Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” and a widening crackdown: Is the Middle East war headed for a long, market-shaking grind?

On Feb. 28, the United States and Israel attacked Iran, triggering a monthslong war that quickly spread beyond Iran’s borders and into neighboring theaters. NPR’s Rob Schmitz, in an interview with Columbia University professor Peter Salisbury, frames the conflict’s evolution around Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” arguing that Tehran and its partners have reshaped how the war is fought across the region. Separate reporting also claims Iran has executed protesters in public as the regime expands postwar repression, signaling that the internal political cost of prolonged conflict is being managed through coercion. Meanwhile, a separate “159 Days into the Iran War” segment underscores the absence of a visible end point, reinforcing a picture of sustained escalation rather than a near-term off-ramp. Strategically, the cluster points to a dual-track campaign: external pressure through a network of regional allies, and internal control through intensified repression. The “Axis of Resistance” concept implies that Iran’s influence is not limited to conventional forces, but is operationalized through partners that can sustain pressure, complicate deterrence, and extend the conflict’s geographic footprint. The United States and Israel, by initiating strikes, appear to be attempting to disrupt Iran’s regional leverage, but the described spread to neighboring countries suggests those efforts may be lengthening the conflict’s duration. Iran’s alleged public executions of protesters further indicate that the regime is prioritizing regime survival and deterrence at home, which can reduce incentives for compromise and increase the risk of miscalculation. Market and economic implications are explicitly flagged by the New York Times framing that the war “rocked global markets,” implying elevated risk premia for energy, shipping, and regional supply chains even if specific figures are not provided in the articles. Prolonged regional conflict typically transmits into crude oil and refined products through expectations of disruption, and into financial instruments via volatility in risk assets and hedging demand; the cluster’s emphasis on “no end in sight” supports a continuation of that pressure. Currency and rates effects are plausible through safe-haven flows and commodity-linked inflation expectations, particularly when escalation is described as spreading across borders. Even without named tickers in the provided text, the direction is clear: markets face sustained uncertainty, with higher implied volatility and a tendency toward higher energy-risk pricing. What to watch next is whether the conflict’s “spread to neighboring countries” accelerates into additional direct strikes, or whether the campaign shifts toward coercive signaling with fewer kinetic escalations. For Iran, the key trigger is whether repression escalates further—public executions and broader crackdowns can be read as a bid to prevent unrest from constraining war policy, but they also raise the odds of domestic instability and international condemnation. For the United States and Israel, the next indicators are operational tempo changes after the Feb. 28 opening and any signs of targeting that aims to sever the “Axis of Resistance” network rather than only Iran’s core capabilities. In the near term, the timeline implied by “159 days” suggests executives should monitor for sustained escalation markers—new attack claims, expanded geographic involvement, and further market volatility—while de-escalation would likely require credible, verifiable pauses or off-ramps that are not yet visible in these reports.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  Networked regional influence can prolong wars and complicate deterrence.

• 02

  Domestic repression during wartime can harden positions and reduce bargaining space.

• 03

  Regional spread implies de-escalation requires multi-theater coordination.

• 04

  Escalation sustains sanctions and maritime-security risk premia.

Key Signals

• —Additional direct strikes or further geographic expansion.
• —Operational targeting aimed at disrupting the Axis network.
• —Further public crackdowns as a sign of regime hardening.
• —Energy volatility consistent with persistent escalation narratives.