states to reduce regional tensions while balancing relations among major global powers.

Despite such diplomatic efforts, the current war has underscored the limits of de-escalation initiatives in a region shaped heavily by geography and military positioning.

As long as U.S. bases remain in the Gulf and Iran perceives those deployments as a strategic threat, regional states will remain exposed to confrontation regardless of their diplomatic preferences, analysts say.

Even if Iran emerges weakened from the conflict, the country is unlikely to disappear from the Middle East’s strategic landscape.

Instead, Tehran may rely more heavily on asymmetric strategies that aim to raise the costs of confrontation for its adversaries.

These strategies could include leveraging maritime chokepoints, economic pressure points and regional alliances to challenge what Tehran views as an American-led security structure.

Iran has historically used such methods as part of a broader deterrence approach that extends beyond conventional military confrontation.The evolving dynamics also raise questions about Israel’s role in the region.

Israel is widely viewed as having demonstrated strong intelligence and airpower capabilities through strikes deep inside Iranian territory. Yet military superiority does not necessarily translate into a stable regional order under Israeli leadership.

Accordingly a weakened Iran could in some ways heighten concerns among Arab states about the emergence of a more assertive Israel.The resulting regional balance may therefore resemble a complex triangular dynamic involving a militarily capable Israel, an injured but resilient Iran and Gulf states with substantial economic resources but growing security uncertainty.

Beyond the Middle East, the conflict also carries wider geopolitical implications.A prolonged confrontation with Iran could absorb American military and diplomatic attention, potentially creating opportunities for rival powers such as Russia and China to expand influence in other regions.

Some analysts have also warned that a shift in U.S. focus toward the Middle East could affect Washington’s ability to manage simultaneous international crises.For now, however, the conflict’s long-term consequences remain uncertain.

While the war has challenged assumptions about the durability of the existing regional order, analysts say it has not yet produced a clear alternative.Instead, the emerging picture is of a Middle East entering a period of greater fluidity, where established security arrangements face new tests and geopolitical alignments continue to evolve.