by Dr. Arben Ramkaj
Tirana Times, February 28 2026 – At the very moment when diplomacy appeared to be moving toward a fragile agreement, the United States and Israel launched a unilateral strike against Iran, shifting the region from tense negotiations to open confrontation. The targets included strategic infrastructure and decision-making centers in Tehran. What until yesterday had been diplomatic pressure has now turned into military reality.
Reports of strikes against the highest levels of Iranian leadership were later confirmed. President Trump announced the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, as well as dozens of senior commanders and high-ranking state officials. This was not merely a tactical strike; it was a clear act of war. The objective was not only the military weakening of Iran, but the targeting of the regime’s very governing core — an attempt to reshape regional balances and impose a new strategic reality in the Middle East.
However, to understand the depth of this confrontation, one must look beyond the military dimension. The conflict carries an ideological layer that makes it far more difficult to manage. Iran remains built upon the doctrine of revolutionary political Shiism, while in Israel the internal political dynamic — where nationalist forces operate in alliance with segments of the far right — coupled with the crimes committed in Gaza and the rhetoric of “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” has eroded the trust of many peoples and has become the subject of open scrutiny by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The State of Israel enjoys full support from the Trump administration, as well as from evangelical segments in the United States that interpret the conflict in religious terms.
History has shown that when religious doctrine intertwines with politics, it produces overwhelming conflicts — what theorists have called a “clash of civilizations” — and at that moment the space for compromise narrows, while confrontation risks taking on an existential character.
In this tense climate, the Iranian response was harsh and extended across several fronts simultaneously. Sunni-majority Gulf states were struck, along with Western military bases and strategic energy facilities such as Aramco, the port of Duqm, and gas cities in Qatar and Abu Dhabi. Iran also blocked the Strait of Hormuz, immediately shifting the crisis from a regional conflict to a node of global security.
Hormuz is not merely a point on the map. It is the artery through which a significant portion of the world’s energy passes. While the war in Ukraine has reshaped Europe’s security architecture, an escalation in the Persian Gulf would have a direct impact on global energy and financial stability. Europe, still in the process of recovering from the shocks of recent years, would immediately feel any supply disruption or sudden price surge. Thus, a regional crisis would quickly translate into economic, social, and political pressure in European capitals.
For this very reason, this situation is not peripheral for the European Union. It affects energy security, economic cohesion, and the credibility of multilateral diplomacy. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy are attempting to negotiate, yet they are increasingly close to aligning with the United States and Israel in a strategy aimed at weakening or toppling the Iranian regime. This demonstrates that the international order is no longer functioning according to the logic of mediation, but rather according to calculations of power.
Within this context, Albania’s position must also be examined. It has severed diplomatic relations with Iran and, following recent developments, Tirana was among the first to openly align with the United States and Israel. However, unlike Kosovo — where the Security Council convened — in Albania this was a unilateral decision taken voluntarily by the Prime Minister. In my view, such decisions should carry a national consensual character, as they involve not only foreign policy but also the country’s long-term security.
Four elements remain clear for Albania:
First, Iran has exercised influence through actors linked to it in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, becoming involved in sectarian conflicts. In fact, Iran has not been the only actor; the Sunni-Shiite divide and its exploitation have been clearly instrumentalized in international geopolitics.
Second, Iran considers Albania the “little Satan” due to its hosting of members of the MEK, accepted by Albania’s main political forces. This has led to the severing of diplomatic relations and to mutual perceptions of potential hostility.
Third, cyberattacks against Albanian institutions have been real and have exposed the country to a new security front, rarely seen in the history of the Albanian state in the past decade.
Fourth, the current conflict represents a dangerous intertwining of geopolitics and religion. Meanwhile, following the strike on British bases in Cyprus, Albania is also perceived by analysts as exposed, although it is currently considered distant from a direct attack by the Iranian regime. Nevertheless, as expert Ilir Kulla notes, this could occur in the event of a continued frontal war.
Ultimately, this confrontation has no clear front line. It unfolds in the air, at sea, in cyberspace, and in energy markets. The international order is now fragmented; it is gradually losing its legitimacy, and we stand before a new global order. Diplomacy is being replaced by unilateral action; strategic restraint and de-escalation are no longer options — they are global necessities.
Conflicts that expand their boundaries for reasons of security, intertwined with politics, ethnicity, and religion, rarely contract on their own. Europe must assume its proper role in mediation, for it knows better than anyone that the cost of diplomatic failure is always far higher.
The post The War in Iran and Albania in a Fragmenting International Order appeared first on Tirana Times.
