The United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes on Iran on Saturday, targeting senior political and military leaders in an operation that has rapidly expanded into a regional confrontation and injected fresh volatility into global energy markets.

President Donald Trump described the assault as a pre-emptive move to eliminate imminent threats and prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In a video message, he warned that “bombs will be dropping everywhere” and urged Iranians to seek shelter, adding that once operations conclude, they should “take over your government.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the joint operation would create the conditions for Iranians to “take their destiny into their own hands.” Defense Minister Israel Katz called it a pre-emptive strike designed to remove strategic threats to Israel.

Tehran condemned the attacks as illegal and unprovoked. Iranian forces responded with missile launches against Israel and several Gulf Arab states hosting U.S. bases, broadening the theatre of confrontation. Gulf governments reported intercepting missiles, while explosions were heard in parts of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Sources familiar with the situation said Iranian Defense Minister Amir Nasirzadeh and Revolutionary Guards commander Mohammed Pakpour were killed in Israeli strikes, alongside other senior commanders. If confirmed, the removal of top-level military leadership would represent one of the most significant blows to Iran’s command structure in decades.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said retaliation would continue until “the enemy is decisively defeated,” and warned that all U.S. bases and interests in the region are within range.

The Pentagon named the first phase of the operation “Operation Epic Fury,” focusing initially on high-value leadership and security targets. The strikes followed the collapse of indirect nuclear negotiations mediated by Oman earlier in the week.

Oil markets brace for supply disruption

Beyond the military dimension, the confrontation is reverberating through global commodity markets. Iran is the third-largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and accounts for roughly 4.5% of global crude supply. More critically, a far greater share of global oil shipments transits the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime chokepoint along Iran’s southern coast.

Any sustained military escalation that threatens tanker traffic through Hormuz could remove millions of barrels per day from international markets, either through physical disruption or precautionary shipping suspensions. Even without a formal blockade, heightened insurance costs, rerouted shipping, and suspended cargoes can materially constrain supply.

Energy traders have already priced in geopolitical risk premiums. Analysts warn that, absent rapid de-escalation, oil prices could spike sharply when markets reopen, feeding into global inflation pressures and complicating central bank policy decisions in major economies.

Two sources close to OPEC+ discussions told Reuters that the producer alliance is considering a larger-than-planned output increase at its meeting on Sunday in an effort to stabilize markets. The move would be aimed at offsetting potential supply losses and signaling that spare capacity remains available.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have already raised exports in anticipation of supply stress, according to industry sources. Both countries hold significant spare production capacity within OPEC+, positioning them as primary stabilizers in the event of a prolonged disruption.

The scale of any emergency increase will be closely scrutinized. While Riyadh and Abu Dhabi can ramp up production, sustained conflict affecting Hormuz would present logistical constraints that additional barrels alone may not fully resolve.

Broader economic and geopolitical consequences

A sustained surge in crude prices would ripple across global supply chains. Higher energy costs could lift transportation, manufacturing, and food prices, slowing growth in import-dependent economies while boosting revenues for major exporters.

Airlines have already cancelled or rerouted flights across parts of the Middle East, and some oil majors and trading houses have paused shipments through the Gulf pending further security assessments. Insurance premiums for vessels transiting the region are expected to rise sharply.

Strategically, the confrontation marks once again the fragility of the Gulf security architecture. The region hosts dense concentrations of energy infrastructure, desalination plants, and U.S. military assets within relatively short missile range. Even limited strikes risk triggering cascading economic consequences.

The immediate effect of a military confrontation centered on Iran is a global economic risk, with oil markets once again at the frontline of geopolitical shock. It is hoped it doesn’t escalate into a prolonged conflict affecting energy corridors at scale.

A federal judge in Manhattan on Thursday, February, rejected Binance’s request to force arbitration on claims by customers who accused the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange of illegally selling unregistered tokens that later lost much of their value.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that Binance failed to adequately notify users of changes to its terms of use that included an arbitration clause and class-action waiver, allowing affected customers to proceed with litigation for claims arising before February 20, 2019. In his decision, Carter found no evidence that Binance “announced” the arbitration provision or clearly directed customers to where they could find it in the 2019 terms of use. He also deemed the alleged class-action waiver ambiguous and unenforceable.

Customers had agreed in November 2025 to dismiss claims arising after February 20, 2019, narrowing the case to earlier periods.

“Binance will vigorously defend the limited claims that remain in this meritless case,” a Binance spokesperson said in response.

Lawyers for Binance founder and former CEO Changpeng Zhao — also a defendant — did not immediately comment.

Background of the Dispute

The lawsuit centers on seven tokens — ELF, EOS, FUN, ICX, OMG, QSP, and TRX — that customers allege Binance sold without proper disclosures of “significant risks” required under federal and state securities laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover their investments after the tokens’ value declined sharply.

Carter initially dismissed the case in 2022, but a federal appeals court revived it in 2024. Binance then moved to compel arbitration based on updated terms of use it claimed users had accepted. Judge Carter rejected that motion, ruling the exchange did not sufficiently communicate the changes or ensure users had reasonable notice.

Why This Matters: Arbitration vs. Litigation

Defendants often prefer arbitration because it can remain confidential, limit discovery (making evidence gathering harder for plaintiffs), and generally cost less than court proceedings. By denying arbitration, Carter has kept the case in open court, where plaintiffs can pursue class-action certification and broader discovery — potentially increasing pressure on Binance and Zhao.

The ruling is a setback for Binance in U.S. litigation, where the exchange has faced multiple lawsuits over token listings, regulatory compliance, and alleged securities violations. It also highlights the challenges crypto platforms face in enforcing post-hoc arbitration clauses when users may not have clear notice of term changes.

Binance has been under intense regulatory and legal scrutiny since 2023, including a $4.3 billion settlement with U.S. authorities in November 2023 over money laundering and sanctions violations. Zhao pleaded guilty to related charges and stepped down as CEO. The exchange has since worked to rebuild compliance frameworks and regain trust in key markets.

The current lawsuit is one of several ongoing cases alleging that Binance facilitated unregistered securities sales. The survival of pre-February 2019 claims means plaintiffs can continue seeking damages for losses on the seven tokens during a period when Binance was rapidly expanding its token offerings.

Binance’s U.S. affiliate, Binance.US, has seen limited impact from the ruling so far, as it operates under stricter domestic compliance rules. However, the decision could influence other crypto platforms relying on similar arbitration clauses in user agreements. Crypto stocks and related equities showed a muted response Thursday, with broader market attention focused on earnings season and macroeconomic data.

The case remains ongoing, with discovery and potential class certification now likely to proceed in federal court. A final resolution — potentially years away — could set an important precedent for how crypto exchanges notify users of material changes to terms of service and whether arbitration clauses can be enforced retroactively in consumer-facing digital asset platforms.

However, for now, Judge Carter’s ruling ensures that Binance must defend the early-period claims in open court — a venue far less favorable to defendants than private arbitration.