How the Iran war unfolded: every attack and oil price change – visualised

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched large-scale strikes against Iran. The attacks marked a dramatic escalation from earlier tensions into open, direct warfare. They also immediately threatened the stability of the wider Middle East.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed on the first day of the strikes. Tehran then answered with attacks on Israeli and US allies across the Gulf. This response widened the conflict beyond Iran’s borders and brought regional military facilities and shipping routes into danger.

The fighting quickly became more than a bilateral war. It developed into a regional conflict with global economic consequences, especially because the Strait of Hormuz was effectively closed. That waterway is a major route for oil shipments, so military action there could affect energy supplies, prices, and markets far beyond the Middle East.

Iran responded to the US and Israeli strikes by attacking Israeli and US allies across the Gulf. This transformed the conflict from a direct confrontation into a broader regional war. Countries connected to the United States or Israel could become targets even if they were not the original combatants.

The mechanism was retaliation through the region. Iran did not limit its response to strikes against Israel or US forces in Iran. It targeted allies across the Gulf, creating new fronts and raising risks for bases, ports, energy facilities, and commercial vessels. The geography of the Gulf made those effects closely connected.

The article says the Strait of Hormuz was effectively closed. That meant the conflict reached beyond battlefields and into global trade. Continued attacks could disrupt oil exports, raise transport and insurance costs, and pressure governments to protect shipping. The Gulf thus became both a military theater and an economic flashpoint.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime passage at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It lies between Iran to the north and Oman’s Musandam Peninsula to the south. The strait connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider Arabian Sea.

Its importance comes from geography. Oil and gas producers inside the Persian Gulf must send many exports through this limited exit before reaching global markets. Tankers use designated shipping lanes through the strait, which is narrow compared with the enormous volume of energy transported through it.

The article identifies Hormuz as a crucial waterway for transporting oil and says it was effectively closed during the conflict. Any threat to the passage can therefore affect ships, exporters, importers, and naval forces at once. Even a temporary disruption can create international concern because alternative routes are limited and slower.

About one-fifth of the world’s petroleum liquids normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz, according to widely used energy-market estimates. The exact share changes with production, demand, and shipping patterns. It is commonly described as roughly 20% of global oil consumption or seaborne oil flows.

The key point is concentration. Major exporters in and around the Persian Gulf depend heavily on this narrow passage to reach customers in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. A large volume moving through one route means that even a partial interruption can affect the balance between available supply and global demand.

The article calls Hormuz crucial for transporting oil and says it was effectively closed after the strikes. That event highlights why the percentage matters. A disruption does not remove all global oil, but it can delay cargoes, limit immediate supply, and trigger fear about shortages. Markets can react before the full physical impact is known.

When a major oil route is blocked or threatened, oil prices usually rise. Traders immediately assess whether fewer barrels can reach markets and whether the disruption might last. Because oil is priced globally, fear about future supply can move prices even before a physical shortage develops.

Several mechanisms drive the increase. Tankers may be delayed or forced onto longer routes. Insurers can charge more for war-risk cover, while shipowners may avoid dangerous waters. Buyers then compete for alternative cargoes, and sellers may hold supplies back. These added risks increase the cost of delivering every barrel.

The article links Hormuz directly to oil transportation and global economic consequences. If the passage remains unsafe, higher prices can raise fuel, transport, and production costs worldwide. If shipping resumes quickly, some of the risk premium may fade. A prolonged closure, however, would create stronger pressure on consumers, businesses, and governments.

Iran can disrupt shipping through Hormuz because the strait runs alongside its southern coast and forms the Persian Gulf’s main outlet. Iran’s position gives it access to nearby sea lanes, while its military can threaten shipping with missiles, fast boats, mines, or other forces. These capabilities create risk even without permanently occupying the passage.

The main mechanism is a chokepoint. Ships have relatively few practical routes through the narrow waterway, so attacks, mines, inspections, or credible threats can delay traffic. Iran does not need to stop every vessel to cause disruption. If enough ships, insurers, or crews judge the route too dangerous, commercial traffic can slow or divert.

Many countries use Hormuz, but shared use does not eliminate military leverage. The article says the strait was effectively closed during the conflict, showing how regional fighting can affect international shipping. Any sustained disruption would pressure naval forces to escort vessels and would increase costs throughout global energy markets.

A conflict near one narrow waterway can have global effects when that route carries essential goods for many countries. The Strait of Hormuz is a key example because large volumes of oil leave the Persian Gulf through it. The geographic bottleneck links regional security directly to international energy markets.

The mechanism is a chain reaction. Fighting can stop or slow ships, reduce available oil, and make carriers and insurers charge more. Importers then compete for alternative supplies, while higher energy costs spread through fuel, transport, electricity, and manufactured goods. Financial markets may also react to fears of prolonged disruption.

The article describes the conflict as having global economic consequences and says Hormuz was effectively closed. That means the war’s impact was not limited to Iran, Israel, or Gulf countries. If the route reopens, some pressure may ease. If threats continue, governments may seek escorts, emergency reserves, and alternative routes, but these cannot quickly replace Hormuz’s scale.