The joint large-scale military strike launched by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026, marks a significant escalation. Iranian state media confirmed on the early morning of March 1 that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attack. An analysis of the event and its potential impacts follows.
This "decapitation strike" against Iran's supreme leader signifies a qualitative leap in the "once-in-a-century transformation" of global geopolitics. While trade wars, technological blockades, and regional proxy conflicts in recent years represented a gradual accumulation of quantitative changes in the crumbling old order, the direct physical elimination of the supreme spiritual leader and head of state of a regional power indicates a collapse of the sovereignty principle in international order and a failure of the UN mechanism. This action breaches the fundamental bottom lines and tacit understandings of international relations formed post-World War II and even post-Cold War, marking the world's formal entry into a historical phase characterized by "rewritten rules, an order vacuum, and the return of violence."
The US approach to Iran can be seen as a "high-risk version" of the Venezuela model. The Venezuela model involved maximum pressure and regime change: crippling the economy through long-term severe sanctions, legally designating leaders as "criminals," supporting opposition groups to create a "parallel government," followed by military containment under the pretext of anti-drug operations, and ultimately conducting a special operations "decapitation" to capture Nicolás Maduro, with the US overseeing post-conflict resource allocation and political transition. This model was low-cost, high-yield, and risk-controlled, suitable for weaker adversaries in America's backyard.
The Iran model is a "high-risk escalation" of this template. The US is replicating the Venezuela model but with more violent means against Iran, escalating from "maximum pressure and negotiation" to "preemptive strikes and regime change." The US, jointly with Israel, conducted large-scale airstrikes to directly "decapitate" the supreme leader and senior military-political figures, aiming to paralyze the command structure by eliminating the core leadership while cutting economic lifelines through sanctions and bolstering opposition forces to forcibly reshape Iran's regime. Beyond seeking control over "crude oil" as in Venezuela, the objective also includes control over "uranium" for nuclear weapons production, thereby aiming to solidify US dollar hegemony.
However, the Iran model differs significantly from the Venezuela model, primarily in intensity and risk. Tactically, Venezuela involved "capture and trial," while Iran involves "direct annihilation." Geopolitically, Venezuela is isolated in Latin America with limited spillover effects, whereas Iran holds strategic territory and a powerful proxy network, possessing strong retaliatory capabilities. Military action against Iran could trigger "asymmetric comprehensive retaliation," affecting US bases, Israeli territory, and global energy channels, with risks far exceeding those in Venezuela and high potential to ignite a full-scale Middle East war. Therefore, the Iran model is not a simple replication but an extreme, highly uncontrollable application of the "Venezuela template" in a more complex and dangerous geopolitical environment.
The future situation in Iran is likely to be highly volatile. Although the constitution stipulates that a new supreme leader is to be elected by the Assembly of Experts, with an interim leadership council comprising the president, head of the judiciary, and a member of the Guardian Council acting beforehand, any successor will face legitimacy crises and security risks under wartime conditions. Consequently, Iran may experience a power vacuum and retaliatory strikes in the short term, leading to heightened tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and impacts on global energy markets. Long-term, a direct US occupation akin to Venezuela is unlikely; instead, sustained airstrikes and internal subversion to push for regime change are more probable. This will accelerate the "bloc-formation" and multipolarization of the international landscape, leading to a reconfiguration of regional order.
The market impact of this US-Iran conflict hinges on its duration and escalation level. In the short term, markets may display divergent characteristics: crude oil prices surging, gold experiencing increased volatility, A-shares facing limited impact, and bond markets under slight pressure.
Crude oil prices are likely to surge in the near term. The core logic is that the Strait of Hormuz handles approximately one-fifth of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas traffic. Iran's announcement on February 28 to ban vessel passage through the strait will substantially constrain global oil supply, providing strong support for prices. However, if the conflict is contained relatively quickly, and coupled with potential OPEC+ production increases to counter the supply gap, the oil price increase is likely to be pulse-like, with a high probability of subsequent retracement.
Gold may see heightened short-term volatility. On one hand, escalating geopolitical conflict boosts safe-haven demand, while rising prices for commodities like oil could fuel inflation expectations, both supporting gold prices. On the other hand, markets had already partially priced in the potential impact of a US-Iran conflict, and the US's ability to conduct precise strikes using AI, Starlink, and other technologies increases the likelihood of a swift conflict resolution, which would dampen sustained safe-haven appeal. Additionally, potential delays in the Federal Reserve's interest rate cuts could further cap gold's upside.
A-shares are expected to experience relatively limited and controllable impact, with potential benefits for sectors like resources, defense, and aerospace. The overall impact on A-shares is likely minor, primarily constituting short-term sentiment-driven fluctuations. Domestic fundamentals, liquidity conditions, and policy direction remain the core dominant factors, with low systemic risk. Sector-wise, structural opportunities may emerge. Resources, defense, and aerospace sectors could benefit relatively: resources from rising prices and improved profit elasticity; defense from elevated geopolitical risks driving sustained demand; and aerospace from the demonstrated实战 value and strategic importance of related technologies in modern warfare, as highlighted by the US precision strikes, potentially attracting investor attention.
Bond markets may face short-term pressure. The core conflict lies in inflationary pressures constraining monetary policy. Theoretically, heightened geopolitical risk should support bonds due to safe-haven flows. However, rising prices for oil and other commodities will increase imported inflationary pressure domestically, thereby limiting the central bank's room for monetary easing and potentially further delaying the timing of interest rate cuts. Overall, the short-term impact on bonds is slightly negative.