Could the fighting expand?
US Completes 11th Consecutive Night of Airstrikes on Iran: What It Means for India, Europe and the Wider World
The United States has completed an 11th consecutive night of airstrikes on Iran, extending a military campaign that has already affected shipping, energy markets and diplomacy across the Middle East.
The immediate question is not only what was hit, but whether the attacks will reduce Iran’s military capacity, increase retaliation, or push both sides towards a new agreement.
What happened on the 11th night?
The US military said it had completed its latest round of attacks on the evening of 21 July 2026, marking the 11th successive night of strikes inside Iran.
US Central Command, commonly called CENTCOM, has said that previous rounds targeted Iranian command centres, missile and drone launch sites, air-defence systems and maritime capabilities. “Maritime capabilities” can include military boats, coastal missile systems and equipment used to threaten ships.
Associated Press reported that the latest strikes included attacks on drone-storage and aircraft facilities. It also reported continuing Iranian attacks against US-linked targets and regional states, including Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait.
Precise information about damage inside Iran remains limited. Statements from the US and Iranian governments should therefore be treated as claims unless independently confirmed.
Why has the US continued striking Iran?
Washington presents the campaign as an effort to weaken Iran’s ability to attack US forces, regional partners and commercial shipping.
The strikes also followed Iranian missile and drone attacks on facilities used by US personnel in the region. American leaders have described the attacks as retaliation and as part of an effort to protect shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran, however, describes its actions as defensive responses to US and Israeli military operations. Tehran has also used missiles, drones and pressure on maritime traffic to raise the economic and military cost of continued attacks.
This creates a cycle of escalation: one side responds to an attack, the other side retaliates, and each new operation is presented as a response to the previous one.
What is the military objective?
Air campaigns usually have three possible objectives.
Degrading Iran’s military capacity
“Degrading” means damaging enough weapons, launchers, aircraft, radar systems and command networks to make future attacks more difficult.
This does not necessarily mean destroying Iran’s entire military capability. Iran has spent years developing mobile missile launchers, underground facilities and dispersed storage sites. Such systems are designed to survive repeated attacks.
Recent Iranian missile launches suggest that Tehran still retains the ability to strike targets at considerable distance despite earlier damage to its forces.
Protecting sea routes
A major US objective is keeping the Strait of Hormuz open.
The strait is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. It is often called an energy “chokepoint” because a disruption in this small area can affect oil and gas supplies around the world.
In 2024, about 20 million barrels of oil per day passed through Hormuz. That was approximately one-fifth of global petroleum consumption and more than one-quarter of oil traded by sea. Around one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas trade also used the route.
Increasing pressure before negotiations
Military pressure can also be used to influence diplomacy.
A government may try to weaken its opponent’s position before talks or convince it that continuing the conflict will be too costly.
However, airstrikes can produce the opposite result. They may make compromise politically harder, strengthen demands for retaliation and reduce trust between negotiators.
Has the campaign achieved its goals?
It is too early to give a clear answer.
The US has shown that it can repeatedly attack targets inside Iran. It may have destroyed weapons, aircraft and infrastructure. However, Iran has continued launching missiles and drones and applying pressure on regional shipping.
That suggests the campaign may have reduced some Iranian capabilities without ending Iran’s ability to retaliate.
There is also a difference between achieving a military objective and achieving a political objective. Destroying launch sites is a military result. Producing a lasting agreement or changing a government’s behaviour is a political result, and it is usually much harder.
Why the Strait of Hormuz matters so much
The greatest global risk may not come directly from the airstrikes. It may come from disruption to shipping.
The Strait of Hormuz carries oil and gas from producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Even when tankers are not physically blocked, attacks, mines, military warnings and rising insurance costs can reduce traffic. Shipping companies may delay journeys or demand higher payments for using the route.
Oil prices rose above $90 per barrel as US-Iran fighting and threats to shipping intensified.
Higher oil prices can make petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, plastics, fertilisers and transported goods more expensive.
What does this mean for India?
India is especially sensitive to developments in the Gulf because it imports most of the crude oil it consumes.
Pressure on fuel and inflation
When international crude prices rise, India’s import bill increases.
The effect may eventually appear in fuel prices or in the finances of state-owned oil companies, depending on government tax and pricing decisions.
More expensive oil can also increase inflation. Transport, farming, manufacturing and aviation all depend on fuel.
India is already changing suppliers
Indian refiners have increased purchases from Russia and Latin America as Middle Eastern supplies have faced disruption.
Reuters reported that Middle Eastern crude imports fell to about 1.55 million barrels per day during April–June 2026, while supplies from Russia and other former Soviet states increased. Russia accounted for about 41% of India’s crude import mix during the quarter, compared with 31% from the Middle East.
This diversification gives India some protection. It does not fully remove the risk because longer shipping journeys and competition for alternative oil can raise costs.
Gas, cooking fuel and fertiliser risks
India also depends on Gulf supplies of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG.
LNG is natural gas cooled into liquid form so it can be transported by ship. It is used by industry, power producers, fertiliser factories and city gas networks.
A prolonged disruption could therefore affect more than petrol and diesel. It could raise pressure on cooking-gas supplies, fertiliser costs and industrial energy bills.
Indian citizens and workers in the Gulf
Millions of Indians live and work in Gulf countries.
A wider conflict could disrupt flights, employment, remittances and evacuation planning. Remittances are money sent home by people working abroad.
India is therefore likely to maintain diplomatic contact with the US, Iran and Gulf governments while avoiding direct involvement in the conflict.
What does this mean for Europe?
Europe is less directly dependent on Hormuz than many Asian economies, but it is not protected from the consequences.
Oil is priced globally
European countries may buy oil from several regions, but crude oil is traded in a global market.
A major supply disruption in the Gulf can lift prices everywhere, including for countries that receive little oil directly through Hormuz.
European consumers could face higher petrol, diesel and heating costs. Businesses could also face higher transport and production expenses.
LNG markets are connected
Europe increased its dependence on imported LNG after reducing pipeline-gas purchases from Russia.
Qatar is a major LNG exporter, and much of its supply normally passes through Hormuz.
An economic study estimated that approximately 6.2% of the European Union’s non-EU crude imports and 8.7% of its non-EU LNG imports passed through the strait.
A prolonged crisis could increase competition between European and Asian buyers for LNG cargoes.
Shipping through the Red Sea is another risk
The danger is not limited to Hormuz.
Yemen’s Houthi movement has threatened Saudi-linked shipping near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This is another narrow maritime route connecting the Red Sea with the Arabian Sea.
About 12% of global trade passes through the Bab el-Mandeb and connected Red Sea route. Serious disruption there could force more ships to sail around Africa, increasing travel times and costs between Asia and Europe.
Could the fighting expand?
There are several possible routes to a wider conflict.
Iran could increase attacks on US bases or regional states hosting American forces.
The US could broaden its target list if American personnel or commercial vessels suffer further casualties.
Armed groups connected to Iran could also increase attacks in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or the Red Sea.
None of these outcomes is certain. Regional governments have strong reasons to avoid a larger war because they would bear much of its economic and physical cost.
Is diplomacy still possible?
Yes, but military escalation makes it more difficult.
Diplomatic discussions and mediation efforts have continued, including contacts involving regional countries. However, no immediate breakthrough had been reported after the 11th night of strikes.
A workable arrangement would probably need to address several issues:
Attacks on US personnel and bases.
US and Israeli military operations inside Iran.
Iranian missile and drone capabilities.
Freedom of navigation through Hormuz.
Sanctions and Iran’s nuclear programme.
Verification of any ceasefire.
Verification means creating a method to check that all sides are following an agreement.
Three possible scenarios
Scenario 1: Limited escalation followed by a ceasefire
Both sides continue attacks for a short period but use intermediaries to negotiate a pause.
This would probably calm oil markets, although shipping and insurance costs could remain high for some time.
Scenario 2: A prolonged exchange of strikes
The US continues attacking Iranian military sites while Iran launches missiles, drones and maritime operations.
This could produce sustained energy-price volatility without either side gaining a decisive advantage.
Scenario 3: A wider regional war
Attacks spread to additional countries, military bases, energy installations or shipping routes.
This would be the most damaging scenario for India, Europe and Gulf economies. It could produce higher oil and gas prices, supply delays, disrupted air travel and pressure on global inflation.
What should readers watch next?
The number of consecutive nights is important, but it is not the best measure of where the conflict is heading.
More useful signs include:
The type of targets
Attacks on missile launchers and military aircraft indicate a limited military campaign.
Attacks on leadership, nuclear sites, energy infrastructure or civilian systems would suggest a more serious escalation.
Iranian retaliation
The scale, accuracy and location of Iranian missile and drone attacks will indicate how much military capacity Tehran retains.
Tanker traffic
Changes in vessel movements through Hormuz will directly affect energy prices and supply expectations.
Diplomatic language
A move from threats towards discussion of conditions, monitoring and temporary pauses could signal that negotiations are developing.
Action by other countries
The involvement of Gulf states, European governments, Pakistan, India or other intermediaries could influence whether talks succeed.
The wider assessment
Eleven consecutive nights of US airstrikes show that the conflict is no longer a brief military exchange.
The US may be weakening parts of Iran’s military system, but Iran has continued to demonstrate an ability to retaliate and disrupt regional security.
For India, the main concerns are oil prices, gas supplies, inflation, shipping and the safety of Indian citizens in the Gulf.
For Europe, the major risks are higher global energy prices, pressure on LNG markets and further disruption to trade through the Red Sea.
The most important question is now whether military pressure creates space for negotiations or locks both sides into a longer cycle of retaliation.
Reader question
Do you think repeated airstrikes are more likely to produce a negotiated ceasefire, or make a wider regional conflict harder to prevent?
Sources and factual references
This analysis draws on reporting and data from Reuters, Associated Press, US Central Command, the US Energy Information Administration, Al Jazeera and economic research on European energy exposure.
Key factual sources include Reuters’ report confirming the completion of the 11th night of strikes; Associated Press reporting on targets, retaliation and oil-market effects; CENTCOM releases describing the stated targets of earlier operations; and EIA data on oil and LNG flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
---PENDYALA VASUDEVA RAO
Related Analysis
- 2026/07/is-there-any-hope-to-end-war.
- 2026/07/why-us-iran-conflict-is-biggest-story.
- 2026/07/us-iran-war-today-strait-of-hormuz.
About the Aut
Covers global geopolitics, foreign policy, and international developments.
Thank you for reading.
If you enjoy independent analysis on geopolitics, international law, strategic affairs and public policy from an Indian perspective, please follow Liberty for future updates.
Please share articles you find useful and join the discussion through your comments.
Follow on X
Follow on Facebook
Comments
Post a Comment