ConflictClarifier

ردیاب بحران ایران-خلیج فارس ۲۰۲۶
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 14, 2026

Taiwan Watches and Prepares Amid Global Uncertainty

Summary

US President Donald Trump announced via Instagram the February 28 US–Israeli attack on Iran. Though Israel and Iran were in the midst of negotiations, the bombing reflected Trump’s concern that Iran was developing nuclear missiles. He argued that Operation Epic Fury, the mission that initiated the attack, aimed to defend the American people from the Iranian regime and protect the US’s military bases in Europe. To the world’s shock, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, perished. Iran’s future is now plunged into a state of uncertainty. The country has countered with missile strikes on strategic locations across the Middle East, including some US facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As a tiny country, Taiwan’s government worries about these tensions. Meanwhile, the Taiwanese people find themselves in a tight situation as the Chinese navy circles the island. US intelligence and several think tanks indicate that China will invade Taiwan by 2027 by placing multiple military units from any spot. After the delayed special defense budget meeting, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan approved the $40 billion purchase of armed units — mostly from the United States — to upgrade the country’s readiness to face China. In his speech, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te pledged to allocate 3% of GDP to military expenditure and to reach 5% of GDP in 2030. The new turbulence in the Middle East has significantly impacted Taiwan’s position as a global player. Although Taiwan is far away from that region geographically, Lai ensures that Taiwan’s interests are protected, at least for its citizens, economy and political awareness. In response to the catastrophe, he expressed interest in closely monitoring the situation and taking precautionary measures. People first Taiwan should not be recognized as a sovereign country by all members of the United Nations. As of early 2026, only 12 countries, primarily located in the Pacific, formally recognize it. In terms of political influence, Taiwan lacks the capacity to act as a “peacemaker” like Qatar or Norway, which have established experience in mediation. The rising tensions are a clear indication for Taiwan to enter a state of heightened alert, necessitating an awareness of its precarious position. Taiwan must confront the stark reality of its situation. Compared to the key players involved in the current turmoil, including the US, Israel, Iran and others, Taiwan has significantly limited offensive capabilities. This creates an asymmetrical power dynamic. Taiwan must urgently prioritize protecting its citizens. This requires effective coordination and communication among Taiwan’s non-diplomatic offices in the Middle East. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that 3,000 Taiwanese individuals in the region are safe. Additionally, the Taiwanese government has no immediate plans to evacuate its nationals from the Middle East, as Iran’s retaliatory actions have primarily targeted US sites. However, given the volatility, the Taiwanese government should take further steps to ensure its citizens’ safety. Global economic fallout The Iranian government is now restricting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This strategic waterway serves as a vital maritime route for international trade, connecting the Middle East to Europe. The blockade would significantly disrupt the maritime route, as vessels bound for Europe would need to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of South Africa. That takes longer and incurs higher operating costs. This change of trade routes will likely affect the Taiwanese economy. Over 70% of its oil is sourced from the Middle East, primarily due to its high sulfur content. Trade relations between Taiwan and Middle Eastern countries have been on the rise, with oil imports representing 34.9% of Taiwan’s total imports. Therefore, the significant dependence on that oil hurts Taiwan’s energy needs. State-owned oil suppliers CPC Corporation, Taiwan, and Formosa Petrochemical Corporation have announced an increase in fuel prices. Gasoline prices will soon rise by $0.20 New Taiwan dollar (less than $0.01) per liter, while diesel prices will increase by $0.40 ($0.01) per liter. The situation also poses a risk to Taiwan’s investment landscape. While Taiwan may carry less political clout, it experienced an “economic miracle” from the 1950s to the 1980s. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company stands as the world’s leading producer of advanced technology, responsible for 90% of global production. In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, countries worldwide are compelled to embrace technology to foster progress across all sectors. In the Middle East, Taiwan has exported technological defense, such as drones, naval systems and surveillance equipment, to countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. What Taiwan needs As a country under pressure from multiple sides, Taiwan needs to be ready to face global complexity. It requires a “watching and preparing” approach, pursuing adaptive policies aligned with national measures to ensure that Taiwan remains responsive to the evolving geopolitical landscape. In response to these tensions, Taiwan’s national interest lies in safeguarding its people and upholding economic resilience. The country needs to implement decisive strategies that bolster economic stability and growth. Doing so would reinforce its position amidst geopolitical uncertainties. [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.] The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. Support Fair Observer We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality. For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads. In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise. We publish 3,000+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member. Will you support FO’s journalism? We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality. Comment

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran